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

• If you cannot edit this page, it may be protected. Please leave a message here instead.

Implementing "approved versions" for Evolution

This article has been under attack from a long-term vandal for many months now. The article was indefinitely semi-protected, but due to User:Tile join this seems no longer to be a viable option. Since I don't like the idea of simply indefinitely full-protecting the page and screening edits from the talkpage, I have created Talk:Evolution/draft article and would like people to watchlist this and transfer constructive edits to the main article. I realise this is a little unconventional, but I honestly think this is the best option at this stage. Tim Vickers (talk) 02:37, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm very interested to see how this works out, and how it's received - you're probably aware that it's a kind of implementation of 'stable revisions' which is almost ready to go - presumably consensus at the draft page would determine if a change 'stuck'? - Privatemusings (talk) 02:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree, this could be a good test case. It would be useful to see how well and how often constructive changes to the draft were implemented on the main article. Everyking (talk) 03:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Um, if these socks are an issue, why not checkuser the lot?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that's been done multiple times. Hut 8.5 06:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• This is not the page to implement a test of a major and controversial policy change. DGG (talk) 14:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

You should do this for global warming, IPCC and related articles too. 71.174.111.245 (talk) 14:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with DGG and I think the IP's comments show why- if we allow it for evolution, why not every other controversial article? Suddenly, BAM, we're not free for anyone to edit. J Milburn (talk) 14:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

We have been using checkuser, Ryūlóng, see Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Tile join and Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Tile join. This is pretty much the last resort, since this vandal seems now to be hopping across a broad range of IP addresses. Our options here appear to be either constantly switching from full to semi-protection and blocking a new batch of socks and the associated IP every 2-3 days (see the last 2 months of the evolution article's protection log), or experimenting with full-protection of the main article and a completely unprotected page to make requested edits. Other ideas would be very welcome. I am willing to continue with the semi/full protection cycle if there is a consensus that this is the best option, but this has become a serious waste of time for everybody involved. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it a form of "full protection", since anyone can edit, even random IPs. What it could do is stop vandalism from presenting itself to readers. Voice-of-All 17:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Good point, I've clarified that above. A point to raise is that with the present full-protect/semi-protect cycle, editing is restricted to admins only for about half the time, and autoconfirmed editors for the remainder. This proposal is intended as an improvement on what we are currently doing and as a way to open editing up to a wider range of contributors. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:35, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

J Milburn, you misunderstood why I specifically mentioned global warming and IPCC. Scibaby's socks have attacked these articles assiduously since December 2007. I documented more than 50 Scibaby sockpuppets until March 16, and more have caused mayhem since then. It is beyond ridiculous that Wikipedia administrators allow this disruption to continue unabated.

I still have not forgiven a group of experienced users and administrators for supporting the indefinite block of an innocent editor.

I will not participate in a community where innocent users are banned. If you think that allowing sockpuppets to vandalize articles with impunity is the best way to manage this website, you are wrong. If you think that the current system encourages legitimate users to contribute to controversial articles, you are even more wrong.

TimVickers' idea for reform is long overdue. It's time to prevent sockpuppets from disrupting high-profile articles. The failed strategy of "Revert, block, ignore" does nothing to stop the vandal from finding a new IP and starting over as many times as he wants. Full-protecting the main article and directing edits to a draft page will ensure that sockpuppets no longer have the ability to disrupt high-profile artilces in real time.

I applaud TimVickers for trying to solve a real problem. I express my dismay that some other users refuse to acknowledge the disastrous extent of this problem.

You can add my username to the Missing Wikipedians list. I am not the first person who has departed the community because of frustration with the intolerable tolerance for vandalism and sockpuppetry. If the current policies remain in place, I will not be the last. 71.174.111.245 (talk) 18:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

To get a very clear idea of why this is necessary, look at the revision history of the draft article. The vandal is using a new IP for each edit. At least this approach is keeping the resulting disruption away from the readers of the main article. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Concrete proposal

I've been thinking about how we might run this experiment, and what it could tell us. What do people think about using this two-page system until April, when the current test of "Stable Versions" on meta will be complete?

Running this experiment will do two things. Firstly, it will resolve a long-term vandalism problem and make it easier for non-administrators to change the evolution article. Secondly, it will provide data on how one form of "Stable versions" works in practice and provide a real-life case for the community to consider. I therefore propose that we try this novel arrangement until April, and then consider how well it has worked as part of the decision-making process on the stable versions software. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I think this sounds like a perfectly reasonable experiment. — Scientizzle 23:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Support. Article protection mechanisms should only be used when needed. But when an article is under very strong attack and the usual mechanisms are failing, we should be willing to consider unusual ideas. EdJohnston (talk) 16:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I support this, both on its individual merits, and because I think we generally need to be more willing to experiment with new ideas, to see if they work, and see how they can be tweaked to work better. Instead, it seems we often resist changing anything because it might not work. So, I mostly support this because I'm curious if it will work or not, and I think that's a reasonable reason. -barneca (talk) 16:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Well it has certainly worked to stop the vandalism, as shown in the draft article history the vandal blanked the page a few times and then got bored attacking a sub-page that few people would be reading. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Since people seem OK with this as an experiment, I've moved the draft article into mainspace at Evolution/draft article. Tim Vickers (talk) 14:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Reversion by User:MZMcBride

Although I thought this had a good level of support, it has been reverted by MZMcBride with the edit summary of "vandals can be blocked", which seems to me to miss the main point of the above discussion. I obviously don't want to wheel-war over this, but would like to get a clearer idea of what the community thinks of this idea. What do people suggest I do? Tim Vickers (talk) 20:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I apologize. I hadn't seen the discussion here. As some have commented above, the revisions on the /draft page are (for the most part) vandalism and reversions of that vandalism. Obviously, I didn't intend to wheel war, but using a subpage like this is simply absurd for such a high-profile topic. If bots and other tools are needed, we can employ those. But, as I said to another admin earlier today, I've seen far worse cases of vandalism. While the edit history isn't admirable, it certainly isn't phenomenal. If there are vandals, let's take care of them. Fully-protecting articles indefinitely should be done as rarely as humanly possible. Imagine if we did this for articles like George W. Bush... --MZMcBride (talk) 20:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

How would you go about dealing with a vandal who hops IPs like this and uses each IP to create this level of sockpuppets? Blocking individual accounts is essentially useless with this level of socking, and the broad range of IPs makes rangeblocks impossible. Even adding a special heuristic to ClueBot didn't really help. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:BOTREQ. All that's needed is a fairly simple bot to auto-revert this kind of vandalism. We used to have some bots dedicated to this specialty -- not sure if they're still active. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I thought that might help as well and we have tried it. See the bot request that resulted in the ClueBot modification. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

From what I can tell, Cobi set the bot to report the vandalism in an IRC channel. Ideally, a bot would auto-revert and then report in a channel with a direct link to block the user. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

He told me that the bot is set to revert and warn. It hasn't been a great deal of help, as you can see from the history. As you can now appreciate, this wasn't something I did lightly but an action of last resort. Do you know that about 5,000 to 9,000 people read this article every day? link. Having the text replaced by the bible for just 5 mins every day mean we have given that version to about thirty readers. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Since I've now explained the background of this action, would you be OK with me reverting back to full-protection and allowing the experiment to proceed? Tim Vickers (talk) 03:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Please notice that sockpuppet accounts started the normal page blanking vandalism just 20 hours after the article was shifted back to semi-protection. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:20, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I really dont like these kind of socking vandals. Here is a suggestion. Full protect the main article and create a sandbox subpage where edits can be made and then transefered to the main article when needed. that is a minor version of FlaggedRevs that could be very useful and effective for stopping the sock wars. β^{_{command 2}} 22:55, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

That is indeed the idea we are discussing, you might have missed the section above where I outlined the proposal. If nobody else objects today, I'll re-instate the protection of the main page. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Go ahead and if the vandals continue to harass the subpage impliment the cplot method (/16 range blocks that are annon only, with account creation disabled, and point those who want accounts to unblock-en-l). β^{_{command 2}} 23:07, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, but I don't really care if the vandal continues to attack the subpage, since that will not inconvenience our readers. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:15, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

The vandal hit the page a few times today and then stopped. Each case was reverted very quickly, and the entire set of incidents lasted no more than 20 minutes. I see no reason to return to full protection. And I don't see any consensus here or the talk page to do so. This experiment has only shown that if locked out of the main article, the vandal will attack the alternate page. I don't see a level of vandalism that suggests that this article is in incapable of semi-protected editing. This is not a BLP; it's about a scientific topic, so there isn't as much concern as there might be about vandalism. I think exploring the bot option is the best choice. I'm still hunting around for a bot op willing to set up an auto-revert and report system. Unless this page is reaching levels of vandalism that are un-containable, full protection is not warranted. Twenty minutes in the middle of the day is manageable. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:22, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I think switching the vandalism to the subpage is an excellent result, since that means that we are not displaying a vandalised version of the article to hundreds of readers. If you do find a bot to auto-revert vandalism better than the current efforts from Cluebot and VoABot, both of which catch the standard edit in their filters, but do not revert all the cases this happens, then we might consider switching back to semi-protection. Until then I think I'll go with the consensus on this page and on the evolution talkpage and reinstate full protection. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be very much information floating around on the details of how FlaggedRevs is going to be implemented here (except that it's been six months away since forever!), from what I've gathered, I'm not sure how much use it's going to be. If 'reviewer' is given to autoconfirmed users, then we're just going to see the attacks shifted back to as if the page were semi-protected: after realising that their vandalism doesn't show to anons any more, Tile join will start creating autoconfirmed socks and then tag-team vandalise-and-review the article to get the attack visible. But if we don't issue 'reviewer' to autoconfirmed, we won't have nearly enough reviewers to go around. What's probably needed is the ability to 'protect' individual pages from autoconfirmed review, allowing only sysops to "sight" the pages. Does that make any sense? Happy‑melon 15:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I personally think, on this page specifically, the benefits of Tim's proposal outweigh the costs. — Scientizzle 02:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I would oppose implementing this proposal; the vandalism to Evolution is pretty mild and easily containable and I don't believe that it warrants long-term full protection under the current protection policy. When a broader proposal for flagged revisions finds consensus, then it can be implemented, but such major changes to the model shouldn't be introduced on a page-by-page basis under normal conditions. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Apparently you do not understand the situation or you think that chronic vandalism is normal. We are talking about a sockmaster who creates a massive amount of socks and then lets them mature to the point that they can edit these articles. Then he proceeds to vandalize them. This is not a recent trend, it has been going on for quite a long time. This is the only way, as of right now, to protect this particular article. Last time I checked, we held FA's up to a higher standard, since they represent the best work from the entire project. Why would we NOT want to protect them from an endless stream of vandalism? I don't understand where some of you are coming from with regards to this issue. Why is a chronic vandal given an opportunity to continue to ply his trade? Tim, pull the trigger on this one. Worst case, it doesn't work and we can find something else. Baegis (talk) 03:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

It's quite easy to understand the situation from looking at the edit history: when the article is semi-protected, it is vandalized for perhaps 5 minutes a day. This is about 0.35% of the time. It is a very minor inconvenience, and dealing with this particular minor inconvenience is part and parcel of Wikipedia's operating model ("anyone can edit"). The vandal is easy reverted, blocked, and otherwise ignored, as such vandals are throughout the rest of Wikipedia: it is unclear to me why the persistent vandalism of this particular article has people in such a commotion. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

