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

Possible block-evading agenda account

Resolved

 – Sock drawer closed again for now Guy (Help!) 10:00, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I've been asked on my talk page to comment on Terrawatt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), a LaRouch WP:SPA which started on a pattern very similar to Masai warrior (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) just three days after that account was blocked and right after the last of several unblock requests was declined. Early contributions indicate that this was not a new user, and the editing pattern seems to fit the usual pattern of pro-LaRouche SPAs as identified by the LaRouche RFAR, and despite the limited history of either there is article cross-correlation. I am minded to simply show this POV-warrior the door, what do others think? Guy (Help!) 18:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The accounts are indistinguishable. They are clearly here for the sole purpose of advancing a fringe POV. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:56, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The complaint to JzG was initiated by John Nevard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who is a real, self-acknowledged sockpuppet.[1] Both he and Will Beback (but mainly Will Beback (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are presently engaged in an edit war over an external link at Lyndon LaRouche, which they want to add in defiance of WP:BLP. Will has been promoting the idea for some time that editors who disagree with him should be banned as socks, evidence or no evidence.[2] As Marvin Diode points out on JzG's talk page,[3] this is a case of attempted Use of administrator tools in disputes. --Terrawatt (talk) 00:41, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

And get a load of this article cross-correlation -- much more interesting than with Masai Warrior. --Terrawatt (talk) 00:45, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Terrawatt, are you saying that all of the blocks of HK's other socks were invalid, that none of the LaRouche accounts have been socks? Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Herschelkrustofsky, Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Herschelkrustofsky. There's a lot of evidence of previous socking in this matter. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:49, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I haven't the faintest idea whether all of the blocks of HK's other socks were invalid. I have noted, however, that you seem to see blocking your opponents in content disputes as a shortcut to dispute resolution. --Terrawatt (talk) 06:13, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Probably not a new user; probably a puppet; Certainly the account is being used to promote an agenda, and it's interfering with others' who are trying to work. Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:57, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

We have previously blocked a number of SPAs related to LaRouche - Terrawatt has previously fallen below the general line of abusiveness under which we've considered doing that, but the last few days have seen a marked uptick in activity and level of problems. I am going to leave a final warning against disruption. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:10, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

This is a content dispute. I see, in addition to Will Beback, Tom Harrison is here. The two of them are long-time allies of former editor Chip Berlet, and staunch supporters of his campaign to use Wikipedia to showcase his non-notable theories and opinions. Tom Harrison is a super-vigilant enforcer of BLP at Chip Berlet, but seems to feel that Lyndon LaRouche is exempt from the BLP policy. If someone asks for enforcement of BLP at Lyndon LaRouche, that's "interfering with others'[sic] who are trying to work." Well, news flash -- the ArbCom says that the BLP policy applies even to LaRouche.[4] Georgewilliamherbert is quick to conclude that the edit war at Lyndon LaRouche is my fault, but under the BLP policy, the burden of proof is on the person who wants to add contentious material. In fact, as someone recently said, It's up to whoever wants to include the material to demonstrate the reliability of the source and the suitability of the material for the biography. Who said that? Well, I'll be damned! It was Tom Harrison![5]

There are proper approaches to disputes of this nature, including mediation and RfCs. However, there are some editors that can't be bothered with conventional dispute resolution, when it seems more expedient to summon a gang of their buddies and lobby for administrative sanctions against their opponents. The last time Will tried this approach, the following, very astute comment was made by DTobias: The meme to the effect that "everybody expressing similar opinions to a banned user should be banned too" came into play frequently in the whole Mantanmoreland vs. WordBomb saga, and one would hope it had been discredited by now. This issue needs to be pursued in a "sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander" manner with no special consideration, pro or con, being given to either side based on their having a more powerful circle of friends here.[6] --Terrawatt (talk) 06:29, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll add that I have already received a threat from Georgewilliamherbert, who finds my recent edits "disruptive."[7] I would like to request that other admins overrule him. WP:BLP is supposed to be one of the major policies here; for example, removal of BLP-violating material is exempt from 3RR. However, I haven't violated 3RR, or any other policy. I simply insist that BLP be enforced at the LaRouche bio, and to call this "disruptive" is a curious perversion of policy.--Terrawatt (talk) 06:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

If I believed that you (or any of the other LaRouche regulars) were Herschelkrustofsky sockpuppets, I would have simply blocked and logged a sockpuppet, as would any of the other administrators involved. HK may well be participating, but I have no current opinion and make no current accusation regarding you or anyone else here. Terrawatt, your disruptive editing is your own account's problem. We already have significant precedent for these articles being under special attention and some special sanctions.

One cannot simply point to the BLP policy to justify deletions. If an administrator makes a BLP determination and deletes, that's one thing, but normal editors cannot violate other Wikipedia policy and then hide under the BLP policy as a shield. Doing so without forming a consensus that there is in fact a BLP violation is disruptive. Doing so eight times, and significant other behavioral disruption, is a disruptive editor. If you continue to try to use that defense, and in particular if you engage in further disruption on the articles or talk pages, there's nothing left between you and a block.

Separately from this, I am considering indefinite protection on the main LaRouche page, as has been applied to the Views of Lyndon LaRouche page. This area continues to be a focused problem for Wikipedia and wider solutions may be necessary. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:11, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

• Terrawatt is doing a great job of convincing me that he is indeed a disruptive single purpose account and likely block-evading sockpuppet. Guy (Help!) 10:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

This entire battle is over this external link, which has been removed 5 times by Terrawatt and restored 8 times by Will Beback. Arguments pro and con may be seen at Talk:Lyndon LaRouche#BLP. Apparently if Terrawatt removes, that's "disruptive editing," whereas if Will Beback restores, that's "others' who are trying to work." Or, going by the article cross-correlation tool, they are the same person, making a total of 13 disputed edits in one week. But no matter how you slice it, these are the only edits Terrawatt has made that can be construed as "disruptive" or "abusive," so this whole thing strikes me as overkill. I might add that JzG/Guy firmly established his partisanship in this issue one year ago[8], and is presently involved in an ArbCom case where he is being warned against "use of administrator privileges in disputes as to which the administrator is, or may reasonably be perceived as being, involved in the underlying dispute." --Marvin Diode (talk) 14:54, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

It only takes one topic / point of disupte and disruption. There's no requirement that someone have caused problems across a wide range of topics or articles. One point argued in a sufficiently disruptive manner is plenty. Also - as has been stated repeatedly - these LaRouche related articles are already under special sanction and special attention. Any editor working on them needs to be aware that there is less rope to hang onesself with on this topic, rather than more. A number of accounts editing these topics have had assumptions of good faith extended to at least the point they would get on other unrelated topics. Terrawatt has exceeded that threshold, on this point, at this time. An agreement to back off and stop disrupting would be helpful and avoid the need for preventive blocks. It's up to Terrawatt. If you value his contributions, it's time to talk to him and try and get him to de-escalate on his side. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Yup, that's how it is when single-purpose accounts pick fights with editors who have a much wider range of interests. Guy (Help!) 17:54, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

All right. I agree to back away from the dispute at Lyndon LaRouche. I would appreciate it if I could get a straight answer to these two questions:

1. Is it the consensus of the people who participate in this noticeboard that the concept of BLP as an official policy is vastly overrated?

2. If not, is there a special caste of editors that possess a sort of "00" license to disregard BLP at their pleasure? If so, membership must be quite a disTINCtion.

Also, I would like it to be known that, all circumstantial evidence to the contrary, I am not Will Beback. --Terrawatt (talk) 05:42, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

You are being excessively provocative. In this case there is legitimate dispute over the significance of the disputed content, and to invoke WP:BLP is not valid in the context of a source wihc has a known and demonstrable authority in respect of the content. Your approach would effectively discount every source critical of LaRouche on the grounds that it is critical, and that is not the purpose of WP:BLP, just as the purpose of Wikipedia is a neutral rather than a sympathetic portrayal of a subject (something with which LaRouche followers ave always had a problem). Guy (Help!) 13:47, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

This is a misreading of the dispute. The use of Berlet as a source is not being contested. What is being contested is the use of his (arguably self-published) website, which contains defamatory material which would never make it past the editorial oversight of a mainstream source. No citation of Berlet in a mainstream source is being challenged. Please read the discussion at Talk:Lyndon LaRouche#BLP. --Marvin Diode (talk) 14:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The only issue in this thread is block evasion. If you'd like to discuss BLP concerns there is a separate noticeboard for that, WP:BLPN. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:54, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll assemble some additional evidence in this matter and post it tomorrow. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be also important to examine the use of the account User:John Nevard as an abusive sock. It is a matter of record that this is a secondary account, and it is presently engaged in edit warring and disruption at Lyndon LaRouche. --Marvin Diode (talk) 14:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

