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

Ethics of banning socks

Now that AWilliamson is community banned as the sockmaster of the Joan of Arc vandal I have a query about whether there's still a conflict of interest reason for me to refrain from banning his sockpuppets. So far I've touched only one: an impersonation account User:Durova. that deleted archive contents of Williamson's prior talk page wars. Some of those socks have been inactive for many months but other suspected socks remain disruptive at Williamson's other interest points: cross-dressing, homosexuality, and Catholicism. In particular I noticed WP:RFCU#CC80 this evening - a declined request whose other named accounts don't look like red flags for Williamson socks to me - but the edit history for CC80 is classic Williamson activity. I've suspected the account of being a sock since September when it edit warred to delete a link from Joan of Arc.[1][2][3] My long investigation probably puts me in the best position to identify his socks - I'd checkuser anything that's dubious. Do I have the community's support to use sysop tools here? Durova^Charge! 05:00, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

There are no conflicts of interest with banned users. There are no conflicts of interest simply because an abusive user declares one. —Centrx→talk • 07:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Then here's my second question: I'd like to notify the relevant Wikiprojects for these other subjects because I suspect he'll attempt to dodge enforcement by hopping between socks and different articles. Those project participants would be more likely to spot that behavior than I would. The only catch is where to send them to report such a complex case. WP:RFI doesn't normally handle sockpuppet investigations. Since I know this case in so much depth, would it be appropriate to refer new reports directly to my user talk?

And BTW I don't think this user has claimed I have a conflict of interest. I want to proceed in a way that proves I've been fair and honest in case some future troublemaker ever tries to claim I acted improperly. Since I do a lot of investigations I field spurious misconduct allegations fairly often. I'm open to recall so I want to cover all my bases. Thanks, Durova^Charge! 14:26, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe the entry at WP:LTA? 68.39.174.238 10:38, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I've updated that in the last day. After giving this a lot of thought and asking for input I've decided to put my name forward as the primary investigating admin (and contact point). By the way, the only Goa Inquisition editor that's been confirmed as a Williamson sock is CC80. Durova^Charge! 14:16, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I see several possible approaches. One, enlist another sysop to take over. Two, enlist a couple of admins to review your work and handle appeals. Three, document the heck out of each action you take - specifically the reasoning behind each action. This leaves the door open for peer review and is probably the most practical. Rklawton 14:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

If any of these suspected socks appeals a ban I'll be ready with evidence, although this user's long and creative career makes it slow reading to even review the documentation, much less replace me (I wouldn't wish this on anyone). I suppose my long hours of work on the case are far from ended. Durova^Charge! 15:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

CC80 (talk · contribs) and socks have been trolling on Goa Inquisition and vandalizing sourced information. They have succeeded in getting a contradictory and jumbled version protected.Bakaman 18:04, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Durova, to respond to your opening post, I agree with Centrx. There's no COI that I can see and I don't think you should be hamstrung by the sock of a community banned vandal. I believe you have the common sense to know when you might be compromised and should step back and ask another admin to act. Sarah Ewart 09:11, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Huge backlog at CAT:CSD

Please fix, lots of admins required. Cheers, Moreschi 21:28, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

There are a lot of images that have been tagged with User:Mecu/nffh this "template." It was created yesterday by Mecu (talk · contribs) and is being added to any personal-type photo, including those used on Wikipedians' user pages. It states that "The given reason is: Unencyclopedic and Wikipedia is not a free file host. The image appears to have no encyclopedic value and is not used on Wikipedia (excluding vandalism)." Is this appropriate or not? This isn't a speedy deletion criteria, so basically, the user has created policy and a matching template for the policy. Metros232 21:41, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

They aren't speedy deletion candidates. The images should be listed on WP:IFD. J Di ^talk 21:44, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Note there is a discussion thread on the image speedy deletion criteria at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Speedy deletion criteria for images?. —Doug Bell ^talk 22:17, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

So what's the appropriate course of action here? Rollback the edits where Mecu added the tags? Metros232 21:49, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Images apart, CSD is still backlogged, guys! Best, Moreschi 22:03, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