No, you are absolutely right. It is just a minor inconvenience. 335 confirmed sock puppets with 49 more suspected socks, all carrying out the exact same vandalism. On one of our best articles no less. Totally a minor problem. This isn't just regular vandalism. It isn't someone putting in "George Bush is teh suck!" on his article. We are talking about vandalism that fundamentally harms the article. Maybe you don't understand the whole controversy behind evolution and creationism, but if we ever want to follow through on the goal of being better than Britannica, we need to stop this problem. Replacing the article with the entirety of Genesis, if but even for a dozen page views, is harmful to WP's good name. There are only two editors who are against this proposal and neither of them have ever even edited the article in question, to the best of my knowledge. Why don't we listen to those who, you know, work on the article? Instead of placing little corks in the leaks from the dam, maybe it's time we actually repaired it. Baegis (talk) 06:57, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Talk pages for indef users

I was under the impression we didn't delete the talk pages of indef blocked users, at least when their block is unrelated to vandalism or trolling. Blanking seems to be preferred, for some reason, but the page history often contains comments from other users, and more importantly, the reason why the user was blocked (such information should be available to all users, not just admins, nor is it ever guaranteed that deleted pages will be available for undeletion). Yet admins are constantly deleting these talk pages. -- Ned Scott 06:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I am under the impression that both the user and talk pages should remain intact for indef blocked registered users, especially if it is likely they will be able to return at some point from the block. Bstone (talk) 07:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I concur. I never delete indef pages/Talk pages. They may request an unblock and be granted. Also, it is important for other editors to see the reason for the block, as said above. -- Alexf⁴² 09:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

These should be undeleted, they are an important record. Some editors improperly tag talk pages with {{temporary userpage}}, which lists them for deletion (and not even just the talk pages of indefinitely blocked users). Not sure if that is where some of the deletions are occurring or not though.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 10:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The user and user talk pages of indef-blocked and/or inactive users are deleted all of the time, both as a general housekeeping measure and -- in the case of those with spammy/Google-bombing names -- to remove them from search-engine results; since they have no real value whatsoever, keeping them around is pointless in the extreme. So no, no one is "improperly" tagging dead user-talk pages, they're engaging in general housekeeping. --Calton | Talk 14:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

A few weeks ago, I deleted quite a few which were in the Category:Temporary Wikipedian userpages, as per what was apparently a consensus for dealing with them that way, but I stopped after a few days because I was growing increasingly uneasy about it for the very reasons stated above by Ned Scott, Bstone, Alexf, and Doug. I support not deleting them. — Athaenara ✉ 14:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Postscript: There are certainly exceptions; many can be seen here (March 1) from User talk: Giantscrotum through User talk: ASharkAteYourMom. — Athaenara ✉ 15:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Unless the name is someone in itself a clear serious violation of policy itself (User:GeorgeBushIsAFlamingFaggot might be one such example) I think it would make sense to keep the user pages and user talk pages, so that in the event of a request for unblocking in the future all interested parties can easily find out the reasons for the block. In examples like the one above, I think just seeing the name on the page that has been deleted would probably be enough for an admin or anyone else to know why the page was deleted. John Carter (talk) 15:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

They are deleted after at least one month of no activity to save space, along with to remove them from search-engine results and are not (at least they should not be) deleted if they have a sock tag on them, or have been to topic of an arbcom investigation and so on... the ones that get deleted are just your run of the mill vandalism-only accounts that serve no purpose remaining in userspace. Tiptoety ^talk 18:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

How does deleting these pages "save space"? —David Levy 18:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

It may not be a lot of space, but the pages probably eventually get removed from the system memory. Also, in the event it is a name which is potentially reusable, it would save a new editor the effort of creating a generally longer name for the same purpose. John Carter (talk) 18:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

1. To what "system memory" are you referring?

2. I don't understand your second point. Are you referring to usernames? Deleting a user's talk page doesn't enable the re-registration of the associated account name. —David Levy 18:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I recently had a case where the username itself was quite serious defamation of a living 15-year-old. I think in such cases it's a judgement call - if it's clearly a throwaway sockpuppet (one of many) of a user I think WP:DENY applies to some extent. In common or garden user blocked (ESPECIALLY if the user is long term or has some other significant history here) in a fashion which happens to be indefinite, they may mend their ways, come back in a year and decide they can be helpful - we have to allow for that possibility. Orderinchaos 19:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we're really talking about indef blocked accounts that are indef blocked because of the name. We're talking about users tagging indef blocked users and some non-indef blocked users with {{temporary userpage}} and whether the talk pages should be deleted. Related, but I don't think anyone is really questioning the deletion of pages in the kind of cases Orderinchaos is talking about, those seem like clear cases.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 19:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I have to agree with David, there is no benefit to deleting the talk page. The deletion after a month is for Userpages not User talkpages. No memory is recovered unless the developers actually decide to purge deleted pages, although theoretically possible, it just doesn't happen. Besides, Don't worry about performance! That's User:Tim Starling's problem, not ours.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 19:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

There is no benefit to KEEPING the pages -- I've heard none other than vague handwringing -- deleting them is at least performing housekeeping. So what's the beef here? It's the established practice: if they get deleted, nothing wrong whatsoever with tagging them. Don't like it? Take it up with those actually doing the deleting. --Calton | Talk 22:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

There are various benefits in keeping the user and talk pages of indefinitely blocked users. For one, there have been a number of instances in which indefinitely blocked users have returned, sometimes due to false positives and bad blocks. Moreover, keeping the page's edit history intact provides a public reference of the blocked user's contribs as well as of anyone else who commented on that page. It is frustrating for those of us who are not admins when we cannot see all the contribs of say a candidate running for adminship. Who's to say deleted contribs not being seen might sway voters one way or the other. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

If they return, it is very easy to restore the page. I don't believe most people come back, after being indefinitely blocked for 30+ days when their user/utalk pages are deleted. - Rjd0060 (talk) 23:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

It happens more often than you think. I've helped such users in the past. Also, having them deleted prevents the community from reviewing the past comments, often from being able to read their own comments, as well as learning why the user was even blocked in the first place. Blocking is a last resort, especially indef blocking. That means being extra careful when doing so, even if only a small minority come back. I've found multiple editors who've been indef blocked incorrectly, and were unblocked and apologized too. -- Ned Scott 02:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and I see value in being able to see as much of all of our contribs as possible. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:57, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I can say what seems to be common practice. Pages of indef blocked users are placed in CAT:TEMP. These pages are deleted after 30 days of inactivity on the page. Pages are entered into CAT:TEMP with various templates, including {{indefblocked}}. Pages relating to, or even mentioning sockpuppeteering are not, and should not be deleted, for obvious reasons. Again, there is no established process for this that I know of, but it seems to be the common practice. - Rjd0060 (talk) 21:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

So maybe the talk pages should go, I guess I'm not so sure now, though I can't say I understand why. But some pages are definitely being placed in that cat that are not indef blocked.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 22:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

We had a problem before with a welcome template (I believe) that was placing pages in the category, but that has been resolved. Do you have a couple examples of which pages are in, but shouldn't be, that way we can get it fixed? - Rjd0060 (talk) 22:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, no offense Calton, but I know you commonly tag userpages as spam and then add {{temporary userpage}} to their talk pages. Several admins have addressed this issue with you before, including me, but we apparently have a clear difference of opinion over the proper usage of {{temporary userpage}}. (See User_talk:Calton#Temporary_userpage.3F, User_talk:Calton#Template:temporary_userpage, User_talk:Calton#Tagging_user_pages_of_unblocked_users, User_talk:Calton#Template:temporary_userpage_2). If I notice these I review them. Some of these are in fact indef blocked and don't have an indef block tag, so the {{temporary userpage}} tag is valid. Others have never been blocked, let alone indef blocked. If you look at CAT:TEMP you'll probably find that many, if not most, usertalkpages are due to {{temporary userpage}} on the talk page - though I'm not saying they're all there due to Calton - I have no idea. Alternatively, [1] will give a good starting place if you go through the ones tagged as spam in particular (Calton puts the template in the edit summary so this is pretty easy). --Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 23:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I liked to think people didn't inappropriately tag userpages into CAT:TEMP. I'd ask Calton to explain why he's placing the users into the category. If he said why in one of the above links, and I missed it, I apologize. This however seems to be a separate issue, that should be addressed to ensure that pages of not indef-blocked users are not added to the category. - Rjd0060 (talk) 23:33, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree, it isn't the same issue that was raised above regarding deletion of blocked user's talk pages, though I initially thought they were the same as I understood that we deleted blocked user's user pages. Now that I see we do delete the talk pages as well this is clearly a separate matter. --Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 00:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I really don't see why not to delete them. If they have a sockpuppet tag, they should be kept for categorization, but otherwise they just clutter up search results while providing no benefit. "Perhaps the user might want to request unblock." - The pages are not deleted immediately, the usual wait time is a month, after that, the pages aren't protected, they can still recreate them and request unblocking, or request on the mailing list. "How will the community discuss the unblocking?" - It takes an admin to unblock and I can't imagine that there would be that many non-admins who monitor CAT:RFU. Presumably the person who asks for community review could undelete it, or ask in the review request. "How will we learn why they were blocked in the first place?" - The block log entry and the user's contributions should explain it. Mr.Z-man 03:01, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