• I've posted a page to gather evidence in this case. Wikipedia:Long term abuse/LaRouche accounts. Another admin, Slimvirgin, had compiled a list of accounts inclusing their times of editing. I've updated it with a graphical timeline. The timeline seems to indicate a pattern of creating new accounts following the blocking of old accounts.
• I'd also like to compare two statements:
  • 1. I am not Herscelkrustofsky. 2. I am involved in an edit dispute wuth SlimVirgin, who has apparently filed a malicious report. Weed Harper Jan 25, 2005 [9]
  • I haven't the faintest idea whether all of the blocks of HK's other socks were invalid. I have noted, however, that you seem to see blocking your opponents in content disputes as a shortcut to dispute resolution. Terrawatt September 16, 2008 [10]
• Sock puppet theater is more amusing when the script is the same over and over again. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:53, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
• PS: I am looking to supplement the evidence with an analysis of the various accounts editing by time of day and day of week. Can anyone suggest a tool or spreadsheet template that would aid that kind of work? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:56, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Fraid not. I imagine Durova might have something of the kind. Planning on doing a few runs of [11] to try and figure out how many persons (or web browsers) are behind the complex. John Nevard (talk) 07:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually that helped. I hadn't see that tool before. It's easier for Excel to parse than the raw contribution list. I dug around in Excel and found some statistical tools that allowed me to count edits per ten-minute increment. That's good enough to correlate users' editing habits. I started with two current LaRouche accounts as a test and posted the result (Image:LaRouche accounts.png). I'll go back and add users to see if the correlation holds. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:28, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've charted some of the most active LaRouche accounts, again at Image:LaRouche accounts.png. It looks to me like there's a strong correlation between the accounts in terms of what time of day they've edited. I challenge anyone to find a difference in their point of view. Occam's razor would indicate these are all one editor. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:38, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

For comparison purposes, could you prepare a similar graphic that compares the editing habits of the Berlet accounts, including Cberlet, Will Beback, Dking, John Nevard and Janeyryan? --Marvin Diode (talk) 20:30, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Those accounts aren't the subject here. If you want to discuss them I suggest you start a separate thread. Can you explain the editing behavior illustrated in these charts? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:41, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I've looked again at the output from "Socktime". [12] Though the chart mentioned above shows that the LaRouche accounts all edit at the same times of day, Socktime shows that they never edit together. The shortest interval between two accounts that I could find was 20 minutes, and it is usually an hour or more. Since they edit in clearly defined spans of time, it seems unlikely that their lack of overlap is random. Rather, it appears to match what would happen if a user were trying to keep several accounts separate, perhaps by using different computers or ISPs. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

•  Confirmed that Terrawatt (talk · contribs · logs · block log) = Buster Capiñoaz (talk · contribs · logs · block log) = Polly Hedra (talk · contribs · logs · block log) = Pop Art Practitioner (talk · contribs · logs · block log) = Anti-Gorgias (talk · contribs · logs · block log)
•  Confirmed that Marvin Diode (talk · contribs · logs · block log) = Niels Gade (talk · contribs · logs · block log) = Dental hygiene dilemna (talk · contribs · logs · block log)
•  Likely that Marvin Diode=Herschelkrustofsky (talk · contribs · logs · block log)
•  Possible that Terawatt=Marvin Diode
• Leatherstocking (talk · contribs · logs · block log) is  Unrelated Jayjg ^(talk) 01:40, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay I have indef blocked Terrawatt (talk · contribs), Buster Capiñoaz (talk · contribs), Polly Hedra (talk · contribs), Pop Art Practitioner (talk · contribs) and tagged them all as being socks of Anti-Gorgias (talk · contribs) (feel free to change the tags). I have also indef blocked Marvin Diode (talk · contribs), Niels Gade (talk · contribs), Dental hygiene dilemna (talk · contribs) and tagged them all as community banned Herschelkrustofsky (talk · contribs). I left Leatherstocking (talk · contribs) unblocked. Tiptoety ^talk 02:22, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Wow, even some sleepers. Thanks everybody for identifying these, tagging and blocking them. Anti-Gorgias was only active a short time, compared to Terrawatt, but it doesn't really matter. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:09, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Tight. Thanks, nice work. John Nevard (talk) 05:20, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I updated the LTA page to split the Marvin Diode socks from the Anti-Gorgias socks. However in charting them I saw that the editing time pattern of the Anti-Gorgias socks is very similar to that of the Marvin Diode socks. Since Checkuser shows that they may be related, since there is a strong correlation in editing time, and since they are acting as very close meat/sock puppets, I'm going to assert that Terrawatt/Anti-Gorgias=Marvin Diode/Herschelkrustofsky. If no one objects I'll change the tags to reflect that. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:11, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• At last. We are well rid of that lot, especially Marvin Diode, who was a pain all down the left side. Guy (Help!) 09:58, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
  • This goes to show that people aren't blocked here because they have an unpopular political belief or get into content disputes. Rather, these accounts were blocked simply because they belong to a banned puppet master. If (when) HK tries to sneak back with a fresh set of socks those will be blocked too. However editors who follow the project's policies and norms are welcome. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:38, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

On.Elpeleg's indefinite block -- review requested

For several days, I have been dealing with a particularly insistent domain-owner demanding to have his domains whitelisted:

• [13] (permalink, now archived)

After being spammed from 2006 through 2008 on this and other wikipedias, web-app.net and related domains were eventually blacklisted on Meta. A number of IPs and user names were used to spam these and to create numerous spam articles. No checkuser was done on these accounts in the past and the domain owner appears to have stuck to his On.Elpeleg account for the last several months making a checkuser investigation futile at this point. The domain-owner is based in Norway according to public domain registration record. While he claims the IPs were not his, they all traceroute to Norway. On.Elpeleg insists all of this has been a plot by his competitors to get his domains blacklisted; while I seriously doubt this I nevertheless have spent many hours trying going thorugh diffs back to 2006.

There were two accounts, Tedcambron and Monty53, which I believe to have been meatpuppets in the past; all the others I'm convinced are classic sockpuppets controlled by On.Elpeleg, formerly Webapp.

After several rounds with this guy, I finally prepared a chronological list of all these accounts' edits as well as a list of his interactions with the community:

• Editors warning one or more of these accounts:
  • Beetstra
  • George
  • cs:User:Japo
  • Jayron32
  • John 3 times
  • JonHarder 2 times
  • JudahBlaze
  • Luna Santin
  • Mike Rosoft 2 times
  • nl:User:MoiraMoira
  • MuZemike
  • Pedro
  • Robertissimo 3 times
  • Sleepyhead81
  • Ultraexactzz
  • Veinor 3 times
  • VoABot II
  • Zoe 2 times

• Admins deleting spam and/or attack pages:
  • Centrx
  • Chairboy
  • Coredesat
  • GlassCobra
  • Hu12
  • Steel
  • Zoe

• Admins blocking (or declining to unblock) one or more of these accounts:
  • FisherQueen
  • Hu12
  • Sandstein
  • Sandstein
  • Slakr
  • Ultraexactzz

• Admins blacklisting or concurring in blacklisting domains:
  • A. B./meta:User:A. B.
  • Beetstra/meta:User:Beetstra
  • Hu12/meta:User:Hu12
  • Ohnoitsjamie

Even if I only look at the On.Elpeleg and Webapp, there's a raft of article spam, incivility, personal attacks, etc. Bootleg Wikipedia IRC logs hosted on a well-known site indicate scurrilous attacks by On.Elpeleg on other editors and admins last May.

When I put it all together and finally saw just what a bane this person had been for our community, I blocked this account indefinitely.

I am bringing this to this noticeboard for others' review. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:49, 17 September 2008 (UTC) (Note:I will be off-line for perhaps a day)

See also: Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Webapp. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:15, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

• I absolutely concur with this block. At this point the spammer has two hopes of getting his site off the list: Bob Hope and no hope. And one of those is dead. Guy (Help!) 11:18, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
• I am going to say this again: There is clear evidence of abuse by a group of accounts. Whether or not On.Elpeleg is or is not one of the older accounts (a checkuser on this and newer accounts may give insight if the editor is using IPs in the same range, but also that is not conclusive), the link got pushed/spammed and hence has a good place on the blacklist (even if it is by others it does prevent further abuse). I suggested the editor to seek expert advice in a wikiproject to see if they deem the link useful, but the editor continues in arguing that the blacklisting was based on false reasons. The account has not produced any reason why the link is of interest to this or any other project. Hence, I concur with this block. (note: The editor is asking for unblock on his talkpage, he still seems to be busy to write his lengthy argument there). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

That fellow certainly sticks to his positions: even when you present him with hard evidence to the contrary, he just keeps saying the same thing. Perhaps he should join one of the electoral campaigns underway in Canada and the U.S. (I leave it to others to speculate which one(s)).--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:59, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse ban. He's too clueless for Wikipedia and an unrepentant spammer. Both unblock requests have been declined. MER-C 12:53, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
• Certainly seems reasonable to me. I can't imagine ever unblocking this user after the completely abhorrent WP:COI going on here. Even if one of the accounts being used was from a competitor, I still believe there's clear evidence that a lot of it was coming from the website itself. It deserves to be blacklisted, and this editor has made his activity on Wikipedia all about the blacklist issue. I don't think any unblock request will ever be plausible after the sockpuppetry and spamming, even if he were to promise to drop this inappropriate activity, which he has not. Mangojuice^talk 12:56, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse block Spamming, incivility, exhausting the community's patience. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:58, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse block and ban. Bearian (talk) 19:56, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

[Baseless allegations of criminal activity removed].

