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

Current issues

Google

AfDs, MfDs and some others are a part of our robots.txt file, but due to the file not being correctly formatted, no one noticed and they were still indexed by google. It's been fixed recently, and many of us have our "WTF" faces on. The original request is seen at [1]. No discussion? Because of this, a major tool in finding past discussions has been lost to us. How do we fix this? -- Ned Scott 07:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

If you put "Wikipedia:" in front of a search query, it searches only in the Wikipedia namespace. For example a search for "Wikipedia:deletion haiku" delivers the correct AfD debate. Graham87 07:21, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Which works if you just want to do a title search, but nothing else. -- Ned Scott 07:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it should be taken out of the robots.txt - the stated reason for it being in there can be satisfied with courtesy blanking, without destroying the ability to search AFDs it does not apply to. —Random832 13:32, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly. We have tons of non-controversial situations that have no reason to be hidden. -- Ned Scott 07:40, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Blanked or not, no AFD discussion should ever be visible in the first couple of Google result pages for any search. Fixing this in robots.txt was a good move. You can still use Wikipedia's own search engine to search through AFDs if you need to. We'd need to courtesy blank a lot more if this is not in robots.txt, and that would bring a lot of other problems (Whatlinkshere would become a lot less meaningful in these contexts etc.) Kusma (talk) 13:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Given that they were still searchable somewhat recently, I'm not convinced it was ever a problem. -- Ned Scott 07:41, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion this was a very good move. We have enough of a problem with abusive vandalistic edits showing up in the search engines without the vitriol that AfD can frequently be showing up as well. In my opinion the following should also be excluded if they are not: All user pages, User talk pages and article talk pages. I see little point in the first two being indexed, the first frequently associates "banned" templates with peoples real names or names that are traceable to them - and it is not our job to forever label them as someone that has been banned from wikipedia, no matter how disruptive they have been. The User talk pages frequently have the same problem as the user pages, with the added bonus of displaying every little dispute the person happens to be in at the time of the indexing. Finally the article talk pages, while somewhat more relevant to the encyclopaedia, frequently are the site of disputes that would be better left unindexed - disputes of notability of people for instance, or whether to include criticism of someone or something. None of those pages have encyclopedic value, so as unencyclopedic, potentially harmful meta pages I think they too should be excluded. Minor usability issues such as this shouldn't come ahead of potential harm to real people. Viridae^Talk 13:55, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Beware of unintended consequences. Our internal search feature isn't nearly as good as Google. If we exclude our pages from indexing, that makes it very hard to find things when we need to look them up. Who has that editor I asked about "red lederhosen"? Dagnabbit, the talk are no longer indexed by Google; I can't find that conversation. Am I making sense? If a user page is causing somebody problems, they can request deletion. - Jehochman ^Talk 13:59, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

(ec) I agree. For practical purposes, we need a good internal search engine for our contributors which should include talk pages and project pages and the like, but outward search engines like google should ideally only see our encyclopedic content. It's not good to have our dirty laundry indexed externally. Of course, it's a shame we don't currently have a good enough internal search and we've had to rely on google instead, but the answer to that is we should try to get our own facilities improved. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:01, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe the foundation can persuade Google to donate a box of our own? — Edokter • Talk • 14:43, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

That would be heavenly :D -- Ned Scott 07:42, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, thinking more about this, I probably should have posted this to a VP page instead of here. If I understand correctly, a developer would have to make this change. -- Ned Scott 05:59, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but I have to question the point of doing so. After all, if my memory serves correctly, Wikimedia developers added AFD to robots.txt on our request. They didn't do it just for lolz. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 06:18, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Here's a quick 2 cents... I concur with the suggestion of adding User Pages, User Talk Pages, and Article Talk pages to robots.txt to remove them from Google searches - for all the reasons stated above. I've had no trouble finding pages using the internal search engine and have not had to resort to Google for that. Lots of users have templates on their User pages stating that they are not encyclopedia pages, so it's clear that there is at least a concern about this in general. Also, in searching for non-Wiki topics on Google, I've randomly run across a variety of user and talk pages, and seen some pretty funny stuff, right there in the top Google rankings, complete with excerpts of people arguing about all sorts of things. Anything Wikipedia comes up on the first Google page, so it seems to me this should be considered seriously. Thanks. --Parsifal _Hello 19:25, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Thought OTRS we've gotten a lot of complaints about non-articles being in Google's cache. This will help a lot...hopefully. An AFD !vote viewed out of context looks bad to someone who dosn't know anything about how wikipedia works. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 00:22, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I concur. Leaving it blocked from indexing does more good than anything. I would also support adding all of Wikipedia/User pages (and talks). ^demon^{[omg plz]} 18:34, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Request input on privacy vio case

I request someone look at this on my talk page, including it's subsection. I have not been involved in such a case before. I've just trying to prevent escalation of exposure of private info. See the warning and response on Rorybowman's talk page too. He's been warned, so my biggest concern at the moment is if he does it again, at what point do we take action and what sort of action. If a block for how long? Thank you.Rlevse 20:32, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that posting speculation on Wikipedia about the specific identity of an anonymous editor, including adding the city location, is counter to Wikipedia's privacy policy and prohibition on posting personal information about another editor without permission. "Detective work" on Wikipedia editors, including WikiScanner, may reveal information about an editor — but this possibility is does not override Wikipedia policy. I note that after the warning, though User:Rorybowman disagreed with your assessment, no further violations have occurred. I agree that a block would be in order if the editor repeats posting such information. — ERcheck (talk) 00:56, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