The cluttering concern is really a non-issue. The reasons have been stated several times for why we shouldn't delete them. Talk pages of other users don't just contain their comments, but the comments from other users. This is why we say people don't WP:OWN their talk pages (while they are still free to manage them how they wish, so long as the edit history is in tact). Deleting them also prevents non-admins from being able to review these situations, which is a big red flag to why this is a bad idea. The situation that caught my attention had no reasonable explanation in the block log, and that is something that is very common. -- Ned Scott 06:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Did you only read the first 2 sentences I wrote? "Deleting them also prevents non-admins from being able to review these situations, which is a big red flag to why this is a bad idea" - Only if you don't trust admins at all, in which case your problem can't be solved by keeping a bunch of pages around forever. Also, "'The cluttering concern is really a non-issue" - maybe according to you, to me it is an issue. "The situation that caught my attention had no reasonable explanation in the block log" - So instead of asking someone, you want to create a new policy? Mr.Z-man 17:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Z-man, I think the problem Ned is alluding to, at least in part, is that we do have a policy, or at least a guideline, that says that we don't delete talk pages - it gives only one exception, right to vanish, it doesn't say anything about indef blocks.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 21:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Considering that talk pages of indef blocked users is not a CSD, and that people are only doing it based on an assumption that doesn't have consensus, I would like to formalize our policy to specifically prevent these kinds of deletions (with the exception to "trophy" pages, etc). However, I'm not sure which policy would be the best to make this proposal. Any suggestions? -- Ned Scott 06:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Delete them all, they flood users contribs, page lists, What links here (including images) and have no value, and don't do the Wikipedia servers and bandwidth any favours. WP:DENY also applies. The only talk pages which need keeping are pages with significant history. Really, what is the chance of a 2 year old account that was just used for a spree of childish vandalism from returning? 0. But a guideline would be helpful.--Otterathome (talk) 11:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Someone start Wikipedia:Temporary Wikipedian userpages or a similar page please.--Otterathome (talk) 12:02, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Flood users contribs? Only for the users who've participated on those talk pages, and it normally makes things harder when those contribs are gone. They are of value, and load on the servers is painfully small. WP:DENY is an essay, and the logic there should only apply to trolls and vandals, not every indef blocked user. There's a very large number of indef blocked users who are not using their talk pages as trophy pages or to make a scene, but for one unfortunate reason or another, are not able to get along with the community. Those are the talk pages that we are most concerned about, and should not be deleted. -- Ned Scott 00:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I recently started deleting user talk pages (about 2 days ago, see my deletions) that were in the Temporary Userpages category. Some are easily distinguishable to delete (for example unnecessarily created user pages with just {{indef}} on them) and I delete them accordingly. Otherwise, I usually wait three weeks or more, before I delete a talk page. I don't see why they would want to return, if they haven't done so after 21 days or more, after all most of these indef blocked users might have created new accounts anyway. I don't see why they can't be deleted, they are easy to recreate and if the user asks for an unblock, the reviewing administrator can always view the older page to see why that user in particular was blocked. I never delete userpages tagged with sockpuppet notices or that are necessary to linking etc.) Rudget (review) 12:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Admins are not the only ones who should be able to review blocks and the related discussions. They are the only ones who can unblock, but normal editors are free to do leg work and then present their findings to a place like ANI for discussion. The discussions themselves are often of value (at least to those who participated in them), and while there could be some disagreement to their value, it's not the role of a single admin to make that judgement call (it's one of the reasons we have MFD). -- Ned Scott 00:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Another frequently used template that categorises users in the temporary Wikipedian userpages category is Template:Uw-block3. The pages I have tagged with that template have had no significant history, but the template could be misused to delete user talk pages with significant history. Perhaps the temporary Wikipedian userpages category should be removed from that template? Graham87 12:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Why should it be removed? That tag is used for indef blocked users. - Rjd0060 (talk) 17:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree, and what stops indef-blocked users who wish to come back from creating their usertalk page again? Tiptoety ^talk 21:12, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Nothing, but incase you weren't paying attention, that's not the concern. -- Ned Scott 00:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Starting proposal discussion at WT:CSD#Proposal for U4. -- Ned Scott 22:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposal moved to WT:USERPAGE#Proposal to not delete talk pages for all indef users. -- Ned Scott 05:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Notice

The last archive of this page was sent to /dev/null because vandal 87.89.168.221 changed the archive header. Since I saw it immediately, I was able to restore all the lost messages easily.

This is likely a bug in the archive bot, as it is not supposed to be possible for an unprivileged user to send archives anywhere other than the standard place. The way, the truth, and the light (talk) 06:50, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I have done the archiving myself, and informed the bot's operator. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

The link to the messup: [2]. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Not a bug - expected behavior. People should be allowed to discard their messages without a hassle of a magic key. Миша13 09:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Then limit that ability to user talk pages (where at least if someone else edits the archive tag the user will get "You have new messages!" for the edit) --Random832 (contribs) 16:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Pity, if it was WP:ANI it would be a public service. Guy (Help!) 00:14, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Why not have a bot just check the heading like at WP:SANDBOX and adjust just that if it's messed with? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

And how exactly do you propose it knows whether the template's been "messed with" or simply adjusted to different settings? Миша13 07:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Can it be placed on a fully protected page (with cascade off) and transcluded here? MBisanz ^talk 07:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

No. That would require the bot to scan all pages transcluded onto here (quite a lot of them) merely to find its configuration data. Миша13 11:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmn, not sure what's the best way to handle this. Does the bot view the wikitext or the raw/HTML output? If the latter, you could have {{User:MiszaBot/config}} wrap the necessary info in span ids and pick it up from the rendered output; but that's a significant change which shouldn't be forced just because of one vandal. I'd much rather you spent the time allowing the config template not to have linebreaks in it ([3]) - in fact, given that it's pywiki, I don't see how you managed to make that not possible :D !! Happy‑melon 16:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

What about Random832's idea of allowing non-archiving removal only on user talk pages? This is a clearly distinguished subset of the bot-archived pages, the purpose of the option is specifically for them, and in case of vandalism the user will probably find out. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:34, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Does this userbox violate WP:SOAPBOX?

Unresolved

This user opposes George W. Bush and supports his impeachment and prosecution.

While I'm not a big fan of Bush, I'm not sure that this is appropriate content for userspace. I've seen at least two users who have a box similar to this in their userspace, but the code was substituted both times so I'm not sure of where this box comes from. P.S. How do you like that, four WP:AN posts in a row? :)--Urban Rose 23:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it qualifies as free expression, and we have lots of similar userboxes as well regarding Europe, the UN, and various other political entities. If it said, "This user supports his assassination" or anything stronger than it does, I'd at least consider blocking the user whose page it's on, probably indefinitely. But this is a comparatively harmless expression of a rather common political belief, and really not that big a deal. John Carter (talk) 23:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I was going to say it looked blockable, but then I realized I was misreading "prosecution" as "execution". As is, you could politely request the people who have it to take it down because of the risk of offending people, but unless we have evidence of it being actually disruptive, we probably shouldn't mess with their user pages. --erachima talk 23:21, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

• I think it qualifies as divisive and inflammatory, and that despite the fact that I entirely agree with the sentiments expressed in said box. Guy (Help!) 01:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I disagree with the sentiments expressed but think it permissable, for whatever that might tell you. There was a previous debate regarding a similar potentially divisive userbox at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Prester John/Userbox/Free Matt which was withdrawn, and there are several other similar userboxes which have been MfD and kept as I remember, but I haven't checked so I might be wrong. There are several other userboxes at Wikipedia:Userboxes/Politics which could be questioned "This user is a fascist," "This user wants the UN to be dissolved", "This user thinks President Bush should be impeached", which isn't that different, really, and a few others which might fall in the same group. I think some have been proposed for deletion before, and that might work here too, but the two additional words aren't I think that big an issue. John Carter (talk) 01:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it's permissible - it's a political statement with no particular import. "This user believes he should be hung, drawn and quartered" or "This user believes all supporters of George W Bush are quacks" (provided for hyperbole and most definitely not my opinion on either count) would be examples of what would not be permissible. Just my opinion for what it's worth. Orderinchaos 03:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it's only divisive if George Bush is editing Wikipedia? If it talked about opposing Bush's supporters then it would be a definite no-no, but as it is it's an opinion about a generalized worldwide political issue, and I think that's okay. --Masamage ♫ 03:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Not that I do not agree with the content of that userbox ... but is indeed a violation of WP:NOT#SOAP. The user can keep these expressions for his blog. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with jossi here.... SQL^{Query me!} 05:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Definitely goes against WP:SOAP. Jmlk17 07:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

If that's soapboxing, so, it seems, are many other userboxes. Though WP:USERBOX has broadly interpreted content restrictions, what some people view as divisive and inflammatory may be uniting and refreshing to others -- and remember, this is user space, which seems to be held to a lower standard than article or talk space. Also, WP:SOAPBOX specifically links to "Wikipedia:Userboxes/Politics, for political statements." Editors ready to suppress the above userbox as too inflammatory may want to read carefully through the user boxes on that latter page first. My reading of WP:USERBOX suggests that by suppressing the userbox, we would be suppressing the editor from expressing that same opinion elsewhere on their user page. I don't support moves in that direction except in extreme cases, such as where the view might be illegal to express in the US (where Wikipedia is hosted), or otherwise very extreme. Blackworm (talk) 07:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think userboxes need to be taken that seriously, they are only a bit of fun to make the userpage look nice. Only a minority are relevant to Wikipedia, while the rest can be the most random userboxes ever. If this userbox inparticular warrants looking at, then there must be literally over a hundred others of similar nature that also need investigation. Is it worth bothering with? Most established users decrease the nummber of userboxes on their userpages to only the ones that're relevant anyway, so its not a big issue. Lradrama 08:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Nice to see the "This user is a fascist" box is back. Wikipedia political userboxes are supremely silly exercises in vacuous posturing. They're useful in identifying potential POV-pushers and editors under the age of 21. They should really be amalgamated into a single box saying "This user thinks in T-shirt slogans". --Folantin (talk) 13:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• If anyone really has a problem with it send it to MfD, but I can just about guaranty it will be kept. We had a very long and never really resolved RFC on this a few months back because of userboxes that stated support for those in Iraq who are fighting against the American's and those affiliated with the Americans, whom I will not even attempt to characterize beyond that. ;-) --Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 13:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

My thought is that I don't agree with that userbox, and I don't like the sentiment, but don't see any need to delete it (basically John Carter's position). I don't want to scream "Systemic bias!" here, but I suspect that a part of the issue is that we have a preponderance of Americans here (I am one), and perceptions of political userboxes tend to be shaped by whether it is personally relevant to that American plurality – it's easy for one not to be offended by something, if one will never confront it in any case. It's more difficult to dismiss such things when they are precieved as personally relevant. However, the wiki benefits somewhat from having editors disclose their biases – the userbox in question definitely discloses a bias – and very little from the drama that accompanies attempts to delete userboxes, so it's best to keep a narrow standard for deleting such things. — Gavia immer (talk) 13:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, at least whoever created it understands that impeachment is not the same as removal from office. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 03:35, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

• I'm an avid userbox user myself, to be honest. I have over 80 of them. I find them a nifty way of expressing myself. If a person wants a userbox to express a certain political idea that doesn't violate any laws of that person's area of residence or laws at the location of Wikipedia's servers, then there isn't really any problem with the userbox as long as it stays on the user page or subpage, and nowhere else. —  scetoaux (T|C) 20:38, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Notice - Please update a protected item

I'm new to this site and wanted to advise someone who can make changes to an 'article'/page on here where it lists information about Telamonia dimidiata and the email hoax of 2002 & 1999. Please note that the email hoax is being sent out again in 2008. I recently received one and came to this site for more information only to find that the email was indeed a hoax. I have the email still in my inbox if you need me to send it to you please let me know. This should be updated so people know that its happening again. I never knew about this until I got it and I'm sure other people would like to know that there is an update to it and that way they will not freak out over using a toilet. Thank you, Preciousmi (talk) 15:58, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Can you give us a clue which article might be involved? It's a little difficult with nothing to grab a hold of. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 00:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The user said s/he was new. So probably can't find an article. Your best bet would be to check be to go to the following articles and travel through the various links E-mail_spam, Mail_fraud. This isn't the right place by the way. WP:HELP should give you a hand in answering questions. Hope I helped out. From there you can add it to the appropriate area. Remember WP:Reliable. If it is protected and you find the article please tell me on my user talk page.Rgoodermote  02:31, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

As the OP said (but failed to link), the article she's referring to is Telamonia dimidiata. It already contains a section about the e-mail hoax, and I doubt that it needs to be updated, since such things are propagated eternally once they get started. Deor (talk) 00:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I really didn't know sorry. I thought that was the name of the computer email hoax. Not the name of a spider. Rgoodermote  17:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Topic ban on User:Wikiaddict8962