• Um, the link you posted is to a forum with one post, warning without evidence that the IP should be blocked. And the IP in question (67.166.201.11) is a dynamic Comcast IP, so even if a Wikipedia admin has used it, it would've passed on pretty quickly to someone else. Ten out of ten for trying, though. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ Yo Ho Ho And A Bottle Of Rum 12:32, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

More accounts:

• Kaki42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
• 88.90.78.169 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)

Here we go again. Kaki42, who made the post I removed, hasn't been blocked yet. MER-C 12:35, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Kaki42, indeffed. Block evasion. Apply WP:RBI? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:06, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

The discussion on Spam-whitelist was archived [14] --Enric Naval (talk) 14:45, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Nigel McGuinness

Nigel McGuinness has been full protected for an unusually long time now — since June 23. I'd have unprotected, but way back in early December 2007 User:FCYTravis cited OTRS:#2006092210008209. Regrettably, he has been inactive since mid-July, not long after the protection of this article. Would an admin with OTRS access please review the situation and lift the protection to see if the problem has gone away? Thanks, Splash - tk 20:21, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The full protection was because a minority of editors wanted to put Nigel McGuinness's real name into the article (gleaned from private information). The person objected to having his real life name put in the article, and proved that he had not made it public. So, if we can get assurances that there will be no attempts to put the person's real name in the article, I see no reason not to drop the protection. If there are further attempts, then I would support the protection on there indefinitely. SirFozzie (talk) 20:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, we obviously can't 'get' assurances and it'd be better not to go pinging the people in question anyway. We could, though, suck it and see with the oversighters at the ready. Splash - tk 20:33, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I stepped it down to semi-prot, please monitor for above-mentioned issues and other possible WP:BLP concerns. Cirt (talk) 20:39, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Posted a notice to WP:BLPN. Cirt (talk) 21:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Given that none of the other edits revealing his name have been oversighted, I doubt further Oversight is necessary. I suppose there's no harm in me watchlisting it for further eyes on it however. hbdragon88 (talk) 21:53, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposal spam

Wikipedia talk:Notability#Rename proposal; I propose renaming WP:N to something that has less ambiguity with loaded real-world terms (i.e. does not actively give insult to those subjects who are nonetheless unambiguously not suitable encyclopaedic subjects). I hope this is a good idea, the exact title is of course open for deate but I thought Wikipedia:Inclusion guideline. Guy (Help!) 21:34, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

"Guideline"? You're seriously suggesting that one of the major policies we have should become merely advisory? In that case, let the Ten Commandments become the Ten Suggestions. Sorry, but no. --Rodhullandemu 21:39, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Let's keep discussion over at Wikipedia_talk:Notability#Rename_proposal so it's unified. But as far as the name it could just be Wikipedia:Inclusion, which would avoid the problem of "guideline" in the name, if it ever changes to something else. Cirt (talk) 21:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Er, WP:N is already a guideline, as it says on the page ("It is a generally accepted standard that editors should follow, though it should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception"). Black Kite 21:50, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Why do people get so hung-up on these distinctions? Whether it's called a "guideline" or "policy" is irrelevant anyway, since every so-called "rule", no matter what it's called, is indeed merely advisory. Remember, they're merely descriptions of what has been typically done in the past, that need not have any bearing on what we do in the present or future. Community consensus on what is best for the encyclopedia in a given situation trumps every so-called "rule" or "policy" or whatever you want to call it. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 21:59, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

As a point of information, WP:N is tagged {{guideline}} and as far as I know always has been. Guy (Help!) 22:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

You are absolutely right Kurt - however the problem is the phrase "community consensus" which should actually mean a reasonable sample of the community, but which too often is defined by people as "me and some other people who edit in this area, often on an obscure talkpage where little opposition is likely to surface". Black Kite 22:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Accepted, and I have given an initial response on the linked discussion page; the problem I have is that "guidelines" must of necessity here be somewhat flexible, although the same could be said about "policies", although the latter term is a little stronger. Although policies are predicated by historical consensus, there is no central repository of previous decisions such as exists in legal precedent, so the danger is that we are condemned in some ways to continue to repeat the cycle of argument; nothing wrong in that, in a sense, because we are in a continuing situation where precedent is continually open to challenge. But my point was that subprojects have their own policies or guidelines, which tend (as far as I can see) to be largely stable. --Rodhullandemu 22:15, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I would support adding "guideline" to the title per WP:♠ and in (a likely futile) hope that people will stop mistakenly referring to it as policy. Kurt has a point, but "policy" does carry a distinct "obey or get out" connotation, like it or not. — CharlotteWebb 15:24, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

A first-class description of our policy system, Kurt! — Werdna • talk 04:12, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Lynn Forester de Rothschild

Having generated a lot of attention (and amusement) following her endorsement of McCain, Lynn Forester de Rothschild now has a Wikipedia article. Nothing but minor vandalism yet, but it could probably benefit from a few more eyes. Guettarda (talk) 21:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Are we sure that this person passes notability? Serious third party coverage? (Sounds like WP:BLP1E to me). JUst a thought on whether there should be an article at all. SirFozzie (talk) 21:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Hit it up with some tags and made the talk page with {{WikiProject Biography}} and a header. Cheers. lifebaka++ 21:44, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

She's a notable business executive, a Rothschild, and her endorsement of McCain was on (I believe) Anderson Cooper/CNN. Notability is there. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 08:39, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

CSD Template Protections

Hello, all, (and apologies in advance for the wall of text)

Earlier today I fully protected all of the speedy deletion templates ({{db-g1}} and the like) as well as most or all of their template shortcuts (TW hung up on me, so I don't know if I quite got all of them, but these are {{db-nonsense}}, etc.) and also added the main templates (which include all templates listed at Template:Speedy deletion templates and {{db-meta}}) to my cascading subpage for added security. Before doing this, I asked if there was any particular reason they would be unprotected on IRC. User:MZMcBride mentioned a consensus had been previously established on the matter in early 2008 at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 28#Double redirects in speedy templates. I had some reservations about this, as the consensus was rather limited in the number of contributing users and the discussion also focused on other matters unrelated to the protection. I decided to be bold and reinstate protection on these templates when nobody in IRC voiced any particular opinions either for or against protection (therefore, this action is entirely on my own and not a "per IRC" decision). I've had a comment against the protection from Admin Haukurth on my talk page, and therefore am posting here to establish a clearer consensus on a more visible page.

The reasons I protected the pages are as follows:

• WP:PPINDEF states that pages may be permanently protected if they "are very frequently transcluded, such as {{tl}} or {{ambox}}, to prevent vandalism or denial of service attacks." All of these templates are very frequently used, if only briefly, in the process of speedy deletions. While vandalism is not particularly high for any of them, they do qualify as high-risk, and rampant vandalism is (according to previous practice) not a prerequisite for indefinite template protection.
• These templates represent an extension of Wikipedia Policy. As such, edits do not need to be made frequently and anything even potentially controversial should be discussed thoroughly beforehand. Therefore, forcing the use of an {{editprotected}} template is not so great a hassle for these. Other deletion templates, including {{prod}} and {{afd}}, are indefinitely protected as well.
• We are somewhat lucky in that certain vandals have not noticed these templates yet. They should, at the very least, be indefinitely semi-edit and full-move protected for our security. Disruption to these templates has the potential to be very severe and cause a severe administrative backlog once the errors are fixed.

I'd invite everyone to comment on this - the intention of this discussion is to establish if protection is necessary here, and if so, to what extent. If consensus is against the actions I've already taken, I will be happy to undo all of them (I won't ask anyone else to do it, because there are A LOT, full list here). Thanks to all for your time. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:55, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Briefly: 1) I don't see how vandalism of these templates would have severe consequences and 2) most of them have never been vandalized at all. And as a side note I don't really need an 'Admin' before my name, I haven't done much administrator work lately and I probably don't have a good feel for how the trenches look these days. Haukur (talk) 23:04, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

• I don't see a problem with full move protection. I'm ambivalent about the merits of indefinitely semi-protecting all these templates, given their (relatively) low # of transclusions and limited history of vandalism. Protonk (talk) 23:41, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

• Move-vandalism is not really an issue since at worst the correct template will be transcluded via redirect. There is a danger of getting too paranoid about template vandalism. They do need improving from time to time. There is no real high risk involved if these templates are transcluded with vandalism. Any vandalism will appear only briefly on very low profile articles with at least one editor watching the article keenly, and the vandal will be blocked before hitting mainspace. I favour semi-protection as a general principle in the absence of any problems. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 23:46, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