He didn't commit a privacy vio again yet, but he did [do this]. I'll take care of it in a hour or so.Rlevse 10:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

CAT:CSD

Hey, just a note that we can definitely use some more hands on the gigantic backlog we have at CAT:CSD; specifically the Category:Disputed non-free images. The overwhelming majority of the images currently requiring handling have been tagged by BetacommandBot for failing NFCC#10; i.e. they may, or may not, have rationales but the rationales do not specify which page. However, most of the time it's pretty clear what the rationale is for when it has one — generally, there will only be one page where the image is used. As a result, the best plan of action is to:

• Delete any images with no rationales, or clearly bogus ones.
• Add the article to the rationale for those with valid rationales.

It takes only a little bit longer than just mashing the "delete" button, but it saves a lot of hard work for other editors. I think I've saved probably dozens, if not a hundred-odd images by processing in this manner. I definitely don't want to see the resurrection of an automated delete-bot to process these, given how easily they can be saved. --Haemo 01:12, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I might run an ahem... special script to speed thing up. Some categories are 700+ images big, so if other can leave the NFCC10's, I might run something through tomorrow. Maxim_{(talk) (contributions)} 01:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Many that are tagged as incomplete license, because they are lacking the name of the article, have a fair-use rationale but are missing a source, so only the uploader can correct them. Jackaranga 09:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

It seems a bit silly to fix all the rationales and then tag them all for deletion, because of a lacking source. Why correct something you are going to nominate for deletion afterwards ? To be honest I say just delete them, even if the correct way according to policy is would be to fix the rationale and then tag them CSD missing source. What is the point, if the uploader can't manage to write in the name of the article almost a month after having been warned, he is not going to manage to enter the source either. On a side note though the fact that betacommandbot didn't say anything about the missing source, implies that betacommand does not consider lacking source an issue, whereas it is in fact the most important feature, as it serves to identify the copyright holder, (probably the only element actually legally required in the rationale). If we start deleting all the images that do not say "copyright owned by ...", then I'm pretty sure the list will get rather longer. The stupid thing is that the only way to tackle all these problems is to make a bot, and just go ahead. If you try to gain consensus people either ignore you or make up a load of nonsense, and don't even use their accounts to talk to you, but write from their IP address. Jackaranga 10:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

You can easily add a source if the source is obvious, e.g. a logo, album cover, or book cover. The source of the AT&T logo, for example, is the company AT&T, not any particular website. It is indeed a help if you can fix rather than delete images given that the time you spend fixing a good iamge is a lot less than the time it will take others to re-upload it (if that ever happens). However, do keep in mind that Betacommand has for the moment stopped tagging "legacy" images uploaded before January 1, 2007. So the tagged images are newish, often brand new, where someone who should have known the rules didn't, and probably saw the tag and had a chance to fix it. So you're doing them a favor, if you're so inclined. Also, perhaps you can pay some heed to the importance of the image / article. It's one thing to delete a piece of fancruft, another to delete an image in a former featured article. Wikidemo 11:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

• Jackaranga said "Many that are tagged as incomplete license, because they are lacking the name of the article, have a fair-use rationale but are missing a source, so only the uploader can correct them." - this is because, for some obscure reason, bot-tagging of NFCC#10 stuff doesn't distinguish between a, b, and c. It leaves it to the uploader or the deleting admin to work out which one of a, b, or c (or combination of these) is the problem. This is because often images lacking one of these are lacking the other ones as well. But it does make it harder to actually be efficient about all this. Carcharoth 00:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Indefinite block for silly reasons

Appeals of blocks of pro-pedophile activists is directly to the Arbitration Committee by email. It is inappropriate to discuss such blocks in a public forum. Fred Bauder 23:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

That's the statement I was looking for. Thanks, Fred. El_C 23:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

User trying to bypass XfD process

Over at Category Talk:Homophobia, we've got another proposal for deletion. The category survived two deletion (and one rename) discussions within the past two months and people are trying to get it deleted again. However, and here's the problem, they refuse to nominate it for deletion. They're just going to endlessly argue the matter on the talk page, with no end in sight. I wouldn't be reporting this if it wasn't, you know, explicitly so. One user claims: "Having reviewed the previous "debates", it seems clear to me that CFD is becoming a bit of a vote. I think the best argument should win, not the side with the most signatures." Is there a way to either make the ongoing debate into a CfD, or to prompt them to either CfD it or forever hold their peace? The argument is spiraling into insanity and pedantic nonsense, because instead of having a clear ending, instead of having a closing-admin on the way to weigh everyone's opinions and each interpretation of policy, everybody's just going to keep talking and talking forever. XfDs are there to figure out if there's a consensus and act on it. I feel like by refusing to use them properly, it becomes a disruption of Wikipedia to make a point, stalling the consensus-building process to either object to the category to the CfD process. --Cheeser1 05:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

They also have a novel interpretation (Well, if it is applied to organizations, naturally, it will apply to members of that organization.) of BLP. —Random832 12:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Is there a civilly worded guideline based on the principle of "Put up or shut up"? The argument of "We don't want to use the procedures because we don't like the likely result" is not a reasonable position; and the assumption that the closing admin is merely counting votes instead of weighing up the arguments against policy sounds just as hollow. LessHeard vanU 12:53, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

First, let's note that Cheeser1 is complaining that there are discussions on the category's talk page. The category itself hasn't been nominated for deletion lately. Talk page discussions are a great idea and nothing to complain about here on AN – especially since these discussions have been very polite.