Could we please put a topic ban against User:Wikiaddict8962 editing the article space about things to do with black loyalists until he discusses his opinion with the wikiprojects? He may or may not have a valid case, I don't know tonnes about the topic, but he seems to be going against a widely held position in academics, and has been warned about this in the past. I don't want to outright block him because I think he has the potential of contributing to a useful discussion outside of the article space. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 18:50, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

You are going to explain where this is coming from in more detail. Notified him but a basic question, tried dispute resolution yet? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Here is the background as I understand it; I only just noticed these events, but it looks like it has been going on and off for a few months. The user is attempting to remove all uses of the term "Black Loyalist" from articles and categories. As far as I can tell, the current Wikipedia consensus is that "Black Loyalist" is the term used almost university by academics of the topic and thus should be used here. The user feels that other terms, usually "African American" are more appropriate, but many users seem to feel that there are some logical fallacies in those terms. I had reverted several of the user's edits based on the consensus, though I don't really have an opinion on it myself as I'm no expert on it. I don't know whether he has a legitimate argument or not, but in either case I have told him that he should bring his views to the wikiprojects rather than maying the changes to so many articles. Thus far he has not talked to any of the projects, though he has only made a couple edits removing the term since I warned him. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 08:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Update: Wikiaddict8962 now says that he will not edit the articles unless "there is something false". Hopefuly this is now resolved. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 19:38, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Ban on me

I will stop editing Wikipedia's black loyalist articles. I think that the section on black loyalist deserves some evalution. There is no proof that Boston King or David George were ever loyal to the British. They mention seeking refuge with but never mention loyalty to the Brits. Thomas Peters, Cato Perkins and Isaac Anderson mention loyalty but it is interesting to note they were the same revolutionaries who denounced the British. No one can definitively say all enslaved African Americans who escaped to the British were "loyal" to them. Thomas Jefferson referred to these blacks as fugitives. The United States was founded in 1776 and recognized by Britain in 1783. The majority of these blacks left after the Declaration of Independence was signed; so in reality they were still American property. Carleton and Birch themselves knew that the Americans were correct on wanting the return of their slaves in 1783.

If the majority of historians endorse a lie does that make it true? Most people use the word Black Loyalist without knowing what it even means.

I have made my case I will not edit Black Loyalist pages. I will edit if there is something false put on. If people disagree I can stop editing completely these articles. I would like to say however the 1,192 settlers of Sierra Leone never called themselves Black Loyalists. They called themselves the Nova Scotians or Settlers. Only once did Cato Perkins and Isaac Anderson (who did not represent all the views of the settlers) refer to "loyalty" and the "King" and his "majesty". It is interesting to note David George, Boston King, and Moses Wilkinson made no such claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiaddict8962 (talk • contribs)

Sounds like another case of WP:V vs. WP:TRUTH. Anyone know any more about this? Guy (Help!) 19:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the confusion is just in differing terminology. Wikiaddict8962 is talking about small-l loyalty, whereas he is removing references to big-L Loyalists. I don't know much about the Black Loyalists in Nova Scotia, but I do know that among the Ontario Loyalist immigration there was a mix of people who were loyal to the crown and people who just didn't like the Americans (including a lot of people who weren't even British). Among academics of history, however, the group that immigrated to Canada during that time are collectively called big-L Loyalists, regardless of where their small-l loyalty was. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 20:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully it makes more sense now I've moved it? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 19:57, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks, mate. One more dispute than I want, right now, so I'll be moving on. Guy (Help!) 20:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

IP Talk Pages, yet again

Would someone be kind enough to point me to the discussion on whether or not anonymous IP editors are allowed to blank talk pages? I remember the general consensus was no, since as anon editors they do not own their pages (as registered editors do). I know it's been debated and discussed several times, but I cannot find the link. Thanks in advance! Redrocket (talk) 20:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, they can. And no one, including registered users owns their talk page, we simply have wide latitude over our own. Prodego ^talk 20:15, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

But the talk pages of IP addresses may not be "their" talk pages, like if the IP is a dynamic one. x42bn6 Talk Mess 20:54, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

per User:x42bn6. Even though it is extremely unlikely that any editor will ever be re-assigned a particular ip, messages left at the page should be available to any subsequent editor - including those who are not yet familiar with checking page histories. Registered accounts "ownership" of a user(talk)page allows blanking, but it does not appear to be the same for non registered accounts. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:15, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

it does not appear to be the same What section of what guideline or policy are you basing this on? Because on the contrary, it very much appears to be the same, because numerous past discussions have shown that it is the same. The most recent attempt to change this consensus was by Hu12 here at village pump, a post which grew out of an ANI thread a few days ago.86.44.26.69 (talk) 21:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I have never seen a policy against allowing IPs to blank their talk pages, and if there is one than I am going to see if I can get it changed. Warnings function to try to get an editor to stop vandalizing, period. They are not, nor should they be relied upon as, an accurate representation of an IPs history. Anyone can add a warning to anyone's talkpage at any time, and anyone can remove them. Combine that with the tendency for IPs to be dynamic, and I can't see any reason at all to forbid IPs from blanking their talk pages. Contribs, and nothing else, are a reliable indicator of what an IP has done. And, quite frankly, if you don't know how to access an IPs talk page history then you shouldn't be anywhere near antivandal work. If an IP removes a warning, then obviously they have seen it. Thus it has fulfilled its purpose. Really, I have seen entirely too many IPs pop up wondering why they have been accused of vandalism when they have never edited before for me to endorse any kind of ban against IPs blanking their talk page. Talk pages are a means for communication; clogging them up with ancient and probably irrelevant warnings for no purpose does nothing to facilitate this.--Dycedarg ж 05:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Views of Lyndon LaRouche

I seem to have opened a can of worms here with this page, which I realise has been involved in some of the most complicated edit wars ever seen on Wikipedia; but the fact remains that it's been fully protected for six months now, with less than a dozen edits in that time. It has always struck me that indefinite full protection for articles grates horribly with our most fundamental principles, however bad the disruption may be. The previous discussion at ANI is not completely clear so I thought I'd open this up for discussion again. I've reprotected the article so we can have a leisurely debate as to which is more important, maintaining Wikipedia's right to call itself the "free encyclopedia", or keeping this edit war under wraps. Happy‑melon 21:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

What's most important is to have a quality reference. There is currently a plan to semi-protect all BLPs, so the answer as to whether unrestricted editing is paramount has already been answered. I don't see any specific reason to undo the community's previous decision, and I'd say that the protection has worked well. It is supported by users on different sides of the debate.[4] ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:44, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

If it is a problem of simple sock vandalism, might I recommend the approach outlined above. This has been very effective in dealing with a long-term serial vandal. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:06, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that there is absolutely no justification for permanent protection of a set of articles. If its a case of long-term POV-pushing, fine. Take it to ArbCom, or have the community decide on topic bans, but this is so far removed from what we're supposed to be as a project that it is unsustainable. --Relata refero (disp.) 23:10, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

You think. Me, I think there are definitely cases for indefinite full protection. I have seen the emails. Guy (Help!) 07:42, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Guy, Guy. Are we talking about emails about this set of articles, or are we suddenly talking about WP:OFFICE cases? --Relata refero (disp.) 12:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

You're talking in absolutes. If I've learned nothing else from Wikipedia it's that absolutes are rarely absolute. Guy (Help!) 20:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, if there is a problem with a small set of identified editors mediation would probably be the best approach. Of course that may have been tried already, although article probation might also be useful (similar to homeopathy). Tim Vickers (talk) 23:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

What, what? There is currently a plan to semi-protect all BLPs? There is? Where is this being discussed? Corvus cornix_talk 23:19, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Link please, if there is. Something like that would be totally wrong without an extremely wide, public, and advertised in the watchlist notice discussion/vote/poll/something. Fascinatingly intriguing idea. Lawrence § t/e 23:22, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons#Semi-protecting_all_BLPs. How'd I miss that? Lawrence § t/e 23:24, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it a plan, its just some loose talk. Regarding the article, Lyndon LaRouche is possibly the single person in the world most likely to attract bad craziness to his articles. At any rate he's in the top ten. We don't have to shoot ourselves over principle. There are probably a score or so of BLP's of which it is to everyone's benefit that they stay protected basically forever. Herostratus (talk) 04:57, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Lyndon LaRouche is possibly the single person in the world most likely to attract bad craziness to his articles. Are you sure you know this for a fact? Have you dropped by the fringe theory noticeboard at any point? I don't see anything argued on the LaRouche talkpages that approaches a fraction of the craziness of 90% of what turns up there.

And this is one occasion when a series of articles on a living person have been permanently protected to keep negative information and self-published sources at above a minimum rather than below a maximum level. It is not at all like other BLP situations, and we would all do well to stop pretending it is. --Relata refero (disp.) 06:48, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

A procedural question

What should I do in the following semi-hypothetical scenario? In the course of looking at my watchlist, I notice vandalism that happened earlier in the day from an IP user. It's already been reverted, by this point, but I'm still curious, so I go to the user's talk page and find it full of warnings, mostly several days old but a couple from earlier the same day. None of them are necessarily last-and-final warnings; just a garden of level-2, level-3, the occasional level-4. I move on, checking the user's contributions list, and discover that none of the user's edits, in about a month and a half of editing, has been allowed to stand--they're all reverted vandalism, or user-page abuse. Nothing constructive can be traced to the user, and the pattern suggests a static IP (or a long-term assignment, at least). There's nothing recent enough for AIV (though in the situation that inspired this question, I tried it--no action was taken.) So--what IS the best move in a situation like this? Where's the best place to raise the issue? (I realize that this is sort of a newbie question, but it seems that different admins have different thresholds of what constitutes actionable behavior/timeframe/etc, and I'd really like to pin down the best course of action to take.) Thanks for your time...Gladys J Cortez 04:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Best report it here, I'd guess. Looking it up using WHOIS will usually give a clue as to whether it's a static IP (or) assigned to a particular institution. WP:AIV is usually for short-term heavy vandalism. Longer-term abuse needs a little more investigation. HTH. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 04:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Echoing Rodhullandemy; here. The other point to look for is consistency in the vandalism, do they share the same language/interests (the same persons name, the same typo's, the same method of vandalism?) If it is a consistent (for example) "Barry sux dogs, lol!" then there is no need to investigate further, it is likely the same individual. Different types of vandalism over differing articles may suggest that it is just an unfortunate coincidence for that ip - and we are likely to slap a block on it just as the one legit user of the ip decides to usefully contribute. For that reason it is best to bring it here, so experienced admins can share the blame make those judgments. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:35, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Also watchlist it of course and maybe check contribs every day or so to see if the IP comes back soon with more vandalism. Of course, if it's every month or two that the vandalism occurs now, that won't do much good but if he or she is on everyday recently you might just catch the IP in the act.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 19:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough; thanks for the thoughtful answers! Gladys J Cortez 02:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Pedophile activism on Wikipedia