• I don't think we can safely assume that. While all the templates are located at {{db-ENTER CSD HERE}}, most of them were previously known by other names and redirects to them are used at least as often as the "official" titles. For instance, it's much easier for most people to remember {{db-attack}} for attack pages rather than {{db-g10}}, as not everyone knows the CSD themselves very well. So a single move could create a bunch of double redirects, and would break a bunch of transclusions. (I just created {{User:Lifebaka/Sandbox/Blah}} as a redirect to {{db-attack}}, and it doesn't work, so officially tested.) Move protection is good to prevent something that'd be very disruptive, even though it'd likely be caught very quickly. And protection's supposed to be a preventative measure, right? Cheers. lifebaka++ 00:17, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• More to the point, where is the downside here? After all, if anyone desperately needs to propose a change to them, there's always {{editprotected}}. Black Kite 00:28, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• The same could be said of the whole encyclopaedia. More more to the point, the downside to allowing normal editing has not been shown. If anyone needs to change something, desperately or otherwise, they should be allowed to edit it themselves wherever possible. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 01:07, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• The whole encyclopedia isn't used for speedy deletions, which include copyright violations, attack pages, etc. Pages such as these need to be removed quickly, which might not get done if one of these templates gets vandalized and effectively rendered worthless. I won't say exactly how on-wiki, for the sake of WP:BEANS, however it is very possible, and we have vandals clever enough to do it. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 03:59, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• Could you send us e-mail about this scenario? Haukur (talk) 21:01, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• Yes. I'll email any admin or other trusted user. New users and IP editors, sorry, for security reasons, I'd rather not. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 21:12, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for the e-mail, I appreciate it. I don't think the attack you suggest is particularly dangerous and my opinion remains the same. I don't mind move-protection or semi-protection but I'd prefer not to have full protection. That said, it appears that opinion is split among the few people who care about this so I guess your action will stand. Add them to the list, then. Haukur (talk) 21:53, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• (outdent) I'll wait a couple days to make sure - I'm not quite sure there's really any consensus here yet. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:18, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• Just to register an opinion; I'm (very slightly) opposed, mostly just on the general principle that Things-Really-Ought-To-Be-Editable-On-Wiki. But I, like Hakur, don't really plan on doing anything about it; so unless others objects enough to tip consensus to the other side, I expect them to stay protected :-) henrik•talk 22:27, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Is there an actual reason that this happened? These templates are important, but never permanently-transcluded, and never on an important page for any period of time. This action was taken without care, and included the very silly protection of Template:Db-t4 (which should itself be speedied due to lack of consensus or desire for this CSD). Further, while I can agree to semi-protection of these templates, I find full-protection offensive. We are in the middle of discussing a broadening of CSD-G8, but now I can't edit the template. Can it please be explained what threat auto-confirmed editors are to these templates, or why I should need to seek help to adjust a template? I realize that full protection isn't a big deal to admins, but it doesn't affect admins. Please do not permanently-fully-protect things without a very good reason. I shouldn't need to become an administrator just to improve a template. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 01:30, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Beware the AfD closer

Hey, just a quick heads up: it appears the AfD closer tool goes slightly batty after a relist and will sometimes "forget" to actually delete articles, or flat out eat the whole AfD page. I'm not 100% sure about the correlation but it always performs flawlessly until I do a relist (which works fine) then in gets flaky.

Caveat Administrator — Coren ^(talk) 03:10, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I've been having a slight issue of it closing the AfD (when I do delete), but it doesn't indicate it as such. It doesn't delete the article or talk page, so that has to be done manually. seicer | talk | contribs 03:14, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that's one of the things I thought was a symptom; that only ever happens to me after I've attempted a relist. — Coren ^(talk) 03:31, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

If it just hangs, that's probably a server issue. If it fails consistently, its probably an issue with the script. If the server sends bad data, the script should just die or give some sort of error. I could try putting in some slight delays between saves/deletes, if this remains a problem. Doing a relist on one AFD should have no effect on closing another, except for server issues, as Javascript is loaded anew on each page load (though its cached by your browser). There have been a couple fixes in the past week, you could try bypassing your cache of the script to see if that helps. And if there's any errors (reported by the script, or in the Firefox error console), feel free to report them on my talk page. Mr.Z-man 16:44, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

An admin is needed.

See Wikipedia:New_contributors'_help_page#My_article_was_deleted_but_I_could_not_find_it_in_the_deletion_log. - Icewedge (talk) 06:21, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

...to undelete a copyvio article. Until the editor does something to prove that they do actually own the original copyright, we're unlikely to undelete. Point them to WP:COPYVIO, which has, at the bottom, a short list of ways to make the text compatible with Wikipedia. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ has nothing to declare except his jeans 06:53, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Rangeblock question

Hi, an editor has been using the following IP addresses to add nonsense and hoax material to articles relating to the Philippines, and especially Philippino military history. I would like to implement a range block, but would like advice on whether the range of IPs being used is too wide to be blocked before doing so. The IPs and the date they were used (and blocked by me) are as follows. As they almost never use the same IP twice I've been blocking the addresses for only a few days each time.

• 202.37.68.125 (talk · contribs) (19 September - blocked)
• 118.92.225.165 (talk · contribs) (17 September - blocked)
• 118.92.131.99 (talk · contribs) (13 September - blocked)
• 202.37.68.109 (talk · contribs) (12 September, probable)
• 118.92.176.95 (talk · contribs) (29 August - blocked)
• 118.92.139.74 (talk · contribs) (22 August - blocked)
• 202.37.68.120 (talk · contribs) (2 August - blocked)
• 202.37.68.85 (talk · contribs) (12 July - blocked)
• 202.37.68.124 (talk · contribs) (11 July - blocked)
• 118.93.84.47 (talk · contribs) (7 July - blocked)
• 118.92.160.13 (talk · contribs) (2 July)
• 68.89.176.172 (talk · contribs) (30 June, used this IP again for vandalism in early July, blocked 6 July - posted abuse on talk page and block extended for another month, responded by stating that they will continuine vandalism once the block expires [15])
• 118.93.111.221 (talk · contribs) (29 June)
• 118.93.143.205 (talk · contribs) (26 June
• 202.37.68.110 (talk · contribs) (25 June)
• 118.92.107.236 (talk · contribs) (25 June)
• 118.92.229.177 (talk · contribs) (20-21 June)
• 118.92.109.90 (talk · contribs) (5-7 May)
• 203.118.180.86 (talk · contribs) (28-30 April)

As can be seen from the IPs used, it the blocks would need to cover 202.37.68.xxx and/or 118.92.xxx.xxx I don't know much about IPs, but I suspect that 118.92.xxx.xxx would be too broad. Can anyone please advise me on the best way to block this editor? Nick Dowling (talk) 07:47, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

The problem is, there's some very large ranges that would need blocking for a substantial length of time. A quick look shows they would be something like User:202.37.0.0/17, User:118.92.0.0/16, User:118.93.0.0/16 and User:203.118.0.0/16 - That's over 200,000 IP's. I haven't checked to see what other contributions come from these ranges, but I suspect there would be quite a few constructive ones. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 08:41, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

The contributions for these ranges are as follows; 202.37.0.0/16, 118.92.0.0/16, 118.93.0.0/16 and 203.118.0.0/16. There would be too much damage done by blocking them. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 08:50, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Better links: 118.93.0.0/16 118.93.0.0/16 202.37.0.0/16 (if you're an admin, replace uclimit=500 with uclimit=5000 to get a better picture). MER-C 09:34, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks for that advice. Is there anything which can be done to stop this guy? Would a month-long range block which only stops IP editing be too severe? Nick Dowling (talk) 23:25, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

The problem is, then they go undercover and it makes it difficult to spot him - we'd still have to allow account creation to limit the collateral damage given the ranges are so active. At least now it's fairly easy to identify as the IP's are similar. I'd suggest just revert block and ignoring him as much as possible - hopefully he'll get bored in a while. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:29, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Blacklisted article-title

Hi, I have been trying to create an article named Ta' Ħaġrat Temples, but I found that the article cannot be created to prevent abuse. The article in question would be on the megalithic remains found on that site, which is part of the UNESCO World Heritate Site shared-listing found here: Megalithic Temples of Malta. Thanks. Reuv (talk) 08:29, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I've created it (and a couple of redirects), so go ahead and add the article.

What language is the "Ħ" used in, and how often does it come up in names? It might be worth removing from the blacklist. --Carnildo (talk) 08:46, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. The 'Ħ' is a letter of the Maltese language, along with 'Ġ', 'Ż' and 'Ċ'. All of these letters are found in many words of the language, and they are often present in many place-names and surnames. Reuv (talk) 08:58, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I imagine that is was blacklisted because it was used to spell "ĦAGGER", which is a word used by some vandal. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:51, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

please override and redirect

Resolved

A spelling error in the title Long ball (assocation football) should read as Long ball (association football). Please can an admin fix this as the software will not allow me to correct this mistake. --Lucy-marie (talk) 10:01, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Done, and double redirects also sorted. You may want to visit Special:WhatLinksHere/Long ball (association football) and see if the links need to be tidied up to point directly at Long ball (association football). ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ has nothing to declare except his jeans 10:12, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Complaint

Too many people are closing AFDs too fast. By the time I get to them at around 08:00 UTC every day, they're all closed. I like closing AFDs. Stifle (talk) 10:17, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Huh, you think that's bad? I get here of a morning, all ready to go on a deleting spree, and find that somebody has nuked all the CSDs. So I have to fix double redirects instead. It's hardly worth logging in. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ has nothing to declare except his jeans 11:14, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• Arrrr! Hang 'im from the yard-arm, matey! Guy (Help!) 11:19, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• Nothing more boring than a tidily tended en.Wikipedia. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:20, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• I actually think there might be a few IfDs hanging around loose somewhere. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:21, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• AVAST! I found plenty of articles fer delet'n at WP:COIN. Jehochman ^Arrr! 11:22, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• Run out the plank! Keel haul the lot of 'em! Arrrrrr! Guy (Help!) 11:25, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• Yarr, AfD closing blows, so she does. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 11:26, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• Please, head over to WP:PUI. I know that they're (eek) images, but there's a 13 day backlog going. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:28, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• Yarr, ye prisoners are clogging up the brig - space that ye could use to stash rum or treasure. MER-C 12:18, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• Thar be a simple solution, me hearties. Ovar Thanksgiving, thar will be less editors. Arr, then there will be booty and treasure for the takin'... Down the hatch, me hearties. lifebaka++ 15:28, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• Insert pirate joke here. Keeper ǀ 76 15:37, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• Aye, you be a party pooper Keeper, shiver me timbers! seicer | talk | contribs 21:20, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• AVAST! THAR BE DRAMA OFF THE STARBOARD BOW!!!⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defendarrrrrrr} 00:04, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• For those who have zero clue WTF is going on --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:15, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