When is CSD not backlogged? The name CSD is a lie. Would anybody support a name change? J Di ^talk 22:07, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like the best solution, but look at each edit before you roll them back. J Di ^talk 22:07, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Should we name it "Category for Semi-fast deletion?" :) ---J.S ^(T/C) 01:42, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

What do people want, a decent verification that the CSD justification is valid and a reasonable attempt at avoiding unnecessary or bad-faith deletions, or quick results? Anyone who feels strongly motivated to patrol and reduce CSD backlog should head over to WP:RFA. Guy (Help!) 13:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Should we be deleting Categories from from CAT:CSD which do not appear at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Working#Ready_for_deletion or is appearance on the 'Ready to delete' list a formality that is not necessary? --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 14:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

T'would think that any {{db-author}}ed could be deleted. But other than that, even something {{category redirect}}ed should be aired on WP:CFD by process. Is there anyother speedy criteria which would be okay? // FrankB 16:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair Use image - reproduction

Currently theres a discussion occuring at Image talk:Pitch drop experiment.jpg about whether this image can be used on wikipedia under permission with a fair use claim.

The reason behind saying it cant is that the image can be reasonably reproduced, in this case the experiement has been running for 79 years at the time of the photo 73 years had elapsed. The occurance as photographed happens once somewhere between 8 and 12 years based on previous occurances, next occurance will be between 2008 and 2012 from this experiement.

I'm not looking for comment on the image or its use. What I'm doing is using this example to question the current very narrow definition of "reasonably reproduced" that is resulting in editors running around tagging images without thought as to the practicalities of the reproduction.

I believe that there should be some requirement for the editor claiming it can be reproduce to actually demostrate or provide the reproduction. This is opposed to current situation that enables a person to make such a claim without any need to verify that claim. If editors dispute article text we require them to cite from reliable soures all facts yet we dont have the same requirement when applied to implementation of image copyright policies. Gnangarra 01:43, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

We don't get to choose what is or isn't fair use: courts do that. Our fair use policy reflects our current best estimation of what a court will consider fair use. And the burden of proof is always going to be on the uploader (because they're the person legally responsible) not one someone who questions that. You have to understand that Wikipedia already has the most liberal (indeed, foolhardy) idea of what a court will consider fair use. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 02:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

For the pitch drop experiment we have the specific permission from the author (who is the official keeper of the experiment) to use the image on Wikipedia. For some reason the author does not want to release the image under a free license. It is a typical case of the trade off between the quality of encyclopedia and the freeness of its content, the law has nothing related to it, this is simply the matter of our policies and preferences Alex Bakharev 03:07, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

In this particular case, there is no legal issue because the copyright holder of the image has granted permission for us to use it. The only issue is one of Wikipedia policy. Replaceable fair use policy could allow use-by-permission images that are replaceable or supposedly replaceable, until that replacement is put on Wikipedia. —Centrx→talk • 03:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Finlay McWalter says "Our fair use policy reflects our current best estimation of what a court will consider fair use." It is very very important to understand that this is totally false. Fair use differs from nation to nation and in America is far more liberal than what we allow at wikipedia. Do not treat Wikipedia fair use policy as refecting the law as it does not. Most important, understand most wikipedia talk about fair use is about images while most fair use law concerns text. Also understand that this is not settled law so no one has absolute answers regarding fair use. Even more complicating is that Wikipedia has recently changed from allowing fair use images that help the encyclopedia to not allowing such images if, because of wikipedia's current high profile, we can get the images under a free copyright license like GFDL. This is because Wikipedia is about free as in freedom not just free as in no cost. WAS 4.250 03:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I suspect that McWalter was simply generalising, but WAS' clarification is important to understanding our guidelines. Jkelly 04:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

The specific example is a trigger only and the current example. What I'm asking is when an unsupported statement is made such as this case an editor has claimed a free image can be produced that the person making such a claim should have some onus to support such a claim. We rightly dont accept unsubstanciated claims in articles why should an unsubstanciated claim be aceptiable when implementing policy. Gnangarra 04:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