I noticed on AfD that there was an article called "List of films portraying sexual attraction to children or adolescents." Then I noticed that there was an article called "List of *books* portaying sexual attraction to children or adolescents." The problem with the titles of these lists is that they are calling child sexual abuse "sexual attraction to children or adolescents." (Look at the lists, they clearly list sexual abuse.) Calling sexual abuse of children "sexual attraction to children" is clearly an extreme fringe definition of child sexual abuse from the pedophile point of view. It appears that there are five of these disturbingly titled lists, and that they used to all be titled "Pedophilia and child sexual abuse in <fill in the blank>." When and why then titles were all changed to reflect an extreme fringe pedophile activist point of view is not clear to me. I am also disturbed that the stated purpose of the Wiki Pedophile Article Watch Project is "Some Wikipedians have formed a project to better organize and ensure veracity and freedom from bias of information in articles involving pedophilia, child sexuality, and related issues," but that no one on this project has noted the extreme POV problem in the renaming/redefining of these articles to an extreme pro-pedophile fringe stance. I also do not understand why "pro-pedophile activism" is included in "Other resources" on the Project: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pedophilia_Article_Watch#Other_resources I thought this was not the place for activism.

former titles of lists, currently how they are titled on Pedophilia Article Watch:

Pedophilia and child sexual abuse in fiction (boys) Pedophilia and child sexual abuse in fiction (girls) Pedophilia and child sexual abuse in films Pedophilia and child sexual abuse in songs Pedophilia and child sexual abuse in the theatre

Active link to one of the articles from the project site, so you can see that it goes to "List of songs portraying sexual attraction to children or adolescents":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia_and_child_sexual_abuse_in_songs

Link to Project: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pedophilia_Article_Watch

-PetraSchelm (talk) 18:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that this is the appropriate place for this or not, but I don't think that the current titles of articles such as List of songs portraying sexual attraction to children or adolescents are endorsing the pedophile point of view. It just states that the subject matter deals with sexual attraction to children and adolescents and that it may or may not involve sexual abuse.--Urban Rose 20:04, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

• Well, perhaps you should read the "songs" list? Here is the beginning of it, which gives clear examples:

"Alive" by Pearl Jam, from Ten A song about a boy who looks like his real father and is raped by his mother "Ambitious Outsiders" by Morrissey, from Maladjusted A song about child murderers scavenging suburban neighborhoods for potential victims, probably inspired by the Moors murders. "Amelia" by The Mission, from Carved in Sand A song about a girl who is molested by her father and he threatens to hit her if she tells. "Amy in the White Coat" by Bright Eyes, from There Is No Beginning to the Story A song about a father who abuses one of his three daughters.

These are songs about child sexual abuse. The only point of view from which they are about "Sexual attraction" is the point of view of whomever is "sexually attracted," i.e., pedophiles. The lists define sexual abuse solely from the pov of pedophiles. It's pretty weird and creepy, imho. -PetraSchelm (talk) 20:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

As an aside, I always find it unusual when a new editor comes here and immediately starts listing articles for deletion. Nothing in particular but just odd. Since there's a ton of articles on AFD at this moment, I really don't see anything that requires admin intervention. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I brought it here when I realized there were *5* of these article, so it probably wasn't a productive idea to AfD the other 4--only one is up for AfD. The problem seems to be no oversight of POV pushing at the pedophile wikiproject; more eyes should be on it. -PetraSchelm (talk) 20:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

PetraSchelm seems to be the one POV-pushing and WP:POINTing here, as User:Swatjester has [5] warned him/her about on user talk. And now taking it to Jimbo's talk page: [6] [7] Jfire (talk) 20:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Note, reverse the order. I was alerted to Petra by her(?) comments on Jimbo's talk page first, then warned her. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 21:20, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

PetraSchelm is a very likely sock, and has within days of arriving on Wikipedia attempted to disrupt extensive discussion and consensus building (as noted by Jfire), without any regard for NPOV. The problem is not lack of oversight of POV pushing on the pedophile wikiproject; the problem is POV pushing from you. Funny that within just a few days of arriving here, you are familiar with fringe point of view policies, have nominated several articles for deletion, and managed to find the single most contentious WikiProject on Wikipedia. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 21:20, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Petra, make yourself familiar with our polices and then edit contentious material with an eye to WP:NPOV. Don't expect an easy time but hard work does equal progress and the pedophilai articles are considerably more neutral than they were a year ago, IMHO. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:06, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

This is true. they were in bad shape. But note that reason that the work is hard is because it is difficult to maintain NPOV. Simply trying to force changes through by butting heads and shaking things up, doesn't work. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 21:22, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Further comment, the article name seem to have been the subject of extensive discussion and consensus building, and the most recent changes were discussed at Talk:List_of_books_portraying_sexual_attraction_to_children_or_adolescents#Requested_move. As another editor noted, the discussion there was "as close to consensus-building as I've seen on Wikipedia", and that sentiment seems accurate to me as well. Jfire (talk) 21:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Pedophilia activism, on my Wikipedia? It's more likely than you think. William Ortiz (talk) 21:17, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Your Wikipedia? How about the entire community's Wikipedia (pedophiles and all). ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 21:20, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment, I have read through the discussion on what appears to be the very recent name change of all 5 articles from "Sexual abuse and pedophila in film/books/song/theater" to "sexual attraction to children in films/books/songs/theater," and all I can say is that the consensus was among a tiny number of participants, and their arguments don't hold up. Hence, more eyes should be on this. If the "consensus' on the UFO article is that UFOs exist, that doesn't make it so. The argument for changing the name seems to be that "sexual attraction" subsumes "pedophilia and child sexual abuse." Uh, only from the perspective of pedophiles. It looks like someone named Will Beback attempted rationality:

"If the concern is that people looking for books portraying those topics will have trouble finding the list(s), surely links to the "sexual attraction to children" list(s) from Wikipedia articles on pedophilia and on child sexual abuse would do the job. As Haiduc points out, those specifics are subsumed under the more general "sexual attraction to children". SocJan (talk) 04:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC) In my opinion, sexual attraction and sexual abuse are two different things. Some of these books are written from the adult's side and focus on the sexual attraction/pedophilia, while others are written from the child's point of view and may focus on the sexual abuse/molestation. The title should reflect both aspects. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC) Leaving aside the fact that this does not address the problem with integrating depictions of adolescent experience, where does this leave works in the style of "For a Lost Soldier," which depicts the youth's point of view as experiencing the sexuality as positive (whatever you or I, or even the author, may think of it now), and as reciprocating the man's affection? At best, this would impose a reading avant la lettre on works where it would be inappropriate. Haiduc (talk) 10:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC) I'm not familiar with that book, but if it depicts an adult's sexual attraction to a boy then I'd think that it could be described as involving pedophilia, regardless of the boy's feelings. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC) Not if the boy is above thirteen. The problem is that you are inadvertently excluding a whole range of adult/minor relationships, a range that is often legitimate in the eyes of the law, and that does not fit either the pedophilia or the abuse paradigms. Haiduc (talk) 18:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)"

-PetraSchelm (talk) 21:26, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

This isn't the appropriate forum, Petra. Take it to Talk:List of books portraying sexual attraction to children or adolescents.

Also, thinly-veiled accusations of paedophilia against other Wikipedians ("only from the perspective of pedophiles") are not acceptable, policy- or logic-wise. You've already been warned about this. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 21:36, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it's better to attract more eyes to this project, and hence this is the forum. Also, sexual attraction to children=perspective of pedophiles. Or is there another group of people besides pedophiles who are sexually attracted to children? The POV problem in the renaming of these articles, that Will Beback also pointed out, is that it is not "sexual attraction" from the pov of anyone *but* pedophiles. From the pov of children who are abused, and from the pov of mainstream society, sexually abusing children is sexual abuse, not sexual attraction to children. All these list clearly describe the sexual abuse of children. -PetraSchelm (talk) 21:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

If your aim is to attract more eyes to a given issue (in order, one supposes, to ensure that actions taken on insular pages are consistent with the will of the community), you would do better to raise that issue at the village pump or at the article's talk page, with, if necessary, a listing at requests for comment; this noticeboard is, as the header observes, "not the place to raise disputes over content", and exists principally to alert administrators to issues that might require their intervention as administrators (as against as "regular" users, in, for instances, disputes over content and policy like that which you outline) and to permit the coordination of administrator activities. Joe (I can has barnstar?) 22:36, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Will has been tireless in his own attempts to ensure that we have neutrality and quality on the pedophile articles. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I just found this thread. Thanks, SqueakBox, for your comment but it's not true. I'm tired of dealing with dealing with this stuff. Recently, SqueakBox has been far more active than me in dealing with this stuff but even as "tireless" as he's been I bet he's getting tired too. This is an uncomfortable topic that few editors or even admins want to touch. I was recruited long ago by user:Katefan0 but peronal invitations aren't necessary. I urge all editors and admins to consider adding the WP:PAW project to their watchlist or watchlisting some relevant articles. Without going into details, it's a probable fact that there are people who are trying actively to push a POV onto WP articles. The best way to handle it is with more eyeballs. Please lend yours.

PS: This PetraSchelm character seems odd and I suspect a troll. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:25, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Looking through the articles, they do appear to concern mainly sexual abuse. The articles seems to rest on the premise that sexual abuse of children is but one aspect of a more complete spectrum of behavior. Not only is this premise itself a contested point of view, but it doesn't appear to really reflect the content of the article or the reason the topic is significant. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

So I'm confused. PetraSchelm claims that mainstream society doesn't view pedophilia as sexual attraction to children. If so, then what is it? No, mainstream society does view pedophilia as sexual attraction to children, but it views actually performing sexual acts with a child as "wrong".--Urban Rose 00:07, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Certainly in the UK a pedophile is synonymous with a sex offender who commits child sexual abuse either directly or through viewing child porn, as well as the more traditional "attracted to children" definition. Really this is an issue for the pedophilia articles rather than the admin noticeboard. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

• Folks, please review and watchlist List of songs portraying sexual attraction to children or adolescents (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). I just removed all those entries which were not sourced to credible independent secondary sources (i.e. removed unsourced, sourced from personal observation of the lyrics, blogs, web forums, freewebs and the like). It is now standing at one entry: Don't Stand So Close to Me by The Police, which is unquestionably a song portraying sexual attraction to children or adolescents as is well established form credible sources within the article. I am confident this set of edits will be reverted, because poeple want to keep the list and the list only has one entry after the removal of unsourced or inadequately sourced entries. Guy (Help!) 10:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, except technically couldn't it be perfectly acceptable to source from the lyrics using the song as a primary source? By personal observation do you mean contentious interpretation? 86.44.26.69 (talk) 20:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

No, because it requires a value judgment: is lyric X about subject Y? Where the subject is contentious, solid sourcing is absolutely necessary. Guy (Help!) 12:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Plus, of course, there is the small issue that that particular song specifically namechecks Vladimir Nabokov, who was the author of Lolita - the subject (of sexual attraction) being a pubescent girl, and therefore unrelated to paedophilia; which is the attraction toward pre-pubescent children. Therefore the schoolgirl mentioned within the song is not a child, so the song does not belong is a paedophile related category (although if there is a category related to "lolitaism" then that is appropriate.) I raise this point (or WP:POINT, if you prefer) to illustrate precisely why the subject of paedophilia needs to be handled so carefully, much of what is written in the popular media regarding, and supposed examples of, paedophile attraction is not - it is something else which is equally impermissable upon being acted upon, but does not equate to the encyclopedic definition of paedophilia. Hence it is imperative that accusations are not bandied around, and those experienced Wikipedians who have taken on the editing of this thorny subject be allowed to calmly and objectively do their work. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

AfD listing anomaly

Hello. I would like an admin to check the AfD listing I created here. I've nominated before with no troubles, but this time encountered some weird results on the discussion page. I don't know what happened, but I seem to have fixed it. I just want to make sure everything is proper. Can someone check this out for me? Thanks. Nick Graves (talk) 21:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Everything looks A-OK to me. Jfire (talk) 21:35, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The previous versions were messed up, but it's fixed now. Must have been some sort of typo. Malinaccier (talk) 21:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Following around

Some time back I mediated a matter between 2 users. Later one of those users was indef blocked by another admin for personal acts, disruption, etc. Since then they've been following me to other wikis, (meta, etc), badgering me for an unblock. They've used socks on en-wiki to avoid the block, and have of course been re-blocked. I've given them the unblock email and arbcom email, but I'm wondering if there should be some way for Meta to be able to hand down a universal block. MBisanz ^talk 00:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Robert Latimer

I am getting to my wit's end at this article, and would like to ask for some help or at the very least some advice.