In honour of the date I propose that we move WP:RFAR to Wikipedia:Requests for Arrrrrbitration. This were Cap'n Fozzie's idea, but it's good one, me hearties. Guy (Help!) 11:34, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Are you not man enough to do it yourself, boldly? Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:36, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I reckon that Guy is a wench in disguise, scared to do it, yarrr! SoWhy 11:44, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for my first belly laugh of the day! WAS 4.250 (talk) 11:41, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah propose we block WAS indef for not speaking like a pirate, arrr. :P weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 11:42, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Tis be a good idea, me heartie! SoWhy 11:44, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Aye, make him walk the plank! Send im to Davy Jones Locker! SirFozzie (talk) 11:48, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Fifteen editors on a dead admin's chest

Yo ho ho and a bottle of rum

Drink and the Arbcom be done for the rest

Yo ho ho and a bottle of rum

The sock was fixed by the bos'n's block

The bos'n' brained with a BLP spike and

Cookey’s throat was marked belike It

Had been gripped by editwarriors ten and

There they lay all good blocked men like

Break o' day in a boozing ken

Yo Ho Ho and a bottle of rum

➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ Yo Ho Ho And A Bottle Of Rum 12:02, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Yarrrr, tis be a saucy song. Me be liking! Grab tis bottle of rum, yer scurvy seadog and together we be plunderin the seven seas, arrr! SoArrr!Why 12:11, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Aye, har is a useful translation tool for all the land lubbers. Ye'll ne'er get me buried booty! Jehochman ^Arrr! 13:54, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Ahoy, I'm at college, and tis' right before my class starts. My teacher just asked e'eryone who has a laptop t' show e'eryone else what we be lookin' at. When it was my turn, I had t' show them this thread. Does mighty chaos strike fear in your heart? Gar, Where can I find a bottle o'rum? J.delanoy^aarghs_{rums downed} 14:03, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Avast there maytey! Hy ye to Oak Island (nod nod wink wink) where the loot of the world be awaitin' yer! Ba hahaha! Gwen Gale (talk) 15:17, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Pirates? Where?!! weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 15:56, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Yarr, it be Talk Like A Pirate Day? 'tis a shame I fergot that entirely, or me messmates in me office would likely've made me walk the plank by now... Tony Seadog arrrrf! 16:27, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oi! You mind! I edit Wikipedia to get away from the sodding Cornish and their bleeding dialect! Proper Pirate ((undercovaaaaar!) 19:01, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I still got me plank ready, though bein' a Kacheek I ain't exactly pant-pissin' terrifyin'... -Jéské ^{(vD_^v Shiver me timbers!)} 19:28, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Thirteen socks in dead man's chest... Yo, Ho, and a Bottle of Rum! Georgewilliamherbyarrrt ^{Speak yer Peace, maties.} 05:27, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Aye, is this some sort o' replacement April Lily-livered rats Day? For people who want t' carry out plank pranks but no longer feel they can do so on April rapscallions Day? :-) No, seriously, not t' be a killjoy, but make suggestions, e'en in a humourous way, and someone will take you up on it and we will have another dispute like that which happened last April Scurvy rapscallions - can't e'en remember what happened with that, but thar war blocks flyin' around. Aye, me parrot concurs. Carcharoth (talk) 07:26, 20 September 2008 (UTC) Yes, I used the translation tool...

Requested move

Hi I would like BC Lions to be moved back to British Columbia Lions. The reason that is User:Hucz is making a problem and is the real person that is causing the vandalism. The real team name is the British Columbia Lions and this team is named after the province. He can shorten it to B.C. Lions in the page when he is talking about the team, but for professionalism the title page should be British Columbia Lions. Also if you check my talk page - he was very rude talking to me and he is the one causing the vandalism. Can you change it back to its original name the British Columbia Lions and lock it until this discussion can be resolved respectfully as I have already informed him in doing so. Just locking it and Hucz telling me that is the name, deal with it - is not the proper and fair dispute resolution. User:Bestghuran 13:28 19 September 2008 (UTC).

This not be the place to bring disputes. Sail over to WP:DR, matey. Down the hatch. lifebaka++ 20:35, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

A user that keeps changing names

We have a user who makes poor edits, faces criticism, leaves, opens a new account, and repeats the process over and over again. This user is on their fifth account by now. Is there anything that we can do about this? --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:29, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Seems like a case for SSP. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 02:31, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

SSP can't enforce anything though IIRC... --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:34, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, no, but it can prove that it's the same user, and take further action as it's needed. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 02:36, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• AL2TB (talk · contribs), Dabby (talk · contribs), Splat5572 (talk · contribs), Must eat worms (talk · contribs), open 4 new accounts. Even if it is not a sock he's just randomly being disruptive. I don't know how many accounts he open so far.--57Freeways 03:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

My suggestion is to file a request at WP:RFCU. This will do two things: 1) Confirm that these are indeed the same user and 2) determine if they are editing from one of two static IPs or a small range of dynamic IPs. Before you do this, be certain that you can demonstrate that there is an obvious pattern of disruption. A cursory glance at the users' contributions does not show much disruption at all. caknuck _° is geared up for football season 05:48, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

It's known that they're the same; the problem is with conduct. I personally don't see it as very disruptive, but he has on occasion been annoying to clean up after (as has Freewayguy, for that matter). It's a decent question in general: can someone restart under a new account and continue making edits that are [annoying/disruptive, pick one]? --NE2 12:47, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Nielson DMCA Takedown

So I get a notification on my watchlist that Template:Miami TV and Template:WPB TV were removed by a bot: "Removing TV region templates per DMCA Takedown Notice from Nielsen Media Research, OTRS ticket #2008091610055854"

Now I may not be an expert an copyright, but my feeling is that this is completely ridiculous. If I remember correctly, all it was were a list of channels in the marketplace. This is common knowledge. Am I missing something here or has Nielsen become very desperate?--JEF (talk) 04:01, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

About to post about this myself. Is there anyway to see what OTRS ticket #2008091610055854 is? I am seriously confused on what the deletions are about and if there is some way around it (removing all Nielsen information, etc). - NeutralHomer • Talk 04:07, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand what the problem is here either. The only thing I see is that the templates contained a link to the Nielsen site. All the information in the template is public knowledge. Did someone actually talk to Mike? KnightLago (talk) 04:11, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the takedown should be submitted to Chilling Effects. BJ^Talk 04:12, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't know how to talk to Mike. I am just trying to find out the reasoning behind it. Because if it is removing market information and Nielsen linkage, we can do that. - NeutralHomer • Talk 04:14, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

The WMF Office was consulted on this matter and per an OTRS ticket indicating a DMCA takedown notice, the content was deleted. The entire categorization schema that was in place was copyrighted by Nielsen and could not be used under our GFDL license. SWATjester or Mike Godwin can probably clarify as they were the ones who handled the matter, but the material should NOT be restore by anyone prior to contacting them. By their nature OTRS tickets are private and cannot be released, but it has been confirmed by WMF staff that the ticket number in question is valid. MBisanz ^talk 04:28, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

See your talk page. - NeutralHomer • Talk 04:33, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

If people are looking for guidance as to how to define TV station areas, Cary Bass from the WMF office produced a copy-vio free version of TV station data at List_of_television_stations_in_North_America_by_media_market#United_States_of_America. MBisanz ^talk 04:45, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Request MBisanz, could you please look at User:Ckatz/US TV templates test and advise me as to if it should go? I had retrieved the contents of the deleted Seattle template before I found this thread; the one I linked to linked is a revised version minus any mention of Nielsen or their "proprietary" term for the Seattle area. Thanks. --Ckatz^chat_spy 04:48, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Before we go nuts and start "rebuilding" all these templates, we need to "rename" all 211 Nielsen Markets with the MSAs and go from there. Do a couple test templates, get Mike in here to "yea" or "nay" them and then go nuts. - NeutralHomer • Talk 04:55, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

As a complete aside, anyone else find it ridiculous that a template that is basically an alphabetical list of stations within a market could even be subject to a DCMA takedown notice? Statistics aren't copyrightable, and that is basically what a list of TV stations in a market defined by the people who measure such things is. Or, at least that would be the case in a sane world... Resolute 05:13, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I do. This is ridiculous. Nielson did not invent the areas that TV channels serve. This stuff existed before them and is common knowledge. It is not like the titles sport any creativity either. This feels like Amazon patenting "one-click" as if they created the idea of clicking on something once to get the desired product.--JEF (talk) 05:15, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