Second, I find it ironic that Cheeser1 would complain about editors trying to make an end run around the XfD process. It's ironic because this category's incarnation is an end-run around the XfD process. Category:Homophobes was successfully CfD'd[2] for the reason that it is inherently POV and perhaps a BLP violation as well. The end result of this successful XfD was the virtual recreation of the category by calling it Category:Homophobia – and then applying this category to people. And that's an end run around the XfD process.

At any rate, I would encourage editors to review and comment on the related talk page. It's not all that long and it's civil. Rklawton 13:51, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

First, let's note that Cheeser1 is complaining that there are discussions on the category's talk page - that's kind of taking it out of context, don't you think? I'm complaining that an unproductive discussion is deliberately being used instead of a CfD because a CfD would probably result in the opposite of what they want. The category itself hasn't been nominated for deletion lately - there were two noms July 18 and Aug 30. Are you looking at the right page??

Category:Homophobes was successfully CfD'd[3] for the reason that it is inherently POV and perhaps a BLP violation as well and in that discussion it was firmly established that "homophobia" means "associated with homophobia," while "homophobe" is specifically and almost exclusively applied to particular people inappropriately to say "this person is a homophobe." Both categories existed at the same time, if you'll notice they were both up for CfD concurrently - [4] [5]. Are you sure you're looking at the same category I am?? --Cheeser1 14:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

So your complaint here on the noticeboard is that there is what you consider to be an unproductive thread on this category's talk page? The thread is all about the purpose of the category - and that's a very important topic. Why? Well, several editors feel that this topic should specifically be applied to individuals - in contravention to the CfD previously noted that said such use would be POV. Now, if this subject is only "associated" with homophobia, then why not categorize LGBT leader's biographies with this category as well? In truth, though, this thread belongs in the category's talk page. But that's what Cheeser1 is complaining about - that we're talking about this there. Rklawton 14:19, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

No. I'll thank you not to inaccurately paraphrase my complaint. My complaint is that people have decided that the CfD is not how they want to get a category deleted. This was explicitly stated - they started a discussion, with the intention of having the category deleted, but with no intent of going through the only proper channel - CfD. Now, if you want to discuss the category, and what you consider to be the need for more use of it, be my guest. This is not the place to do so. --Cheeser1 20:28, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Iomegacorp

Can I ask for a second pair of eyes to keep a (close) watch on the contributions of Iomegacorp (talk · contribs)? Some blatant spam has already been deleted, but there seems to be some pretty hefty COI issues building on Desktop Hard drives and Iomega Zip drive. — iridescent (talk to me!) 20:51, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

That looks like a promotional username. Perhaps you can ask the user to register a different name or request a namechange. If they fail to do that, the account should probably be blocked. The folks who monitor WP:UAA do a good job of sorting out cases like this one. - Jehochman ^Talk 21:00, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Reported — iridescent (talk to me!) 21:02, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Deleted their Network Hard drives as a blatant copyvio. Raymond Arritt 21:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep going. Check the whole user contribution history. - Jehochman ^Talk 21:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

24h block following the creation of Portable Hard drives after two(!) final warnings. Reported to WP:UAA to decide whether to make it permanent. — iridescent (talk to me!) 21:16, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

This is beginning to look more like random copying of stuff (borderline vandalism) than COI. Raymond Arritt 21:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Inappropriate Username

Resolved

Hi, I would like to report a inappropriate username that constitutes of a website ([6]). If this is not the place to report an inappropriate username, please let me know. Thanks! Goodshoped35110s 03:06, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I am not an administrator, but I would like to point out that you should probably try WP:AIV or Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention. Cheers. — Thomas H. Larsen 05:55, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Why is it the three-revert rule?

Why do we have a "three-revert rule" instead of a simple "revert rule", which would prohibit anyone reverting any edit that improved or maintained the encyclopedia? — Thomas H. Larsen 06:28, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

That criteria is very subjective. Anybody who reverts any edit (especially repeatedly) believes the reverted edit is not improving or maintaining the encyclopedia or else he or she would not have reverted it. -- tariqabjotu 07:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

We have a 3RR to prevent edit warring. If we had, say, a 1RR instead, it would prevent alot of constructive editing. See also the appropriate guideline. --Cheeser1 07:58, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Some editors do, FWIW, adhere generally to 1RR, although I think it to be broadly recognized that a blanket 1RR rule would be, as you observe, rather unconstructive. Joe 20:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Your edit which improved or maintained the encyclopedia is my edit which was biased, incorrect, and politically motivated. --Haemo 19:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Well said (and linked). EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Anyways, 3RR does not actually require more than 3 reverts, the spirit of the rule is what is generally enforced. I know I have done 3RR blocks with 3 or less reverts when it was clearly edit warring. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 22:25, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