• S. T. Webb,
• S.T. Webb
• IP 70.66.167.200 and currently
• IP 70.66.167.249

all one and the same user, I believe, have for over a year now being editing tendentiously about this Canadian BLP to push a particularly POV.[8] S/he inserts unsourced or inappropriately sourced OR POV material/phrasing,e.g. [9][10] [11] (see talkpage for full details of why), is uncivil to other editors e.g. [12][13] and deletes sourced material,[14] and today's edits, see below). Editors have tried the patient, teaching approach, e.g. [15][16] and a request for comment about the article [17] but in the 14 months since this started very limited progress has been made in terms of this editor understanding policies and guidelines. Today I rewrote part of the article to remove an unreliable source based on advice given at the RSN by two other editors,[18] and even included new material that supports his/her pro-Latimer position. This [19] and this [20] have been the result. Any suggestions for dealing with an IP editor who edits like this over such a long period of time? --Slp1 (talk) 01:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

• Interestingly, he said the same about you (OTRS ticket 2008040710001366). Perhaps it's time for a third opinion? Guy (Help!) 21:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what it is the 'same' exactly, but thanks for the suggestion, and I will ask for one. --Slp1 (talk) 23:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Highways 2

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. No formal enforcement measures are being proposed at this time, in light of the hope that editors will act of their own volition and take with them a more in-depth understanding of the issues, principles, and the disputes themselves, for future benefit and to avoid the need for more formal responses; in particular, all members of WikiProject U.S. Roads are advised that when asserting the existence of a prior consensus, it is necessary to refer to prior discussions or debates on Wikipedia where that consensus has been established.

— Coren ^(talk) for the Arbitration Committee, 03:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Alison given oversight access

After a considerable amount of Arbitration Committee discussion over several months, user:Alison has been given oversight access for English Wikipedia. This is primarily in recognition of two factors: she is already given and trusted with Checkuser and has been very active and does thorough and helpful work in that role, and, she is also very active in dealing with harassment issues of users on Wikipedia, which has continually required her to approach others to deal with oversight matters resulting from that. This will help her in that task.

For the Arbitration Committee,

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 08:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

(As a personal side-note, some users have in the past expressed concern about Alison's posting on Wikipedia Review. Briefly addressing these, 1/ Alison has stated many times that she visits such sites to assist with resolution and dialog where possible, and to address differences rather than encourage them, a statement bourne out over time, 2/ Alison is trusted by the community with Checkuser access already, 3/ the community will benefit from Alison being able to oversight such material herself, especially as she has proven active, dedicated, skilled and sensitive at identifying and handling it, and 4/ the Committee has taken account of the events of the last month, and, having considered this for some months now, feels that Alison would be a capable set of hands to trust with oversight as well as checkuser.) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 09:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

It's a good idea. Wikipedia Review isn't bad in itself, it's the users. All of her posts there are helpful. Sceptre ^(talk) 09:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Well deserved. Rudget (review) 09:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Well I trust her with it. James086^{Talk | Email} 09:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Why shouldn't anyone who's trusted with checkuser be trusted with oversight as well? Grandmasterka 09:07, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

It's my feeling that misuse (or more to the point, questionable use) of oversight privileges is more problematic than checkuser. Each should only be given to users that are tasked with a specific job that requires its use.--Father Goose (talk) 10:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd argue the opposite - oversighted edits can be restored; if personal information is released through misuse of checkuser it cannot be "un-released". Black Kite 11:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

They cannot be restored without the help of a developer. Majorly (talk) 13:20, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

But they still can actually be restored. Unlike Checkuser results, which once released cannot be un-released. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 15:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Oversight users have access to every past oversighted diff through the log, which isn't trivial. There is no practical difference in the level of trust required for either position. The difference in users with access is, in my opinion, due to the sensible concept of limiting access to as few people as necessary when sensitive information is involved. Dmcdevit·t 02:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Inappropriately releasing personal information gained through checkuser privileges is a very visible violation of trust; oversight, as I understand it, makes things disappear quietly, and can easily go unnoticed. This is what concerns me more. I suppose "fishing expeditions" could be quietly performed with checkuser, with only the CU logs to show for it, though I'm not especially convinced that fishing expeditions are a bad thing in the first place -- and I'm a staunch supporter of privacy.

Regardless, the overall principle of limiting access to as few people as necessary applies to both privileges.--Father Goose (talk) 08:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I tend to think the more admins etc. who do post there the better, especially if it does anything to reduce the adversarial nature of the place. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:14, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Well-deserved - congrats Alison :) Orderinchaos 09:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations Ali! -- lucasbfr ^talk 09:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

and now the waiting game for {{RfB-nom}} to appear at her talk so I can Support. MBisanz ^talk 09:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

A fitting person to fill the shoes I think. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 09:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes! You can haz Oversightz! - Philippe 09:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Can someone please explain what oversight is? :)--Urban Rose 13:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Oversight is the ability to permanently delete certain revisions of pages. Normal admin delete can be reversed - oversight cannot. It's reserved for sensitive information that normal admins should not even be seeing, such as phone numbers. Anyhow, this is excellent news. Alison is an extremely hardworking checkuser and admin, and I'm sure she'll do just as well with oversight. Majorly (talk) 13:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Oversight. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Couldn't be happier with the appointment. EVula // talk // ☯ // 03:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Why is Wikipedia degenerating so badly, full of unethical behaviour?

Deny recognition

Consumed Crustacean (my spelling is bad) just did what I think is an increasingly common and bad practice. If you don't like something, just call it trolling. Once in a while, Jimbo Wales writes (not often). Why don't you just blank it out and call it trolling. I don't want to get involved but a friend told me "watch out for my post and see if WP is going to act badly like I think they will". Sure enough, they proved him right and proved me wrong. I don't want to get involved so I'm not going to argue the case. It has to do with some admin just banning someone for kicks (no bad edits or IP relationship). When the person complained, he is met with excuses like trolling and blanking out requests. He is then banned on the excuse that you are a sock of a banned user. Well, if someone looked at the original ban, it was just for kicks done by an admin who doesn't follow rules. Again, I don't want to be involved anymore so I won't mention who the other person is. And please don't try to ban me. That wouldn't be nice. Durova did something like that to an established user and she lost her throne. I am an established user who doesn't want to get involved anymore other than checking on my friend's predicament.Uninvolved (talk) 13:13, 7 April 2008 (UTC) For blocks you feel are improper, try unblock-en-l@lists.wikimedia.org or arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org WilyD 13:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC) I'm using my work computer so I can't be here too long. This original post describes a situation that is terrible. More over, I've seen requests at unblock. Lots of shoddy treatment there too and usually frequented by many who seem to want to deny request. This is too bad. Differentuninvolved (talk) 13:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC) If something's been done improperly by an administrator, I'd be interested and want to check. (Problematically there aren't enough hours in the day but I'll have a go if I can; that was an interest of mine before arbcom too.) There should be clear lines when a block is reasonable and a clear line when it obviously isn't. If a user has had an improper block and the block was then unreasonably reviewed, I'd be interested. Thanks. FT2 (Talk | email) 13:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC) Indeed, we can't unfortunately look further into it if you don't tell us which block you are talking about, but if you feel that a block is unfair, and that the unblock was denied for specious reasons, don't hesitate to send an email to a member of the arbitration committee and I'm sure they will look closely into it (one way or an other). -- lucasbfr talk 13:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC) Trolling by the person calling himself Harry59b (talk · contribs) and Harry59c (talk · contribs), a user from Singapore who is supposedly protesting the unfair block of Harry59 (talk · contribs) as a Dereks1x sockpuppet. Harry59b has been trolling in various places including RFAR. At first I thought it might be Dereks1x/Archtransit trolling from open proxies, but Differentuninvolved (talk · contribs) (who is clearly the same person as Uninvolved (talk · contribs) if it wasn't obvious) is editing from a Singaporean place of business that is likely to be pretty secure. So either Archtransit has taken a holiday and/or a new job, or this is just a troll with too much time on his hand. RBI either way. Thatcher 13:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC) Not a surprise ;). Thanks for the prompt checkuser. -- lucasbfr talk 13:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Repeated and extensive harassment

In the end of March, the user Marc KJH was blocked one week for harassing several editors who disagreed with his opinions. [21] I was one of those reporting him, and obviously he is back with a vengeance. Today, he has been harassing repeatedly in a very dishonest and disruptive way

• He started out by accusing me of the same thing he was blocked for [22]. He didn't care to provide any reason for this very strong warning and for his accusation against me, calling me all sorts of things. The problem is that somebody might actually believe him, undefined accusations are hard to refute and for that reason so much more deceitful
• The main problem is that he has started a whole RfC against me. [23]. He has every right to do so, just like anyone else, but his conduct shows that the whole purpose is to attack me. Despite making 15(!) edits to his own report, he has not yet provided a single diff of any offense he thinks I've committed. In my response to him, I have repeatedly asked him to provide diffs and to specify what I have done [24], [25], [26]. Instead, he has just accused me of more and more things, [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32] there's hardly a single policy on Wikipedia he doesn't claim I've violated. [33].
  