....and the certainly don't control the way we create templates on Wikipedia. They want their linkage off, fine...outside that, this is Wikipedia, not Nielsinpedia. - NeutralHomer • Talk 05:18, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Simple lists of items (in this case, television stations) can not be copyrighted. In fact, you can go to places such as the FCC site and get lists of all stations in a given area (all Florida stations are listed here, and any other list of stations can be found for any state within the US. I'm sure other country governments have similar public lists). Nelson's claim that they own a copyright to the list of stations is absurd (since that's all the navbox template was). Additionally, the Excel file linked to in the template doesn't even have the information contained in the infobox (other than perhaps the market mentioned in the title of the box itself: "Broadcast television in the South Florida (Miami / Fort Lauderdale / Key West) market"). Since that's the only possible claim Nelson has here, I don't see a problem with the templates being recreated if we just don't reference the idiots at Nelson. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:27, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe that in this situation, Nielsen Media Research claims copyright over the concept of the marketplace designation. Sure, the content was a list of television stations, but it was a list of television stations based on a designation set forth by Nielsen. We could, in all theory, recreate similar templates that do not utilize Nielsen's categories and instead the FCC's. Or this could be the lava lamp fiasco all over again.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:06, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

At this point, I got nothing. This whole thing has confused me to no end. - NeutralHomer • Talk 05:41, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

As a note: I was not involved in the removal of the templates. My actions were with the removal of certain content on the List page, and were at Mike's direction. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 06:36, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• Just to reiterate what is said above, this was a DMCA takedown notice, and the action was requested by Mike Godwin, foundation legal counsel, so there's probably no mileage in challenging the basis for it, even if we don't like it we probably can't afford to fight it - and we, as a bunch of barrack-room lawyers should not in any case be second-guessing Mike, who is a pro. Last night there were some comments which violated Godwin's Law, which is kind of ironic, but I don't see any mileage in complaining about it, and Cary's idea of rebuilding on the basis of a source which is in the public domain is the best approach, I think. Assuming good faith here, as we should, it's reasonable to interpret this not as a chilling effect but as the routine protection of intellectual property by a company whose IP is its stock-in-trade. Guy (Help!) 09:54, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

  I'm not a lawyer, but I think the best analogy would be Dewey_Decimal_System#Ownership_and_administration, if the Dewey decimal system of organizing libraries can be copyrighted, I suspect it is very conceivable that the system for classifying TV stations can be and is. MBisanz ^talk 09:59, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, I find it plausible based on numerous examples, but I freely acknowledge that I lack the expertise to judge, so I defer to Mike. It's noticeable that most of the work seems to have been done by one user, and there was some suggestion that this might have been a Primtime sock, I don't know if anything came of that. Guy (Help!) 10:22, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• You'd be surprised what can and cannot be copyrighted. For example, if I run a website dedicated to my favourite English Premier League or Football League football team, I can't have a page listing their upcoming fixtures - or this happens. Black Kite 10:19, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

  I recall hearing of similar takedown threats regarding Australian Rules Football match schedules as well. Perhaps the laws or caselaw are different in Britain and Australia than in the USA; the American precedent (such as the Feist decision regarding telephone directories) is very much in favor of the non-copyrightability of purely factual listings not involving editorial creativity. *Dan T.* (talk) 14:53, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

  • • They've copyrighted the... upcoming game schedule. *facepalm* And we think the American system is overly litigious... Tony Fox (arf!) 19:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll attept to reconstruct what's going on here.

• One of the templates can, for now, be seen at [16]. Its format is:
  • (title) "Broadcast television in the South Florida (Miami / Fort Lauderdale / Key West) market (Nielsen DMA #16)" with links to the metropolitan areas and cities, and an external link to [17]
  • "local stations" sorted by channel number, for example "WPBT 2 (PBS)" with links to WPBT and PBS
  • "digital-only channels" in the same format
  • "local stations in Key West" with the note that "Most of these stations either serve Miami proper, or are repeaters of Miami stations." and the same format
  • "local cable channels" apparently sorted by name
  • links at the bottom to templates for other Florida markets, and to the Bahamas and Cuba
• Nielsen Media Research claims copyright over something here. I don't believe we (on WP:AN) hae been told exactly what they claim copyright over, but I would assume it's the lumping, for example, of Miami, Fort Lauderdale, and Key West into one market. Looking at the FCC list, I see that they do not combine them in this way. However, some of these places are close enough (I think) that there will be interference if, for instance, a Miami company and a Fort Lauderdale company use the same station. I assume this is simply done on a case-by-case basis.

Here's my question: how well-known are the markets? This actually provides a good test case: Nielsen combines Miami, Fort Lauderdale, and Key West, but separates West Palm Beach. On the other hand, the Census Bureau puts Miami, Fort Lauderdale, and West Palm Beach together, but separates Key West. Is it generally known to the TV-watching public that West Palm Beach is a separate market, or is this something that only statisticians care about? If the latter, then there's no reason to use the Nielsen markets.

But if the former, we need to determine exactly what's copyrighted. Presumably I can say what I said above about West Palm Beach being in a separate market. But can this be said on a template? Can we have a template for all three cities (ignoring Key West for now) and a note that Nielsen separates West Palm Beach? I definitely do not understand exactly what is copyrighted here, and I hope someone can explain that. --NE2 11:03, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

There is indeed quite a bit of arbitrariness to the market divisions, when you get to the borderline. I'm a case in point myself... the condo complex in which I live is in Palm Beach County, but it is located right on the side of the canal that divides this county from Broward County; the houses on the other side of the canal are categorized as being in a separate Nielsen market from me. To some extent, there's some actual truth to this separation despite geographical proximity; people on the other side of the county line get a different set of cable channels from people on my side, and that can affect their perception of the world; when I watch the 11:00 news on TV, I see West Palm Beach channels that concentrate on events to the north of me, while people on the other side of the line see Fort Lauderdale channels that talk about events to the south, so there might be very different perceptions of what current events matter based on this arbitrary division. However, people socialize a lot with others who live across the county line; it's not a Berlin Wall. *Dan T.* (talk) 14:45, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Tend to agree with Resolute and NH ... it's pretty well established in American law (and I'm assuming Canadian law as well) that you can't copyright facts. Seems to me based on what has been discussed, this should be the way to go:

• Cull a list of stations that serve a particular metro from the FCC list. We at WP:TVS know what stations are part of what market, so this shouldn't be too much of a hassle.
• Use them to make new, non-copyvio tables along the lines of the Canadian station lists. I'm assuming the Canadian lists are based off the CRTC database, and if they're public domain like U.S. government documents are public domain, there's no issue there.
• Bounce them off Mike to make sure there's there isn't something we don't know about, and we're in business.

It may take a few days, but if Nielsen went berserk over a mere link and the list of market designations, it should be relatively simple. Blueboy96 12:49, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand how this can be allowed. The FCC uses Nielsen rankings in some of its own rules. Would a court uphold the use of such restricted data in FCC rules? (See 47CFR73.622(f)(5)) TripEricson (talk) 21:36, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

The FCC might well have specific permission from Neilsen to use those data in its own works. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:50, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

But how can they enforce their rules? If I run a station and choose not to pay Nielsen (some stations do choose not to), how am I supposed to know what market I am in to abide by FCC decisions? TripEricson (talk) 22:38, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Request for explanation

Office actions are based on policy set by, or consultations with, Wikimedia's legal staff. We here are not qualified to overrule them. It would help if those responsible for the policies or decisions would come here and post an explanation so we don't have to waste our time building templates that get taken down. Jehochman ^Talk 12:59, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Seconded--and I'm speaking as both an admin and a WP:TVS member. If my hunch is right, the only plausible explanation for this is that Nielsen objected to the use of their market designations as the basis of the templates. It should be relatively simple to fix, but is there something at play here that we don't know about? We need some guidance here. Blueboy96 13:10, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• Am I missing something here? I thought there was an explanation? Guy (Help!) 13:41, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Nope, no explanation as of yet. All we know is that Nielsen Media Research requested copyright takedown via OTRS ticket #2008091610055854. We don't know why (although presumably copyright) and what was the problem with it I believe. D.M.N. (talk) 13:45, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
    • In particular, we need to know exactly what they have a problem with. How much can we refer to these designations? --NE2 13:47, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Er, right so the explanation that Nielsen issued a DMCA takedown notice, referenced in the OTRS ticket, is in some what not an explanation? Still not quite getting this one, mate. Guy (Help!) 14:53, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
      • See Rootology's comment below, almost an hour before this non-answer. --NE2 14:57, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
• I think everyone is looking for the specifics of what was asked to be taken down in the DMCA notice, which wouldn't be private, and without which there is no way to work around the problem so the replacement material doesn't just prompt another DMCA notice in a week. rootology (C)(T) 14:06, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
• I have OTRS access, to a fair number of queues. The ticket is said to be otrs:2008091610055854 so I figured I'd go read it and see if I could see what is being asked... either I'm not entering that right or I don't have permission to see it as I get a "No Permission!" warning. ++Lar: t/c 17:54, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

  It got directed over to the legal queue. --CBD 18:18, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

  It is in ::legal. The explanation of DMCA takedown and a ticket number is sufficient explanation. NonvocalScream (talk) 18:22, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

  @NVS: I think you misunderstood why I was trying to read the ticket (and if it's in Legal now, I don't have access to that queue...) It's not because I have any issue with abiding with the notice, or because I'm questioning that it exists or anything like that... I just want to know what it says to tell what it is exactly that has to be removed. A large number of people are wondering the same thing. None of them are saying "who cares"... just "what is it we need to remove so we can do so"... ++Lar: t/c 22:43, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

  It is sufficient explanation for why this action was taken. It is NOT sufficient information to understand what to do going forward. For instance, are the 136 pages still using {{Nielsen}} ok? --CBD 18:30, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