AfD backlog

AfD closes are falling behind. Please consider closing five of the existing old AfD discussions. Thanks. -- Jreferee t/c 07:47, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Unreverted vandalism

How common is it for vandalism to remain unreverted? I found this example which was a week old. Is there any way to politely point recent page patrollers at this example as a way to motivate them, or will it demoralize them? Carcharoth 13:40, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

You know what? I am so demoralized, I think I'll just plain stop fighting vandalism! Ha, I would never give it up. Thanks for showing us; I'll be sure to be more thorough in my patrol now. *Cremepuff222* 14:23, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

There are more than two million pages in the main article space alone, and roughly 10.4 million pages total.[7] It's incredibly easy for things to slip through with that much activity, despite the best efforts of our fantastic RC patrol folk. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

A week old? I've found vandalism that's gone unreverted for several months. (I clearly remember one such case because I found it very embarassing: someone had inserted (IIRC) "poooooop" in the middle of one, long paragraph, and I had worked on the article several times since that edit before I noticed the damage.) The speed of reverting vandalism is a function of how often a given article is read; popular subjects are cleaned up much faster than more esoteric ones. I don't know of any way to fight this except for Wikipedians to monitor more articles (which has its own drawbacks). -- llywrch 22:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I've found vandalism that had been there for 18 months. That's one of the few times I've used an "!" in an edit summary besides this edit; people adding their own names or friend's names to articles is a big problem. Graham87 06:01, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Need help with abusive editor

Sorry if this isn't the appropriate forum. I deleted a few inappropriate commercial links on the Belize article and wrote some cautionary notes to the editor (who has admitted a conflict of interest. The editor, BelizeExpert, has now been posting rambling and threatening messages on the talk:Belize page (see [8] which says things like "P.S. We are thinking of raising funds to run a background check on this lady to determine what her agenda is."]). Any help would be appreciated. Notmyrealname 14:56, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I posted a comment on his talk page (User talk:BelizeExpert). This is possibly a violation of WP:LEGAL (I consider any sort of intimidation on that sort completely inappropriate). I warned him that if he conducts himself in that manner anymore, he will be blocked completely. I don't feel that single-purpose account attempting to spam is worth keeping around anyway but I gave him a warning, which is fair. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, certainly violations of WP:CIV and WP:NPA (he singles me out on several other posts). Appreciate your help. Notmyrealname 19:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Reason to make sure that vandalism-only accounts are always blocked

I know that many admins already follow a similar principle, but I've reported a couple of accounts whose first several edits were nothing but vandalism to WP:AIV, only to have them receive a final warning not to vandalize. My proposal is this: if an account with no other edits makes two edits in a row that are vandalism, block it as a vandalism-only account (with autoblock) even if it hasn't received a final warning. Here is my reason: I'm sure that in many cases, once a vandal account receives it's final warning, the vandal just logs out and creates another account to avoid being blocked. So if accounts are always given a final warning before being blocked, the vandal will just use that as his cue to log out and create a new account and so on until he gets tired of vandalizing.--Avant Guard 16:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Strongly oppose unless the vandalism is really serious. The 1-2-3-4-block scale is there for a reason, as is 3RR - your "POV-pushing vandalism" is my "good-faith addition of unsourced material", and your "vandal-only IP" is my "school terminal where autoblocking would affect a whole instution". — iridescent (talk to me!) 16:23, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Once I've reverted one edit, I tend to check back for more, so it's easy enough for me to rollback vandalism and 1-2-3-4 warn the users. I sometimes block at 3 if they're really obnoxious, but I don't block until I warned them that blocking will occur. Most of our vandals are just high school kids, and learning about actions and consequences is healthy for the dear tots. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:26, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes, often people are confused and can be salvaged after a few warnings. You'd be amazed how many times I leave one to two warnings and the person stops. I've probably left more than 500 warning and only had to go to AIV a dozen times. Only when the disruption is severe and they ignore the first one or two warnings, then something should be done sooner rather than later. If somebody is rapidly vandalizing or spamming dozens of articles, we don't need to stand by and watch while they make a huge mess. - Jehochman ^Talk 16:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

This ides is incompatible with the idea the "admins are never required to use their tools". The fact that we have the discretion to block such accounts on sight is enough, but to mandate it would be ineffective and could not account for all circumstances. I do agree that these accounts should be blocked though, and I do. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 16:36, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I proposed it as more of a guideline than an official mandate. And also, Iridescent commented on how this would affect legitimate editors editing from "vandalism-only IPs". I only proposed it in the case of user accounts. I think that IPs should be given the four warnings, but that accounts should be blocked if it's apparant that they're only being used for vandalism, warnings or not. A lot of vandals who appear to "stop" after being given the final warning I'm sure just reincarnate as a new vandal account.--Avant Guard 17:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I've indefinitely blocked accounts with two edits and no warnings (I could provide diffs if anyone thinks I was too harsh). I've also blocked IPs for short spells without giving them any warning (usually a 1-3 hour block) if I see that their in the initial stages of a vandalism run. I completely agree that sometimes we're far too soft on vandalism. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:27, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