As has been mentioned above, if one wants to republish unfreely licensed material on Wikimedia servers, the onus is on you to establish that it meets our criteria for doing so. We're going to be conservative about this. If this seems arbitrary or confusing to you, I'm sorry, but there is really no chance that we are going to ask for a citation from a reliable source when an editor expresses concern that a fair use claim isn't compelling. Jkelly 04:57, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Theres nothing confusing about an abitrary decision I'm sorry you cant see that I'm asking how could a policy be implemented when its based on an individuals unsubstanciated claim. I'm then also aking why such a policy exists. When you consider this is a regular occurance maybe the use of 'fair use images should not occur as is the case may other language wikipedia. Gnangarra 05:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

My interpretation is that it is for the party asserting the claim of fair use to present reasonable arguments for why the image is not replaceable (or repeatable), and not the other way around. --Oden 08:49, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Which is a fair assertion but once those assertions have been presented continued arguements should also have some burden of proof requirement, here in lies the issue. Image foo.jpg is being used under fair use editor A come along and says that fair use cant be applied because another image can be created. The uploader responds with the reason as to why it cant be yet editor A still maintains that it can be. Uploader again asserts that it cant and provides additional reasonings as to why, editor A still maintains that it can be quotes FU policy. Editor B agrees with the uploader assertions so questions editor A claim who just again quotes FU policy that a free image could be created. this circle continues. End result is a lot of very heated discussion spilling onto pages of AN, RFC, ARBCOM or even worse outside of wikipedia but provided that editor A is willing to continue quoting FU policy the issue is never resolved. Unlike any other content disputes there is no burden on the person making the accusations that the image doesnt comply with FU policy to support that claim. Normal end result is that the uploader gives up, leaves or reduces future contributions, editor A claims a victory image gets deleted and another article becomes abandoned without further improvement.

So what we have is policy thats damaging wikipedia either it needs to be changed to include a burden of proof on all parties for continued dispute or alternatively the continuation of fair use needs to be terminated. Gnangarra 15:43, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Eh? You could make up a silly scenario like this for any policy on Wikipedia. The point is that once the uploader has provided reasons as to why the image would be irreplaceable, "just continuing to quote policy" will do Editor A no good; if they believe the reasons given are invalid, they should explain why. Now, if the reasons for irreplaceability advanced are clearly not compelling, it is possible that the image will be deleted whether or not A responds; if, on the other hand, the reasons are compelling and A fails to respond with counterarguments but instead just quotes policy, the image will likely be kept. --Robth^Talk 16:51, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

On Image talk:Pitch drop experiment.jpg someone has just pointed to the following pics at Flickr [4], [5], which prove that it is possible for the general public to take pictures of the experiment. Unfortunately these particular images are all rights reserved, so we can't use them either, but as far as I'm concerned they prove conclusively that the image we have is replaceable. —Angr 21:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Unsourced images added by User:Calapez

Calapez has recently uploaded about 600 copyright images with no fair-use rationale or indication of source. As far as I can tell, they are mostly low-resolution logos that would probably pass for fair use as long as the source and a basic rationale are included. But it's probably going to take a long time to sort this all out. I thought I'd bring it to someone's attention here in case there's something that can be done to help. (If these images all came from the same source, then maybe they could be tagged automatically?). I've left a list on his talk page. -- Sakurambo 桜ん坊 17:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Recent events

Recently we have seen MONGO and Seabhcan desysopped, FeloniousMonk "counselled" and I've seen some other issues here and on the mailing lists which give pause for thought. I wonder, do we need to have some place where admins can let off steam and get support without the whole world looking on? I note that the mediation committee have a private mailing list, I wonder if that might be an idea for admins. This is not to allow the cabal to work more effectively in secret, but to give a (hopefully) troll free environment for discussion of issues related to performance of admin duties. Another option is maybe a permanently protected noticeboard. Or maybe it's a crap idea, I don't know. Just thinking out loud, really, mainly because I think we (as admins) should really have been able to stop MONGO going off the rails, and I really feel we failed him. Guy (Help!) 17:49, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

It might not be a horrid idea in theory, but openness is paramount to proceedings here. As a lowly editor, I'd need a lot of convincing that there's a reason admins can discuss things about my class of user in secret. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