  (EC) It's not really a sufficient explanation, as I mentioned above. People need to know exactly what was infringing material so that the replacement edits don't just invoke a new DMCA next week or next month. It's "legal" isn't sufficient unless the OTRS legal admins want to recreate the new material to replace it themselves. rootology (C)(T) 18:31, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• The explanation is not sufficient because the content creators don't understand what they have done wrong. We need an explanation so that their time won't be wasted by further notices. It is not fair to ask people to throw darts in the dart until they hit the target. Tell us please, specifically, what was the copyright problem with the content, and how can we avoid that in the future. Thanks. Jehochman ^Talk 18:33, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

  Does Mike work weekends (silly question, no lawyer works weekends)? Can someone email or call him and ask him to come over and explain this so we can know what the next step is? - NeutralHomer • Talk 18:35, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• From what I can gather across various discussions - the DMCA notice included at least the use of Nielsen's 'Designated Market Area' (DMA) classification system. As our Media market article says, Nielsen coined the term and holds a trademark on it. The takedown notice may have included more, but I think it is fairly clear that much at least was an issue. Hence the removal of the DMA classifiactions from List of television stations in North America by media market. --CBD 18:49, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

So...could we say "Broadcast Television Stations in New York City" or "Digital Television Stations in Washington, DC" and then create the templates with the same general layout we had before (so they look the same) and just not use any Nielsen terminology? - NeutralHomer • Talk 19:01, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't know. For now I'd say remove anything which is clearly derived from (or directly using) Nielsen's DMAs. Other than that we'll need to wait for more guidance from Mike or someone else in the know. --CBD 19:04, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I've been reading up on Nielsen a bit. They spend alot of money doing research and then sell that data to advertisers and others looking for information on television viewership. Ergo, they'd undoubtedly be concerned if Wikipedia were to make the results of their research available to everyone for free. One aspect of that research is the classification of their DMAs... these are defined based on the amount of viewership various stations get by people in various US counties. I would therefor not be at all surprised if they consider the list of stations they classify as 'within a given DMA' proprietary information. Advertisers looking to get more customers from people in Dubuque are going to want to know which TV stations to buy advertising from. Right now they pay Nielsen to get a list of the top stations. If we copy Nielsen's list or recreate it based on their individual station viewership data and make it available for free they are out of money. If we were to use a different criteria, such as 'stations which can be viewed in a given area' (regardless of how many people actually do so) then I'd think we would be ok... but I am not a lawyer. --CBD 19:19, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

The templates I am familiar with are not based on viewing patterns at all; they are based on channel availability. Recognizing that Miami and Broward County tend to get the same channels is common knowledge...not something that requires research.--JEF (talk) 20:59, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I think we should start rebuilding the templates now. Here's what i think the Phoenix tv template should look like

when it is remade Powergate92 (talk) 19:36, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I still think we should wait, in case there's something going on that we don't know about. Like I said, the only plausible objections I can think of on Nielsen's part are the use of their designations as the basis for the lists. Alternatively, is there any way to cite Nielsen in the templates? Blueboy96 20:42, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I still think we should start rebuilding the templates now. Has long as we don't include a DMA number or a Neilsen link. Powergate92 (talk) 22:04, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

That seems a bad idea to me. Why not wait until it is clarified what is covered by the request? There is no rush ++Lar: t/c 22:43, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I think we all want to get the templates (revised or completely changed) back on the pages as quickly as possible. - NeutralHomer • Talk 22:44, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

disambiguation of Jason Reeves (songwriter) from Jason Reeves (radio Broadcaster)

Resolved

I created the article for "Jason Reeves (songwriter)". The general article "Jason Reeves" already existed -- he's apparently a NZ "radio personality." I renamed the radio personality entry "Jason Reeves (radio broadcaster)" but now a search for "Jason Reeves" still redirects to the older, renamed radio broadcaster page (yes, I understand it's working exactly as intended).

But a search for "Jason Reeves" should lead to a disambiguation page, and while I'm not a dumb guy and have now spent an hour trying to figure it out, I haven't been able to make that happen.

Help? --Thegusdad (talk) 04:44, 20 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thegusdad (talk • contribs) 04:43, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe that wikipedia's searching system operates on a cached version of search results (for performance reasons). The problem will right itself, it will just take a week or two. — ^.^ ^{[citation needed]} 05:52, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Its nothing to do with caching. When you moved the page, a redirect was left at the old title of Jason Reeves. You can edit that redirect to turn it into a disambiguation page. (You will have to click it, which takes you to the radio guy, and then click on the message "(Redirected from Jason Reeves)" at the top of that article to get back to the redirect). See WP:Disambiguation for some hints. It would be nice if you also looked at the pages which link to that article and fix the links to go to the appropriate title.-gadfium 06:40, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• Fixed the dab page. Black Kite 10:26, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Procedural question - admins recovering deleted article content...

...if they are "involved"? What is the policy on this? This is specific to this question here. The Prem Rawat Foundation was deleted through AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Prem Rawat Foundation. I noticed Talk:Prem Rawat/TPRF had been created by User:Jossi, who !voted on the AFD, and is certainly "involved" on any Rawat articles. I moved it over to Jossi's userspace here, as I didn't think it should be over in article or article talk space without having gone through DRV... it was only literally deleted hours ago. It appears that Jossi recovered and re-posted the deleted materials himself outside of user space.

Is this OK? If it is, please just archive this section. I'm not sure what the policy is on using admin tools to recover validly deleted materials and repost them without DRV outside of user space when you're an involved editor as well. Thanks. I left Jossi that note, but I wanted outside eyes here and all that since he and I are arguably involved too deeply right now, with the pending Wheel War arbitration and the evidence I put in against him. I'd rather just leave this for all of you if theres anything or nothing to worry about. rootology (C)(T) 05:45, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd say who the admin is is irrelevant. Re-posting an article deleted at AFD in substantially the same form is not okay, involved admin or not. Userfying a deleted article that doesn't include copyvios, BLP issues, or other problematic content, is fine, involved admin or not (assuming it's not being userfied to just lurk there indefinitely, that is). I'm not sure what Jossi was trying to do in this case; probably best let him explain it. Kudos to you, though, for userfying and asking him rather than just tagging it as a G4, which probably would have been unhelpful. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:51, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd assume it was a mistake. going to echo the praise above about asking/userifying rather than nuking from orbit. Protonk (talk) 06:14, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Ditto. Good move too, since userspace can be used as a holding pen so with Jossi's track record I agf as well. Keegan^talk 07:06, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Note: to comply with Wikipedia's GFDL, the deleted article's history should be merged with Jossi's userfied version, so the contributors to it are properly credited if/when he moves it back to mainspace when he's finished working on it. Steve ^{T • C} 07:47, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely ridiculous. Having material that was deleted in a AfD to a sandbox in article talk page is entirely appropriate as editors may want to use some of the sources in the deleted article, and has nothing to do with DRV procedures. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:57, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

The article was deleted on the grounds of lack of notability, but the material and sources in the article could be useful to expand related articles. We have a dozen or more sandboxes under Talk:Prem Rawat as placeholders for such material, and there is nothing wrong in having that short article and its sources there for consultation by active editors there. Rootology as the nom of this AfD, should know better than raise hackles in this instance, and stop raiding my contrib list. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:07, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Please retract the allegation of stalking, as you might be seen to be harassing me in retaliation for posting evidence against you in RFAR about abuse of your admin tools. We've never, ever had any interatction before all of this. I nominated an article for deletion, which I am allowed to do, as it had virtually no sourcing, and there was--except for one person and a few SPA accounts, nearly unanimous consensus to delete it. I noticed it recreated in a portion of article space several hours later--I had clicked on your contributions after noticing the deletion to see if it had been perhaps DRV'd, which I am allowed to do. I noticed you had recreated it, and on top of that, using your own admin tools out of line as an involved editor, AND you may have violated copyright and GFDL attribution by falsely claiming sole authorship of the article. As a courtesy I moved it to your userspace--I could have G4'd it as someone said and validly had it blown immediately away as a speedy delete, but I didn't as a courtesy and because I'm not a dick. Once I realized this was a little over my head, I asked on AN. Everyone said, "No big, lets move on," until you come here with a false and malicious accusation of stalking. You are out of line, and this is a very sensitive area for me, having been falsely accused of this in the past. Jossi, stop harassing anyone who disagrees with you, and stop using your admin tools in any way in anything you have a COI in, such as being an admitted acolyte of Prem Rawat. rootology (C)(T) 15:10, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I suggest adding the details of this incident to the current Palin ArbCom case and also to the Arb notification board as a possible violation of the Prem Rawat ArbCom case decision. Cla68 (talk) 15:16, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd rather someone else do it. If I'm going to be hit with the usual charges he levels at others that disagree with him now of stalking and harassing him (which applies to most folks that disagree, it seems based on the recent evidence), I'm going in self-imposed hands off from him for a few months at the minimum. I don't need to be harassed, when I have articles to write. rootology (C)(T) 15:20, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm about to board a plane for a 13-hour trip back to my country of residence. Could an uninvolved admin or editor please report this to the Arb enforcement board, including Jossi's personal attack on Rootology? Cla68 (talk) 15:26, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

This seems to fly in the face of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat#Jossi has a self-imposed restriction a bit IMHO. At the time, he vowed not to edit the articles - now he's going as far as re-creating a deleted version of one of them? —Wknight94 (talk) 15:14, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I have deleted the copy of the article, and listed the sources used in that article in a related talk page. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:33, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I've already reported it [18]. Cla68 (talk) 15:42, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Additional question, Jossi = Momento?