(ec) While Jehochman may be right that even logged-in vandals sometimes stop after a warning, I've never seen one stop and then become a productive editor after beginning with blatant vandalism. If someone has a counterexample, please let me know because I block logged-in blatant vandals very quickly. What I encounter far more frequently is people that stop vandalizing from their logged-in account and then login a few days or weeks or even months later and start vandalizing again. There is a term for blatant vandal accounts that stop vandalizing: sleeper vandalism accounts. Same as a regular vandalism account except they can get around semi-protection. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

And I've done the same as EVula. Accounts and IPs that are particularly blatant vandals should be blocked very quickly because they're expecting it anyway. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:36, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, on de:wp we add one (maximum two) warning to the IPs' talk pages. Afterwards we report them to de:WP:VM—an equivalent to WP:AIV. The IPs will be blocked for one to seven hours if they are dynamic ones (or static ones if it's the first block). If they return—what we see if the talk page is blue—they will be blocked for a longer period (seven to 31 hours) [static ones up to a year]. 24 hours later, will the talk page be deleted—static ones of course not. Vandalism-only accounts will be blocked if they vandalize, not if they were warned correctly but they normally get one (or two) warning. And de:wp has no 3RR. Regards, —DerHexer (Talk) 18:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC) Btw. here I add two warnings (number two and four) before I block (but of course there are obvious exceptions).

Normally vandals have an ACB block. Only users reported at WP:UAA, do not get ACB. So this limits the number of people who can simply create another account, as much vandalism seems to come from American School Children who are incapable of changing the school IP address. It is true however that some people at home can reboot the modem, to get a new IP address. I think ACB probably works well though in most cases, especially coupled with the effort to block open proxies. Jackaranga 20:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

New descriptive essay on suicidal wikipedians

Following some email discussions, I have created an on-wiki essay describing preferred and historical processes used for handling apparently suicidal Wikipedia users. This essay is at: Wikipedia:Potentially Suicidal Users.

There have been prior attempts to impose a ground-up policy document on how to handle these situations, those both failed to achieve consensus. This essay describes what has been done in prior incidents and the rationales used by those who have done it (or, my viewpoint on those, as one of the people who has done so). Rather than being prescriptive policy it's descriptive of what has been done.

The link WP:SUICIDE was redirected to the new essay from prior failed policy pages.

Please note that this is NOT the place to re-fight arguments over prescriptive policy. This essay is intended to document existing informal procedures used and informal consensus used by those who have actually responded. If it is inaccurate or incomplete in areas, further expansion or correction is welcomed. Georgewilliamherbert 21:52, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, evidently I've missed some stuff- has there been a big issue regarding this? David Fuchs ^(talk)

Yes, yesterday there was an incident - see the thread Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Potential_real_life_emergency for details. Neranei (talk) 22:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Would it violate WP:BEANS to put an explicit warning: "Please don't make a fake suicide threat because it will be treated as a real one"? Sam Blacketer 22:08, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Just to nitpick - not every single user that has said they may commit suicide has been preventively blocked. I know one user (who will remain anonymous) who did so. Will ^(talk) 22:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I will make a note of that, but it seems to have been the predominant response. Georgewilliamherbert 22:41, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest that it is the predominant response because it is good (and therefore recommended) practice. -- Derek Ross | Talk 22:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Right. There's been a fairly consistent response pattern which has been used; we talked about prior incidents, and people who responded more recently seem to have implicitly agreed with the response. I think that what's been done was good practice. But I don't want to phrase this essay as prescriptive policy, as we lack consensus for prescriptive policy. I want this document to cover what we've done and why it was done; if someone later wants to make it official policy later, that's fine, but for now just document what and why. Georgewilliamherbert 00:41, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I've added some stuff to the talk page. One thing that might be good, if you want this to deter trolls as well, is to describe how this process has, in the past, led to hoaxers being given "a severe talking to" by the police. See here. But adding details like that might get messy, as you just know some people will then start linking to all the previous incidents... Carcharoth 00:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Uh... yes, it would absolutely violate BEANS to say that. I think that's the sort of thing that is too sensible to need to say. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:18, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

IIRC there was a suicide notice two weeks ago as well, and one about a month ago. Aecis^Brievenbus 22:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe. Then again, making the simple statement along the lines, "All suicide threats will be acted on" would be appropriate. It won't discourage take threats -- but it will signal that an appropriate response will be made to the posting, which pranksters may not like. -- llywrch 22:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC) Nevermind, I see it's already in the essay. Consider this point addressed. -- llywrch 22:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Minor technical edit--I've moved it to Wikipedia:Potentially suicidal users per the capitalization rules. --Masamage ♫ 21:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Lacreta

Lacreta (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a pretty obvious sock of User:Migssant/User:Migssant19. The Migssants were blocked for continuous image copyvio uploads. The edit history for Lacreta is pretty bland, except for this image Image:MDST airport diagram.png which seems too low res, and too professional to be the work of that user (without further explanation, like how the image was created, software, and possibly upload a higher resolution version). Personally, I think Migssant should go through the proper course of requesting an unblock, and we shouldn't let sock accounts slip in, even if the vast majority of the contributions are neutral or positive. I'm also willing to allow a second chance for this user, assuming that they work to understand our image use policy, and not upload questionable image. So, I'm asking if other users agree with me that Lacreta is a sock of Migssant, and what, if anything we should do about that? I'm going to go ahead and list the diagram image at PUI.-Andrew c ^[talk] 22:08, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

FYI, that seems to be standard airport map or approach chart. She definitely isn't the copyright holder but then again, it is not technically a non-free image. See this as a similar example. Spryde 18:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Heads up & request

Per several request and comments Im working on writing a image re-naming bot, I am going to make it like WP:MTC, the bot will re-upload the image and then replace the image with the new name. What I would like is help creating a new set of templates specifically for the bot to use.