Let me make it clear that I find this deceitful, dishonest and highly disruptive. The basis of any functional justice is that the accused has the right to know the precise accusations so as to be able to defend himself. I've edited Wikipedia for more than two years, I've never been blocked and I most certainly don't know when Marc KHJ thinks I have committed all these offences. It is very easy to make all sorts of vile accusations as long as one is not obliged to prove that the accusations are true. As my calls for diffs to be provided have gone unanswered, and all that has happened is that list of loose accusations have increased, I can only conclude that the sole intention of Marc's actions is to throw dirt at me. I consider all of this a very strong personal attack and with more than 20 edits within 10 hours by Marc KHJ directed straight at me, I hold this to be a severe form of harassment. Needless to say, I find the whole RfC-process highly disruptive as he hasn't even tried to found it on anything except very vague accusations. This is the same kind of behaviour the user was blocked for earlier, and he seems to have learned nothing. I have been in conflicts on Wikipedia before, but never on this scale. No user, neither I nor anyone else, should have to spend up to an hour in a single day just to defend himself against relentless and deceitful attacks of this kind. JdeJ (talk) 15:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know any of the context of this, my apologies JdeJ, but I will say as far as an RfC goes, that particular one will be closed if he (Marc) doesn't get a co-certifier within 48 hours of opening the RfC. An RfC also requires that both certifiers have attempted to resolve the dispute somewhere else prior to going to RfC. I would recommend not commenting there any further(although you have every right to defend yourself) until if/when it has more contributions beyond his own. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. No, Marc and I haven't attempted to "resolve" anything :) With the other editors on the contested article, Central Europe, some progress has been made (and lost) at times. Some of us have one view on why and the other camp has an other. The important thing is that though I disagree strongly with some of them, even consider their practice of deleting tags they don't like as close to vandalism, nobody in either "camp" is making personal attacks on the other like Marc did before and has returned to doing once his block expired. And while I know, rationally, that I perhaps shouldn't comment, it's hard to sit quiet when somebody is doing everything he can to drag you through the mud. I have no worries as such for the RfC, I know what I've done and don't mind anyone going through my edits. But I would want some actions taken against Marc KHJ as he is a particularly agressive harasser. JdeJ (talk) 15:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I bet you guys a fiver Marc KJH is User:Bonaparte. If not, he's somebody else's sock. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

He has been engaging in yet more typical Bonaparte-style disruption, including page move warring etc. I've blocked him for a week, for now, until we figure out if we should consider him a proven Bonnie sock. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I made this [34] edit thinking I was reverting a case of minor vandalism. Having read this, I believe it was Marc KJH fumbling an attempt to open an RFC on JdeJ. I didn't leave a message for Marc KJH; I suppose I should go do that. qitaana (talk) 16:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Future Perfect at Sunrise's recent actions

I consider User:Future Perfect at Sunrise's intervention on Balti Steppe article recently as unproductive namely in supporting blatant original research and simply not letting me to explain my viewpoint on the talk page (by unjustified topic ban). I think this user did not take the necessary time to study and understand the problem, moreover, the above mentioned user expressed unproven accusations and further insulted me. Please see from here [35] till the end of my talk page. I would like to ask some neutral administrators who have not been involved in the dispute to give a true appreciation to the actions of this user. Thank you very much in advance.--Moldopodo (talk) 16:13, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't see the problem and you did not provide any diff of you being insulted. Closing the Afd was not controversial and was explained well, and you had the opportunity to make many comments on the talk page. This is not a statement on which version is the right one, I'm not competent to make that call. All I can say is that based on the diffs you have provided, I don't see any wrongdoing by Fut.Perf. JdeJ (talk) 16:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The diffs:[36] (archived talk page of the above mentioned user) - proof of absence any desire to contribute constructively to Wikipedia: "About "POV", "sources", "consensus" and whatnot, no, I absolutely don't know what it's all about, and I don't want to know", unjustifid harrasment: hope I won't see any further disruptive editing about this topic on your part, because the next time I will get you topic-banned from all articles related to Balti (no diff given with disruptive editing). This very same user closed the whole discussion on the nomination for deletion page in couple of minutes the deletion log, harrassing me with allegations of POV, disruptive editing and threatening to "be wise" generally. No diff was presented for POV. Personally I do not appreciate this kind of approach, moreover, the renaming problems were discussed in 2007 in detail and I do not see why that user comes back with these insinuations. I was not editing anything on the article proper and would like to see what you and other users will say. For further reference:[37]. Further, as for insults, I insist, do thouroughly check the diff I provided initially, where the user says: I can't really see how you are currently in the right frame of mind for contributing constructively to a collaborative discussion. Come off it, man. The costume rental guys have called they want that dress back, it's overdue, and the people in the plenary below you are getting uneasy too, also furter intimidation and harrasments followed You have further ignored my warnings above, broken the above restrictions twice and added yet more aggressive attacks to the discussion here again, without any proof for this insulting statement, nor for statement of disruptive editing from my side, nor for POV from my side.--Moldopodo (talk) 10:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Fwooper and Kikiyaon

User:Fwooper may be a persistent vandal. I recently recreated a page that had been deleted several times as original research, about a kikiyaon monster, after being convinced that this was indeed a genuine bit of folklore. This user changed the page to one of the prior, deleted versions, and put "typo" as his edit summary. [38] Several vandalism warnings appear on his talk page.

User claims to be 13 years old on his user page. I sent another warning. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 19:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I reverted this edit at Sten Bergman. Using the summary of "I was linking articles" while wikifying every single noun seems to indicate more but I'll just AGF for right now. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I slapped a lot of those speedy tags on kikiyaon and Sten Bergman, and was initially convinced it was vandalism. I then had a burst of spontaneous good faith and decided there was a chance (since he claims to be 13) he might just not understand. So I re-wrote Sten Bergman for him as an example of how to include stuff from sources without cutting and pasting. He thanked me very politely. For what it's worth, his subsequent edit to Kikiyaon wasn't a direct copy and paste; he had made some attempt to re-write the source material. Maybe I'm just being naive, but at the moment I'm not sure either way. Eve (talk) 10:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Generation2

In response to the deletion of Generation2 (sword replicas) I have tried to not make it an advertising page.

It is no more advertising than the Hanwei, or Albion or Arms and Armor pages. I looked. In fact the Hanwei is for the Hanwei Shop a retiler of Hanwei products. Please take a look at this.

This sword manufacturer is well know for their historical accurateness among collectors. So this sword manufacturer deserves to be included alongside these sword makers above.

In 2004 Generation2 did receive a call and talked to Mr. Hank Reinhardt (well known sword historian and martial artist) to make swords for him and to his specifications.

This is history being made right now.

I ask you to reconsider.

Sincerely,

Clyde Hollis —Preceding unsigned comment added by ClydeHollis (talk • contribs) 19:36, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

this isn't the right venue, but user has a point. Generation2 should at least be a redirect to list of sword manufacturers. The company may also have sufficient notability for a standalone article. But the burden to establish this is of course on the article author. dab (𒁳) 20:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, pretty much all of the companies listed here are spammy. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 21:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Community ban proposal on Fredrick day

Per rampages of the last few days (most recently documented yesterday at WP:ANI#Edit warring by blocked User:Fredrick day, I propose that the indefinite block on Fredrick day (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) be endorsed as a ban. It is evident that he has degenerated into vandalism and trolling, and the indefinite block hasn't stopped him. It is highly unlikely he will ever be unblocked, yet I make this proposal to support block/revert on sight of all of his edits. Blueboy96 20:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, he's already banned; I can't fathom any admin proposing unblocking him, and certainly none has. Regardless, I endorse the proposal. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 20:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

In that edits by socks of a banned user may be reverted without discussion, I agree that Fredrick day should be considered banned. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Let's make something clear ... I'm of the mind that among the VERY FEW circumstances that a banned user's edits shouldn't be reverted on sight are instances of very egregious BLP violations and copyvios. However, the fact that Fredrick day is hiding behind the need to enforce BLP in order to rationalize his other actions is not acceptable to me at all. Blueboy96 21:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Not only that, he may be trying to entrap editors into getting in trouble for blanket reverting his edits. (Or it might be just a coincidence, and he just happens to have gone on the crusade against BLP violations in the wake of his recent indefinite block and Abd's attempts to revert all his edits.) Sarah Lynne Nashif (talk) 23:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Abd has been indiscriminately reverting his edits despite me saying five hours ago that BLP violations do not get reverted, such as this edit for example. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 23:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that such content should not remain unless reliably sourced. And in fact I was going to look for some sources but the kind of websites you run into trying to find it tend to be somewhat unsavory, and I'd rather not have that recorded in my access log. Sarah Lynne Nashif (talk) 00:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I would support understanding the indefinite block to be a community ban. My proviso is that reverting his edits should not be done en masse without checking the content. Since he has recently been playing games with BLP, we should avoid getting into a tangle there. EdJohnston (talk) 04:54, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I would support a community ban. It's almost like the user is trying to entrap people by tricking them into reverting legitimate edits, which then enables him to get up on a soapbox and rail against... Enigma ^message Review 06:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Enigmaman, this user looks like he's trying to get editors into situations where he's playing wiki-polcies against each other, and trying to disrupt the system. Comunity ban, revert any stray edits, then double-check the content to make sure no WP:BLP violations sneaked in there. Redrocket (talk) 06:55, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Went ahead and tagged as banned per this discussion. There appears to be no opposition or any administrator who is willing to unblock for another chance. Feel free to revert if you like. — Κaiba 07:22, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I oppose a ban, and will revert. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 19:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Frederick day may be a bad character, but so far the only bad behavior that I've seen in this whole debacle has come from parties other than him. Assume all kinds of bad faith about his reasons for doing so, but he has been making legitimate edits to remove BLP. Why on earth would we ban someone for doing that. Have you all gone mad? He's indefinitely blocked. Leave him at that. Block his sockpuppets. But there is no reason for a ban. That is simply excessive, punitive, and detrimental to the encyclopedia.⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 19:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Um, have you even read the SSP report? [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] (he's right about this one it seems) [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] and uh, the list continues for quite a long time. I see no reason not to ban, he's made it perfectly clear that he's only interested in trolling our contributors and reviewing his IPs I see endless examples of attempts to wind people up. We're not banning him for making BLP edits. We're banning him because he keeps harassing people. -- Naerii 19:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Template:Unreferenced

Should the wording be changed to "sufficient references or sources" instead of "any references or sources? I have seen it on articles that have some sources, just not sufficient sources apparently. I would change the wording myself but the template is protected.--Urban Rose 23:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

That template is only for articles that have exactly 0 sources. There are other templates for articles that have some sources but, in your opinion, not enough. This change is proposed relatively often, but it is very unlikely the unreferenced template will be changed in this way. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Should be replaced by {{refimprove}} if there is at least one source cited (but not nearly enough). If there are only a few unsourced statements, these can be marked individually with {{fact}} rather than adding a banner at the top. — CharlotteWebb 00:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Yamla is abusing power

Resolved

 – Correct deletion under WP:NFCC#1. Sceptre ^(talk) 09:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I genuinely think that User:Yamla is abusing his/her power as an administrator and should be desysopped/warned for abuse of powers as the user is acting against Wikipedia's admin policy. It is noted that the user has been only interested in simply deleting images that has proper descriptions, summary & source details. The latest evidence of his abuse power is Mammootty (I think it is one of his target article Mammootty). I therefore request to take immediate action against this disruptive admin who is acting as an Inspector. The rationale for deleting the image was given in my talk page is Please read WP:IUP and WP:FUC. Wikipedia simply does not permit the use of fair-use images solely to depict living people. Even if the image is published elsewhere. I couldn't find these WP guidelines are giving any message about publishing living people images are against our policy, does it?. I think that it is a blind justification. It wasn’t a single incident. Additionally see the users talk page also (see the last hidden archive pages) to understand more about his rude behavior & blind justifications. Thank you. --Crazyguy2050 (talk) 05:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Under non-free content policy use point # 1, "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose." The language is also repeated at Template:Non-free promotional ("Please note that our policy usually considers fair use images of living people that merely show what they look like to be replaceable by free-licensed images and unsuitable for the project.") if you want to see it. For Image:Mammootty.jpg, other editors can confirm but it was User:Rodhullandemu who actually chose to delete the image. Yamla simply notified you of the policy. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