From another "lowly editor" - not a bad idea, but unless I'm very much mistaken isn't there already an admin-only IRC channel? People do occasionally need a place to blow off steam, though, which is fair enough and can't really be a bad thing. Best, Moreschi 17:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) ::Sometimes altercations on Wikipedia spill into the 'real world'; if it appears that events might be leading that way, the ability to discuss off-wiki is something that can resolve matters without catastrophic outcomes. If it's just a matter of bad behavior and civility and hot heads that need to cool, that's one thing; but if people are looking for one another in the real world to face off or confront or attacking through family and profession - that's when additional tools and processes are needed to keep things from turning from a simmer to a boil-over. I don't know the details of the desysopping that Guy mentioned above, so I'm not sure if this exact thing happened in those cases or not. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 17:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

The problem with IRC is that it is transient. Mailing lists and Wiki pages can be accessed by multiple people in different time zones (he said from GMT-land). Guy (Help!) 18:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Ooh, someone else on GMT! Rare being! Fair enough. Why not an admin mailing list - particularly given the discouragingly high rate of admin burn-out? Worse than all the junior tennis players I've seen over the years - which is saying something, trust me. Moreschi 18:07, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

An admin mailing list sounds not too bad, as long as it is publically viewable. Otherwise I really dread "It was discussed on the mailing list" kind of decisions. Transparency is important. --Conti|✉ 18:22, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, if you had a mailing list for admins that wasn't public (and if it were public, it wouldn't be a place for "blowing off steam," because it would be just like doing so here), the folks who howl about the "Admin Cabal" will have even more fuel for the fire than they do now. And we definitely don't need to offer up any more ammunition in that department. I admit, it would be great to give the admins a place where they can go off if they need to - but privacy in a project like this is a bit difficult to call for, I think. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with a private forum for admins, we already have an IRC channel. It is okay to talk in private as long as our actions are based on publicly disclosed information. The idea of a noticeboard that anyone can read but only admins can edit is a fine idea, with full transparency. I would love it. Though it's talk page should be unprotected so people can still comment in a non-disruptive manner. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 20:00, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Don't the problems being discussed here affect Admins and non-Admins alike? The distinction is that Admins have additional tools available to them, but the triggers, personalities, experience levels, and consequences for Wikipedia cross the Admin/non-Admin divide. Therefore, shouldn't there be a process for producing private discussions to resolve differences and 'blow off steam' that is accessible to all Wikipedians in some fashion? There isn't any need to create an Admin-only communications channel, because often the circumstances that Admins find themselves in that lead to explosive decompression involve non-Admins as well as Admins and communications that by definition excludes a party to discussion is not part of the solution, it's part of the problem. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 20:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, don't you have some editors on Wikipedia with whom you feel slightly close and friendly? Like users you have worked well with? You can discuss that on each other's talk pages, e-mail each other, or go onto something like AIM. There are so many options available for everyone. What about Member's Advoctates? There should be a messageboard where people can say anything they want, within reason without having to see it brought up against them. If they break policies dramatically there (like WP:ATTACK they'll be banded from the board... Cbrown1023 20:08, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

The IRC admin channel really isn't that great for what Guy describes anyway... I wouldn't go there for support, for various reasons you'd be more likely to just get frustration and smart remarks. The list would actually have to be active admins only, not friends of admins, people who got de-sysopped, random people the list owners like, etc. However due to the obvious concerns, it might be a good idea to give a few trustworthy non-admins access (or read-only access)... Newyorkbrad, Badlydrawnjeff, Daniel Bryant, I dunno, whoever we could agree upon, to just ensure that the list doesn't get out of hand. --W.marsh 20:13, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah, divide and rule. How will you decide which of us peons are trustworthy? Catchpole 21:00, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

We'll start by not considering anyone who's made comments like you just did. --W.marsh 21:15, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Just yes-men then? Catchpole 21:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Just people who wouldn't make every conversation we tried to have an annoying "admin abuse!!" episode. --W.marsh 21:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