• For the image rename {{template|Image:NEWIMAGENAME.jpg}}
• One for a conflict that a image with the same name exists
• one for noting an image was tagged by someone not on the approved list
• tagging image after rename

Thanks, β^_command 13:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I think I asked this before. Approved list? Carcharoth 13:41, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

by default it will be admin only. with admins approving users. Im writing the code now and will set up a userspace page like WP:MTC when the code is ready for testing. and we have these templates created. β^_command 14:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, we need to tag the old versions for deletion after reuploading. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 13:57, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Forgot that template :P β^_command 14:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia Statistical Analysis

Not just for admins, but I have prepared a new statistical analysis of Wikipedia to fill the gap created by the lack of any official statistics during the last year.

A surprising observation is that the rate of many of the community's actions (editing, article deletions, blocking, protections, etc.) have been declining during the last several months.

See: User:Dragons_flight/Log_analysis

Dragons flight 23:37, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Fascinating stuff. Thanks for putting all this together.--Alabamaboy 23:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

new comment ... Agreed; quite interesting. I've a gut feeling that the community action metrics decline will go into something looking like steady state over the coming year. Not a flat-line steady state, but a complex multi-cyclic thing. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:58, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Commodore Sloat-Biophys opened

An Arbitration case, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Commodore Sloat-Biophys, has been opened. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Commodore Sloat-Biophys/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Commodore Sloat-Biophys/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (t) 00:40, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

CC template standardization

I made the suggestion of standardizing the CC copyright tags here. I just finished doing the work of standardizing them in my userspace, which can be seen here. I've done basically what I suggested at the village pump, as well as the following:

• Made the source code as uniform as possible across all of them, using the template {{CC-Layout}}.
• Changed the combined icon that some of them used to the separate icons, so that the size would be uniform on all the templates.
• Removed the icon mouseover captions that some of them had, which I didn't feel were necessary.
• Changed all of them to start out "this work", since the tags may be used for things other than images.
• Used the wording of the usage note currently on {{Cc-by-3.0}} on all of them, because the other one wasn't accurate enough IMO. (It read "your image," but the image/work doesn't necessarily belong to the uploader.) However, I changed "those who reproduce the image must attribute the work..." to "those who reproduce the work must attribute it..." for the same reason as the above point.
• Added a hyphen between "Attribution" and "ShareAlike" where necessary, to be consistent with the official name of the license and the image category names.

So, do you think they look good? And, if so, could someone update the templates to my new versions? (The ones on my userpage include all the relevant categories/interwikis, so all you'd have to do is copy/paste.) --CrazyLegsKC 01:06, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Possible unblock of Moulton

Floating the possibility of a good faith unblock on this account. The user has contacted me with confirmable information that he is a visiting Ph.D. scientist at MIT and is willing to leave alone the James Tour and Rosalind Picard biographies where edit warring got him into trouble. I've offered to do some mentoring in Wiki dynamics for this editor. I'm willing to give this a trial run. Any objections? Durova^Charge! 01:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I was only tangentially familiar with Moulton, but my reading of the AN/I thread that bore out the indefinite block and of the user conduct RfC suggests that the problems stemmed not from any bad faith or fundamental inability to collaborate, and it seems plain that Moulton has the capacity to contribute quite propitiously; I, for one, then, think unblocking to sound like quite a fine idea. Joe 04:16, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

You guys are joking right? Moulton was an incredibly disruptive SPA, willing to team up with any internet crank who'd listen to his nonsense for more than five minutes.[9] He repeatedly expressed, not only a lack of willingness to work within the guidelines of the project, but a desire to undermine those guidelines. I don't know what he said in that email, but I suspect it's rather similar to the email he's sent to me, and I warn you, any similarity between what he says, and what he actually does, is usually trivial at best. Don't let him fool you.  – ornis⚙ 10:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Regrettably, Moulton has shown himself to be extremely tendentious and repetitive in trying to get Wikipedia to conform to his own ideas of "journalistic ethics" in direct contravention of policies. Others have gone to considerable lengths to try to help to explain how to work with Wikipedia, and have found such mentoring to be a frustrating waste of time. Note that a lot of the problems arose at A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism as well as the biographies. .. dave souza, talk 11:59, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Durova, if you are willing to take responsibility for the actions of this editor, and block for disruption if you need to. I have faith, and confidence that you will. I see no reason you can not unblock. It is widely known that I feel editors should be given chances to come back and contribute constructively. If your volunteering your time, I say go for it. Do the unblock. Regards, Mercury 12:11, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I was similarly taken in by Moulton. I was goaded into talking to him by telephone for several hours while he pleaded his case. Almost everything he told was a lie. He completely misrepresented the situation in a frantic attempt to manipulate and coerce.

He is an unpaid volunteer who attends group meetings of a friend at MIT. He does indeed have a PhD, but is far more interested in journalism than in science. He sees it as his mission to change NPOV and RS standards on Wikipedia. He has written and published negative material about Wikipedia and the way it conducts itself and sought to publicize what a horrible organization Wikipedia is and how awful its principles are in outside venues. He has tried to spread this information as aggressively as he can using his contacts in the media and academia.