Jossi claimed that he was the original author of The Prem Rawat Foundation. How is that? Jossi, are you claiming YOU are the editor Momento (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)? He is the original author, as I just noticed here. rootology (C)(T) 15:26, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Is that enough evidence to support a checkuser request? Cla68 (talk) 15:28, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

You have got to be kidding... By all means do a checkuser if that is what you want to do. LOL! ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:32, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

So were you the original author of The Prem Rawat Foundation as you claimed? That's all I'm asking. rootology (C)(T) 15:34, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I contributed a large amount of the content. If all you wanted was to ask, you could. Instead you make an allegation of Jossi = Momento. You have some chutzpah. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:37, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

No, that's not chutzpah, that's asking why you claimed to be the author who was Momento and not you, broke GFDL and copyright by reposting it with no history using your admin tools if you're not Momento and that's not his original draft, and that's it. Again, I'm done with this, and leave it to others to sort out and post to the various RFARs if required. And please leave me alone and stop lobbing accusations of harassment at anyone who disagrees with you. It's a civility violation. rootology (C)(T) 15:40, 20 September 2008

If I feel harassed, I feel harassed. So please stop this silliness. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:43, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Another silly allegation: I do not need to use my "admin tools" to keep a copy of an article on my file system. See what I mean by feeling harassed by you? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:03, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Everyone needs to slow down here, take a deep breath. Its Saturday. According to the (admin only) [article history], Jossi was a major contributor to the article, (and moved it at one point from Prem Rewat Foundation to The Prem Rewat Foundation. I'd be very hard pressed to conclude that Jossi is under any reasonable suspicion of socking, merely a major contributor to the article. Nothing wrong with having a userfied copy to "prepare" for recreation/DRV. Rootology did the right thing moving it from Talk:Prem... to User:Jossi/Prem..., as is customary for userfied copies. Keeper ǀ 76 15:41, 20 September 2008 (UTC)(UTC)

The article was deleted for failing notability. Jossi restored the material and sources to a sandbox in talk space. Steve's right about the history merge. That's pretty mundane stuff, doesn't violate Jossi's self-imposed restriction as far as I can see, and is something anyone would do on request for an established editor. Moving it to userspace was fine too, though if there's as much enmity as there seems to be it might have been better to ask someone else to do it. Trying to find any wrongdoing in this, let alone justification for a checkuser, seems like a stretch. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:43, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

TV stations incorrectly placed in CAT:CSD (Bug?)

{{LA TV}} and {{PHX TV}} were recently deleted. For some reason, all the pages which had those templates have wound up in CAT:CSD. The problem can be solved by removing the dead redlinked template, one by one, from each article, but there are over a hundred of them. Any ideas here why this happened? Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:17, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Could have something to do with this Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 09:19, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you just want the templates removed? If so that seems like a trivial job I'd be happy to do. EconomicsGuy (talk) 13:18, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

If a page includes a template, the page implicitly includes what the template includes. Therefore, if a template is added to CAT:CSD, any pages using the template also get added to CAT:CSD. If the template is deleted, those pages using the template don't get updated (recached) immediately - they get updated when they are edited, or when the servers get around to them. One thing to do is to edit the pages and remove the link to the deleted template. Gimmetrow 13:25, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:Britney Spears 2008.jpg and a certain editor

If admins could look at the edit history of this image they will see that Ogioh removed a deletion tag without resolving concerns, probably preventing the image from being deleted on the 19th. Ogioh has a terrible history when it comes to images, he has deliberately lied on occasions (see warnings on his talk page), where he uploaded a copyright image, claiming it belonged to his Uncle. When I pointed out the copyright AP symbol in the corner, he cropped the symbol out and claimed it was a T.V. image. He's overdue a block as it is. — Realist² 09:42, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Deleted. It can always be restored if OTRS gets meaningful proof of origin. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:01, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I've looked over User:Ogioh's contribs and left a warning. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:14, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I just had a look at his uploads--all but one of them has been either deleted or flagged for trouble. Is a warning enough at this point? Blueboy96 13:06, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's worrisome but the last upload was 8 days ago. Let's see if the warning gets heeded. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:16, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, been away all day. Thanx for taking care of that, should I report back here if there are most of these problems with Ogioh? — Realist² 17:33, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

The user left a reply to my warning and I've answered with another warning. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:56, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Is this another copyvio? He claims the owner licensed it under Creative Commons. Any way of verifying that? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 21:13, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Wow, it got deleted while I was posting, but he uploaded it after Gale's warning and before he replied to her. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 21:15, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked him indefinitely pending the outcome of this thread. This needs some input, please. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:18, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Picture taken at the MTV Video Music Awards, it seems. No way that image is free. Block endorsed. Blueboy96 21:56, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Request copy of a deleted article

Resolved

If someone would kindly userfy a copy of List of football (soccer) players by nickname that would be grand. I am not intending to re-create it at this time, but I want to cross check it with this so I can start to improve that section. MickMacNee (talk) 13:22, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Done. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 14:48, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks. MickMacNee (talk) 14:59, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

James C. Flood Mansion

Resolved

 – Seems to be corrected now. SoWhy 18:42, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

FYI: I came across the James C. Floord Mansion article on a random search. It appears, at least on my IE browswer, to be full of red error messages. I would fix this myself, but don't know how. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.235.67.132 (talk) 15:23, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Something about the coordinates in the infobox wasn't being correctly handled, but I couldn't figure out what it was; so I deleted them and readded them to the article in a {{coord}} template. You can mark this resolved. Deor (talk) 16:02, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Videos Used As A Reliable Source

Hello. I would like to request clarification on Wikipedia's policy regarding use of videos as a source in articles. I understand that videos can be edited so YouTube.com should not be used to source articles. However, certainly in courtroom settings, videos are used routinely as evidence to convict someone even in a capital offense.

So are there circumstances in which videos are acceptable as a source in Wikipedia articles?

What about a those from site which reliably records entire unedited, television broadcasts?

What about when two or more uneditied amateur videos simultaneously record the same event?

It would seem that direct quotes from a video should be a more reliable account of an event, than someone's necessarily biased interpretation of the same event.

Could someone please clarify the Wikipedia policy, especially in light of the widespread availability of videos on the web? Thanks. Freedom Fan (talk) 21:50, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, we already use videos in articles (such as ejaculation), and if they come from a reliable website, I don't see why not. --Gwib (talk) 21:56, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I think Freedom Fan means as source, not in articles. To answer this: WP:V applies to videos just the same way as it does to text, see also WP:RS. I do not recall that there is ever been a difference based on the way the information is presented on the link that has been given as a source. For example, on Command & Conquer: Red Alert 3 the whole cast section is sourced to a video released by EA[19] and that is just as reliable as if EA had written it down. SoWhy 22:02, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

It's allowed, as long as the video isn't a copyvio (so you can't link to a CNN video on YouTube posted by "Bobby54341" as a source), but you can still cite to a video if the source itself is reliable. So, if CNN said on Anderson Cooper 360 last night that a given breed of ducks are descended from elephants, then you can cite to the broadcast of Anderson Cooper 360 last night without actually linking the video if it's not available, but then you'd have to I'm guessing defend the use if anyone calls you on it. Non-copyvio videos are fine, though. here's an example I used in article. The facts it cites were all stated during the video, which is still available the last time I looked four days ago. rootology (C)(T) 22:14, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• I'm guessing this is being asked because the user is trying to use a video as a source for something contentious, and others are resisting. Asking the question without the background is not good practice, as general advice may well not apply to the specific case. As it happens, Freedom Fan is one of those arguing over the inclusion of contentious material in Alex Jones (radio), noted elsewhere on the admin boards. Int hat case, the video is a primary not a secondary source, so drawing some inferences from it will violate WP:NOR. Guy (Help!) 22:34, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Admin power abuse, illegal activity and sockpuppet- Request for arbitration/action

Concerning admin user page: User:A._B.
Static IP: 67.166.201.11 as confirmed from abuse@comcast.net Carswell Afb, TX, US
Sockpuppet: of Sarah_Palin_protection_wheel_war edit war. As you can see here Special:Contributions/67.166.201.11 vs. TransCanada_Corp.&action=historyTransCanada_Corp.&action=history Scroll down to see his Sockpuppet posting under above ip for Sara Palin edit.
Vindictive act of "ban" (his own words) where "ban" was changed the "block" when everyone forgot the case, just to cover up: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=239821257 revenging for his own "ban" here: http://www.google.com/search?q=67.166.201.11&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&num=100&lr=&as_filetype=&ft=i&as_sitesearch=web-app.net&as_qdr=all&as_rights=&as_occt=any&cr=&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&safe=images
Denial Of Service attacks: stated at above link and would be documented upon demand with server logs arbitration.
Involvement and abuse of admin tools in is personal conflict, he should have handed "the issue" to other admins, while he was shown to fabricate data and requested to correct the data and to apologize, but instead chosen to block the user whom provided proofs for fabrications of data (another issue, which he would most likely stick to now, instead of rather explaining above - offense is "best" defense.).
Thank your for your attention. On behalf of Webapp--Abibi!! (talk) 22:59, 20 September 2008 (UTC)