That's a bit strange to say you don't like the current admin channel because of some of the non-admins who are in there, then you go on to list a few non-admins you'd let into your version of the channel that are even more controversial than the non-admins we currently have in there. --Cyde Weys 21:42, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Imagine what he'd say behind closed doors. d:-P --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Ooh-whoo-whoo, a sysopery! An admin hive where we can hatch our evil cabal plans! Me likes...--Kchase T 20:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I suspect that in principle anybody who asked nicely and is a "known face" would be allowed to subscribe (damn, is Newyorkbrad not an admin?), but only verified admins could write (so like a protected talk page). The difference as I see it it is that on Wikipedia you have to abide by various rules; although we can call a spade a spade, asking openly whether X is a spade could be taken as a civility violation, as would saying X is a spade and then having nine others immediately point out the crucial evidence you missed. I don't know, maybe it's a crap idea, but I have the strong feeling there should be at least one place where those of us who do sysoppery can put our feet up and know we won't be bearded by whichever nest of socks we're currently fighting. I keep coming back to the MONGO case, but also various other ArbCom cases, including WebEx and Min Zhu and more. Somewhere there should be a mechanism for finding out that you're going off the rails before the train crashes. It's a half-formed and possibly half-baked idea, which is why I brought it up for discussion. Guy (Help!) 21:08, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Brad has been refusing invitations to be nominated for months, so it is his own damn fault. Dragons flight 21:14, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

No special accommodations for me, please. My declinations have been purely a function of time-on-site and timing and that won't last forever (I won't say more out of respect for the no-advertising-one's-own-RfA norms). The others mentioned above would be strong candidates as well (I know each was unsuccessful once, but some of those issues have faded). Newyorkbrad 21:49, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, issues which relate to how Wikipedia is managed need to be transparent, and at least readable by all, so I am opposed to the creation of a truly private admin mailing list. If you need to blow off steam, people should be encouraged to do that with their friends, but not through a global admin mailing list. By friends, I mean here either real world non-Wiki friends, or by emailing other Wikipedians whom they trust. If someone has been involved in Wikipedia long enough to be an administrator, I would hope that they would have found individuals that they felt they could turn to for help and advice. Dragons flight 21:12, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

• I agree completely with Dragons Flight on this matter. I admit that when I do go into the IRC channel it's to blow off steam, and because I know I can find one or two people whose judgement I trust, and who will be willing to listen. I also find that when I'm idling there I'll be approached, now and then, for the same reason (privately, not in the main channel). This is a useful function, but it shouldn't be formalized. As always, of course, this doesn't take the place of official discussion and any action taken on-wiki you should be capable of justifying on-wiki. Mackensen (talk) 21:17, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
• We could easily set up a board where all can read but only admins can chat (just keep the page always protected). Transparent, yet with limited access. NoSeptember 21:34, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

That actually would be less useful than a pure admins-only board (not that I am advocating that, I don't really have a view one way or the other). Any concerns that an admin had about "speaking out" would still exist, while at the same time a non-admin use with an issue or a comment would be unable to post it. Newyorkbrad 21:49, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Something like this should have no connection to Wikipedia, or be controlled in any way by the foundation. The way to have this, if it is to be done, is for someone to go do it. Set something up privately and invite whoever you want to join. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Admins are simply people with the extra tools. They're not a social group, nor a legitimate decision-making group inside Wikipedia. Further social segregation of admins (and this mailing list would be that) is not desirable.Zocky | picture popups 21:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Everybody here has the right to talk to each other offline. I don't see any problem with an admin only mailing list. As I said before, decisions on the wiki should still be based on evidence on the wiki. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 21:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm with Zocky on this one. I'm very much against an admin-only mailing list - admins are just people with access to a couple of extra buttons; we're not any better, nor more special, than every other user on Wikipedia, and we should not have a super secret mailing list that only admins can see. If it were visible to everyone else, but only admins could contribute (and by admins I mean current admins), I would be less opposed but still uneasy. The thought of arbitrary 'approved users' being allowed to contribute but not everyone, is an idea even worse than an admin-only mailing list. Either everyone or no one, don't start making subjective distinctions. Proto::► 10:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

An opinion

As someone who has trolled other websites (but not here), been mis-identified as a troll here due to associations elsewhere, and been dealt with in a way that would make a troll weep with joy, maybe my input would be of some help.