He is not above threatening legal action and involving the police, which he did here previously. He contributed nothing of value at WP while he was here, but was involved in endless personal attacks and mounted vendettas against people he disagreed with. He was warned and warned and warned and counselled to reign himself in, which he all blatantly and gleefully ignored. He presumes that his age and degree allow him to dictate to us and lecture to us, when many of us have more illustrious academic and professional credentials than he does. He published personal emails containing personal identifying information on Wikipedia.

His only goal on being on Wikipedia is disruption and destruction. He has no interest in contributing in a positive way. His negatives far outway his positives, in my opinion.

I have had far more extensive contact with him than anyone else here. I know his background, having been both at Bell Labs and MIT and a PhD (and a few other graduate degrees). I had pity on him at first when I heard his tale of woe, and bent over backwards to help him. However, he figuratively spit in my face after. I recommend strongly against allowing him back on Wikipedia in any capacity. --Filll 13:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Oppose the unblock per Filll. Moulton doesn't know how to play nice with others and doesn't care to learn. JoshuaZ 13:24, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Filll and Joshua. My experience with Moulton made it pretty clear that he had no interest in following Wikipedia rules. Despite having it explained to him several times, he expressed surprise (I believe in the talk page of his RfC) that Wikipedia was not the place to publish original opinions. I oppose the unblock. Guettarda 13:41, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I strongly oppose the unblock per Fill, Ornis, JoshuaZ and Joe. Moulton is rude, tendentious, and has vilified numerous editors by email. It doesn't matter what articles he does or does not edit, he'll find himself a place to cause trouble. If he agrees to edit Looney Toons cartoon, then I'll change my vote. Otherwise, we do not need this type of editor in the project. Once again, I am reminded of the comments by JzG, who left this project because of people like Moulton and others. Good riddance to Moulton. We spend so much community time trying to prove Moulton is good for the project, when it's clear he won't be. It's not good faith to bring him back, it's insanity--let's repeat our beliefs over and over and over again in the hope of getting a different result. Oh, let's not forget Moulton's attacks of Wikipedia. Meh. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 13:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

From Moulton's comments on his RfC, I think he would be better suited to another project - possibly Everything2. If he is going to be unblocked, then I would recommend a much wider article ban - possibly anything related to evolution. Addhoc 14:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

As the one who blocked him, I can only repeat that if anyone else wishes to waste time on him they are welcome to do so. I wish I shared Durova's optimism that Moulton will make any worthwhile contributions to the project; I have not seen him do so. I feel better about Durova giving it a shot than most other mentors; but I cannot help but think there are much more valuable uses of her time than to attempt to mentor this person, who so far has been a complete negative in his actions here. His "expertise" has been of zero benefit thus far and I have no reason to believe it will be in the future, per Filll and my own observations. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:29, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Having been harrassed by Moulton both on Wikipedia and in e-mail there is absolutely no way I can support his unblocking. Even outside the harrassment, I have seen absolutely no redeeming factors to warrant an unblock of Moulton. His complete lack of comprehension regarding Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, or perhaps it is really an utter unwillingness to abide by same, and his ridiculous obsession with a few subjects seems to mark him as someone who should never be allowed on Wikipedia again. Hell, even in his contact with Durova he lied about his actual involvement at MIT. Sadly, much of the proof of his disingenuousness is in private e-mails, but nonetheless, he is quite clearly lying. In fact, as he was being booted of WP, Moulton engaged in a smear campaign of Wikipedia, with the aid of internet blogger Larry Farfarman, going so far as to accuse the Foundation of violating IRC 501(c)(3) in relation to attempting to influence legislation by propaganda (what legislation, or what propaganda remains a mystery.

Durova, think long and hard before you unblock him. •Jim62sch• 17:42, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm strongly opposed to un-banning Moulton. Not only is he a colossal time-waster pushing his personal POV on articles and their talk pages, he's been waging an anti-Wikipedia campagain at his blogs, and is outing the IPs of anyone who mentions his ban at Wikipedia. Not to mention his joining forces with Larry Fafarman, another banned anti-Wikipedia nutter, at his blog. Is this the sort of editor Wikipedia needs? No. A million times, no. Odd nature 18:25, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Just as at the end of an episode of any good soap opera, I am somewhat interested in seeing what happens next. If Durova can steer Moulton towards productive contributions, I will be very impressed. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 20:14, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Most blocks

Okay, this is silly. I happened to notice that User:White Cat has been blocked 16 times under his previous user name and once under his current account. What is the record for most blocks faced by one person ? Tintin 09:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Possibly one of the users listed at WP:LTA, and one who was removed (JB196). x42bn6 Talk Mess 09:39, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Counting the number of lines which say 'blocked' isn't always a very reliable indicator. Those '16' block log entries actually relate to seven incidents of the user being blocked for behaviour (edit warring and incivility). The other nine entries are alterations of block durations, attempts to unblock by blocking for one or zero seconds, user requested blocks for testing purposes, user requested blocks for 'forced vacation' (which shouldn't be granted), et cetera.