• Just to clarify- I undeleted it to check it out, then re-deleted it. Yamla made the decision (correctly, in my opinion). --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 05:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

  This complaint is very frivolous, Yamla deleted a fair use image wich was intended to illustrate the appearance of a living person, this means that the image is replaceable and will remain as such until the article's subject dies, thus the image's deletion is justified by its nature, our policies are quite clear ("Pictures of people still alive, groups still active, and buildings still standing" are prohibited) on such use for fair use images. - Caribbean~H.Q. 05:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

  See the WP:FAIR#Unacceptable_use guideline, specifically Images point #12. That's what Yamla is referring to. The Wikipedia project is behind free content. WP policy excludes images requiring fair use claims when a free replacement could reasonably still be made. Gimmetrow 05:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

  First of all let me tell, it is not a frivolous complaint. It is very serious in its nature. Coz, User:Yamla is a targeted kind admin who is not willing to listen others. He is not interested in others description of image summary. As User:Rodhullandemu commented it was User:Yamla’s decision. It wasn’t fair use category (please restore & see the description I’d given). The image was taken (scanned) from a newly published booklet called ‘Kauthukakeralam’ a non-notable book. I therefore have chosen Book cover category & uploaded it which means it is a free content from a non-notable, no-copyright mentioned book that is running in test basis. --Crazyguy2050 (talk) 06:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

(←) This part of your comment "The image was taken (scanned) from a newly published booklet called ‘Kauthukakeralam’" basically prevents the image's free use, unless you can prove that the book isn't copyrighted we can't use it as "free". As a matter of fact that would only make it speedy material since its copyright status is unknown. - Caribbean~H.Q. 06:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I am ready to prove it. If you genuinely want it I can send a scanned copy of this nn-book to your email id. Please clarify. One more thing is that, by assuming good faith, my friend who gave me this book said me that it is a new venture. They do not have a web url to prove their status. It is not a regd publishing co. --Crazyguy2050 (talk) 06:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Caribbean H.Q. beat me to it, if you've scanned it from something, it's not fair use. Whether the book is notable or not, it's still a copyvio. If you didn't take the picture or we don't have permission from the person who did, it's non-free. I don't see any problem with the admin's actions. Redrocket (talk) 06:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I scanned it from a non-notable-book that doesn’t have any copyright mentioned. It is not a regd publishing company. It is a new venture by a group of graduates. --Crazyguy2050 (talk) 06:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The presumption here is that there is a copyright until it is expressly given otherwise. You would need to get the graduates to email indicating that they have released the copyright. This is all a huge waste of time. If you really want, Crazy, the two images in the Mammootty link to a guy's Flickr page where he has plenty of pictures of Mammootty all Creative Commons licensed. Any of those will be satisfactory. Jumping through these hoops seems pointless. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I should have probably explained myself better, if the book is copyrighted or not is irrelevant, the fact that its copyright can't be verified does, why? because we can't prove if one of the graduates took the photo or found it somewhere else. - Caribbean~H.Q. 06:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Coz, it is a temporary book. It would soon be disappeared. Take it as a students published temp book. --Crazyguy2050 (talk) 07:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Then the students would have to upload it to wikipedia. Whoever took the picture has to sign off on it, otherwise it's a copyright violation. Redrocket (talk) 07:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Just to expand on the above. It is commonly, and entirely incorrectly assumed, that under U.S. copyright law, copyright only exists if it is expressly claimed (that is, the material contains some notification of who owns the copyright, with the little "circle C" and stuff). This is actually 180 degrees wrong... Under U.S. law, copyright exists from the moment of creation in a reproducable form. Thus, for a photo, once the photo is taken, copyright exists from that moment, and unless otherwise noted, is owned by the person who took the photo. If that person wishes to release the photo into the public domain, or otherwise wishes to liscence it under an alternate liscence, such as GFDL, they may expressly do so. However, if no such statement is made by the material's creator, the conservative legal view is that they still retain the copyright. Moral of the story: If you didn't take the picture, you don't own the copyright and someone else does. Don't upload it. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 12:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Mikkalai is abusing power

He has protected the page Bender, Moldova and got it protected a second time. The correct name of the article was Tighina previously.

Mikkalai abused his powers in previously protecting the page. Refer to the Wikipedia protection policy at Wikipedia:Protection_policy#Move_protection:

"administrators should avoid favoring one name over another, and protection should not be considered an endorsement of the current name."

However Mikkalai has stated on the talk page that: "This is the official name of the city, according to the evidence presented. Period" in order to justify his actions.

There was previously a proposal to move the page, however it ended with no consensus. This definitely doesn't favour either name. He is now going around threatening to block people who change it back to Tighina.

I believe that if he wants to move the page, despite the recent "no consensus" verdict on the move proposal, he should start a proper debate on the talk page rather than act in a way such as that of a dictator with the moral high ground. Rapido (talk) 10:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

• I live for the day that we get a comment about Mikka from someone who was not engaged in edit-warring to promote a particular POV. Let me go and see if the day has arrived... Nope. Copy-paste moves are Bad, ethnic disputes are not best solved by edit warring. Guy (Help!) 12:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Well, if by POV you mean only mainspace-related issues, and not philosophical differences regarding RfA, here's at least one: Mikka can be unfriendly as hell and frequently displays behaviour fully and utterly incompatible with a position of trust in this project. However, I agree that the issue at hand happens to be purely content-related. Dorftrottel (harass) 15:48, April 8, 2008
  • Make that two, I can't disagree with anything Dorftrottel just said. _(1 == 2)^Until 18:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
• Discuss it on the talkpage and come to a consensus on the name according to the best sources available. Moving it back and forth is counter-productive. While I don't necessarily think the protection was good, I'd be in favor of leaving it in place to prevent a move-war from going on. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 14:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

From what I can tell, Mikkalai was asked about the protection, then removed it. Mikkalai then requested protection via RFPP which I granted, as there was an active dispute about the pages title. It is currently protected for about 19 more days. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

With two threads in a row claiming it, "Abuse of Power" is becoming the new "Wikistalking"--do we maybe need to invoke WP:CLINGPEACHES?Gladys J Cortez 17:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Bot policy change proposals

In light of the concerns expressed by the community regarding the current handling of bots and the membership of the Bots Approval Group, members of the BAG are proposing a revised bot policy (with the help of a number of other concerned editors). This proposed wording addresses (a) community selection of BAG members, (b) a process by which the community can arrange for revisiting previous approvals in case of problems and (c) some of the weaker points of current bot policy that have been expressed in the past weeks.

Please read the proposed policy over and feel free to comment on the talk page. — Coren ^(talk) 12:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Mystery category

In editing Portal:Trains today, I noticed a redlink for Category:Pages with too many expensive parser function calls at the bottom. The subpages for this portal, as far as I know, are all on my watchlist, and I don't see any edits to those pages that would have added this category; furthermore, when I go to that category page, Portal:Trains is not listed there. Has any other admin been working on one or more of the higher-level protected templates behind the portals? Slambo (Speak) 12:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

It appears that a change was made to MediaWiki sometime yesterday or today that adds pages to this category if there are more than 100 parser function calls on a page. With the complexity of some infoboxes and succession boxes, it seems that this category will have quite a few more pages in it before the end of the day. I'm updating Portal:Trains to remove the category from that page, but I'm a bit disappointed as the parser functions there were being used to automate many of the updates to the page. Further discussion should take place on WP:VPT. Slambo (Speak) 13:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Can someone see about removing the parser function from {{User5}}? It's apparently transcluded too many times on WP:SSP, causing that page to be in the category. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The template shows a link to a RFCU with the user's name if there is a case page. There are two choices: always show it (as a redlink if it doesn't exist) or never show it. Any preference? --Random832 (contribs) 19:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

When looking for sockpuppets, there should ever only be one case name (hopefully the master). Sometimes there are multiple cases if they were misfiled. I'd suggest taking it out altogether as it was added only recently, although the redlink would not bother me. There are other user templates that link to RFCU. Maybe use one of those for the master and user5 (without RFCU) for the socks. Best to ask at talk:SSP though. Thatcher 20:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

A few fully protected double redirects

Resolved

 – Double redirects fixed 52 Pickup (deal) 14:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Wasn't sure where to post this, so I'll do it here. An administrator should take care of these double-redirects as I wasn't able to fix them due to the pages being fully protected and there were too many of them to post a notice on the respective talk pages. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 14:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm on it. 52 Pickup (deal) 14:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Done. By the way, shouldn't these new CSD templates be protected? 52 Pickup (deal) 14:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I did :D ! Consensus was against protection for all except {{db-meta}}, so I unprotected them. Admittedly, they're not really vandalism targets because the pages they're put on keep getting deleted for some reason... Happy‑melon 19:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. Further to this, any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, "impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict (defined as articles which relate to the events of September 11, broadly interpreted) if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process." The full remedy is located here.

For the Arbitration Committee, Anthøny 15:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

runescape pages

hey im trying to make redirects to runescape plz can you help me, here is list of armas that need making http://runescape.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Ranged_armour ok —Preceding unsigned comment added by Z3Z1AAA (talk • contribs) 16:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

This isn't the right place for this- perhaps try a related WikiProject? However, I personally question the need for all those redirects... Is someone really going to try searching for it, wanting information about Runescape? There are plenty of games that have all sorts of items similar to Runescape. J Milburn (talk) 16:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

hey why are they being deleted?--Z3Z1AAA (talk) 17:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The reason given was R3: redirect from an implausible title. Those redirects are not really needed, make a list instead. --Tone 17:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

what is a implausible title? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Z3Z1AAA (talk • contribs) 17:15, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I've answered your questions on your talk page and on my talk page; you can read the answer in either of those places to save me the effort of typing it in a third place. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

well why does Blackplastic get his redirect name then and like 100 other names? why are you guys picking on me for?17:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Z3Z1AAA (talk • contribs)

They probably still had a redirect because nobody had noticed it. That redirect has now been tagged for deletion as well. --Onorem♠Dil 17:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

what about all the others too??--Z3Z1AAA (talk) 17:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Tag any inappropriate redirects with {{db-r3}} and they'll be dealt with too. _GB^T/C 20:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

there is probably hundreds i gonna make it thousands soon!!--Z3Z1AAA (talk) 21:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Re-do AfD close

Resolved

 – Thanks, Keeper76. GlassCobra 19:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey, will someone re-close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pixelh8? I did it earlier today, but I realized it looked a little off since I was keeping it based on work that I had done, even though the half the votes were to delete. It's a pretty clear keep now that I've made improvements; the two delete votes were from the article's original state, which was poor. Thanks in advance. :) GlassCobra 18:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Business Continuity Maturity Model

The Business Continuity Maturity Model article was deleted a few moments ago after submitting it as an article. This is a open access model and free for public use. Over 40 countries have used this model and it has been viewed by over 3,000 business continuity professionals. Whereas, you currently have the BS2599 listed as an article and the company that promotes this model charges a signficant fee for its usage.

Please reconsider and repost the Business Continuity Maturity Model and delete the BS25999 article. --Dotcomvc (talk) 21:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)