That said... what positive purpose could this thread possibly have? If you want to discuss some sort of limit on number of blocks... do that. Leave the 'name your favorite blockee' bit out of it. --CBD 11:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

If someone actually had 16 blocks, all for separate incidents, they probably need a good hard looking at for an indef block. Rlevse 15:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I could point out someone who was getting close but they invoked m:Right to vanish and changed usernames in the middle so the blocks are across two usernames. (Don't ask me how that's allowed...) —Wknight94 (talk) 15:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

You also need to consider that White Cat has over 41,000 edits. We do tend to show leniency to editors who provide content. I can remember at least one user with over 100 entries in their block log, but they had over 75,000 edits so we were wary to indef block. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 15:15, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Uh? Why do you care so much? Pilotguy 15:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that the way the question is worded to be a violation of Wikipedia:Civility. There was no need to bring up the name of any particular editor in the question. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 17:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

There certainly is, however, the issue of shedding a block log by changing names. I noticed that on another username the other day, an admin had blocked the new user name for 1 second with a comment of "see block log for {previous username}". This, I think, is an excellent idea and should be required for non-right-to-vanish username changes. ELIMINATORJR 17:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Pope Benedict XVI

The article Pope Benedict XVI has the semi-protection padlock being shown but anonymous vandals are still editing. (SEWilco 12:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC))

The page is in fact move protected, the semi protection was removed on 2 October. I updated the template, I don't think there is enough vandalism going on to warrant a semi protection. -- lucasbfr ^talk 12:33, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Community Sanction Noticeboard

Heads up, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Community sanction noticeboard (second nomination) is nearinf a closing point, discussion may wrap up in the next couple of days, if not in the next few hours, judgeing by contributions. I'd close it, however, I am biased. Mercury 12:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

The traditional five day period ends at 3 AM tomorrow - if I'm around tomorrow morning (about 9 AM local time) I'll have a go at closing the MfD. Sam Blacketer 14:16, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

As long as you don't try to apply WP:ATA, I don't see why not. Odd nature 19:59, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Policy violations on Samael Aun Weor article

I posted this here a while ago but received no response, so I'm posting it again because the issue is still the same. There have been some problems lately on the Samael Aun Weor article. One user recently started editing there and adding things which violated especially WP:NPOV and WP:Verifiability, but also which contained factual errors related to OR. Another editor of the article and I tried to explain to that user why his additions were mistaken and not allowed on Wikipedia, and pointed him towards the right policies and guidelines. But he didn't seem to understand or maybe didn't want to understand, because he kept re-adding his edits without any modifications to make them better. After a while I gave him a warning that if he persisted with his behavior I would have to ask an admin for help, and a while after that I gave him a final warning after which he stopped replying in the discussion and just reverted again. So here I am, asking for help with this matter. To me the only option seems to be a block, but maybe something else can be done. His user name is Bluemanang and it seems pretty obvious that he also uses 207.164.192.115. The discussion happened to be located at Bluemanang's talk page. Maybe it would help if an admin or any outside person explained to him why he is wrong, because he seem to think that we just try to suppress information. The edits in question are:

1. In the section Physiology & Sexology where he changed an existing referenced paragraph into an unreferenced one which is wrong according to the existing reference.
2. The section Official organisms and dissenting organisms is very POV and talks about the "betrayal" of different persons from the Gnostic Movement and other related happenings. All of it unreferenced. Then some other OR stuff.
3. In the External Links section he made a division between external links leading to "Official and authentic" schools and "Dissenting" schools and is highly POV. The editor belongs to one of the said "official" schools. The whole issue of the different associations and schools is a very controversial one.

Thank you. Anton H 14:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Could this page make use of a thread deletion template?

Resolved

 – moving to talk page

We could replace distracting threads with something like the reference desk has for medical advice type questions: {{Template:RD-deleted}}. Sancho 16:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Or possibly something that causes the archivebot to archive the section immediately? This discussion is probably better on WT:AN, though. --ais523 16:38, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'll move this there. Sancho 16:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Closing of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Human chemistry

Hi there, consensus on this discussion is delete and the original author has now agreed that deletion is the best option. However, when he tried to tag these as speedys somebody reverted the tags because he used the wrong rationale. Could somebody just close the discussion and delete the pages? Tim Vickers 19:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Y Done Caknuck 20:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Out-of process non-admin AfD close

Resolved

Could someone please go explain to Porcupine that there are issues with closing an AfD 2 days early when they are the original nominator and consensus has not been clearly established? I don't like being ridiculed for no good reason.--SarekOfVulcan 20:21, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I have left a comment to the user. Hopefully this issue is resolved. Either party is welcome to contact me or comment here if there are further issues.-Andrew c ^[talk] 23:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people (4th nomination)

Resolved

 – AfD Closed

Would an administrator please close the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people (4th nomination) discussion? It is pretty clear that the keep !votes have it, and the discussion has degraded into some really weird campaign against those who have voted to delete. Please put an end to this, the discussion has run its five-day course, and nothing productive will come from leaving this open any longer. Burntsauce 21:25, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

• Done. ELIMINATORJR 21:50, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you. Burntsauce 22:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Newt Rayburn

Been open for 8, soon to be 9 days. Anyone interested in closing. Your call on the outcome. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 22:14, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Looks like a re-list to me. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 23:11, 10 October 2007 (UTC)