I think the problem is the attitude towards trolling: that trolls are "enemies" of Wikipedia. This is something I'm deriving based of one of Kelly Martin's blog posts. People treat them like enemies instead of just "problems", and this is what happens as a result:

1. They are "informed" - YOU ARE A TROLL. This will only make legit editors pissed, and will only give blatant trolls exactly what they're looking for. Any "subtle" troll is only going to rejoice as well, since if they're being subtle, this is going to cause arguments among the labeller and those who disagree.
2. People get angry - seems to be the biggest problem discussed in this thread. Trolls should just be prevented from disruption, people shouldn't get all angry over them. They end up taking it out on each other if they do. I've seen it happen here, livejournal, youtube, etc., and it's only because people get angry over it instead of just being apathetic.
3. People get paranoid about trolls - causing lots of legit editors to get blocked for looking even slightly suspicious. Or if not blocked, yelled at and goaded into getting blocked.

So the problem isn't that trolls can see the discussion - as a wiki, that's just unavoidable - the problem is how it's dealt with IMO. I've been in IRC with numerous Wikipedia trolls of varying degrees and they're not discouraged or stopped by the methods Wikipedia admins use - their eyes light up like it's Christmas, in fact. Stop making a big deal out of "FIGHTING" trolling and just prevent them without recognition. WP:DENY looks awesome for this.

And if Newyorkbrad, Daniel.Bryant, and badlydrawnjeff - all people I've seen in situations I've been involved in or IRC - are so "trusted", why not make them sysops? If I wasn't so unpopular I'd nominate Daniel.Bryant right now. BDJ too if it weren't for certain complications. Milto LOL pia 22:00, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Heh. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:31, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I already nominated Jeff, it didn't go down too well... Guy (Help!) 00:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

That suggestion runs along the lines of my preference for avoiding the t-word. I'm not fond of the idea of formalizing a cabalish chill space, although sometimes I've toyed with the idea of a humor page. If it weren't for WP:DENY I'd start Wikipedia:Dumbest vandals akin to America's Dumbest Criminals for times when I chuckle such as sockpuppets who refer to their blocked sockmasters in the first person and other self-defeating disruption such as this[6] to which I replied with this.[7] Durova^Charge! 00:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd say 80/26 is a very strong showing, especially considering circumstances that bizarrely weren't taken into effect. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Sheesh, it was just an offhand remark about non-admins I find generally trustworthy, I also implied even if this thing did hypothetically happen we'd choose then. I wasn't saying like "here are the 3 greatest non-admins on the server". --W.marsh 00:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

• I've never requested access to the admin IRC channel because I think it is inherently a bad idea... largely due to the same issues Zocky predicts for an admin mailing list above. I also agree that Wikipedia's 'standard response' to problems has gone astray... too often people take pride in 'stomping the vandals and trolls' when they should have been trying to get them to be positive contributors and just blocking them dispassionately when it became clear that wasn't going to happen. A 'place to blow off steam' accepts a priori that it is 'ok' to get steamed in the first place... it shouldn't be. That's what leads to 'meltdowns', 'going off the rails', et cetera... and any sort of 'release valve' for that is going to be a minor stopgap at best. Any time things get above the level of mild annoyance ought to be reason to walk away from that particular issue and do something else. Wikipedia is ridiculously huge. I couldn't do everything I would like to here even if I quit my job and worked on it every waking hour. There is always something else people could be doing instead of digging themselves deeper and deeper into a pit of anger. The idea that someone has to 'stand guard' over an article or subject is a poisonous and destructive one... let it go and there will always be someone else to step in and re-assert balance if need be. --CBD 13:01, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

• General comment, although I don't know which subsection it should go in. Please feel free to move it to the appropriate subsection. I don't have a an experienced admin I can turn to for advice. If pressed, I'd probably ask the person who nominated me. I think some mechanism for asking for Admin advice, even if on a "protected" page (so that only Admins could write), although anyone could read, seems like a good idea. I should add that I seem to be on someone's E-mail list for requested admin actions, and, if asking advice on those, I wouldn't necessarily want his comments to be publically available, as it might be a copyright violation to repost E-mail, so some private channel would be appreciated. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Zocky that the idea of further admin segregation from the community is outrageous and all its supporters should be ashamed of themselves. If the project badly needs anything, it's more transparency rather than another closed chatroom. All sorts of secretive communication channels that are basically untraceable represent the very opposite of what Wikipedia stands for. That IRC has been recurrently turned by admins into a crapfest abounding in incivility, is the perfect illustration of self-destructive potential of any attempt to create an elitist establishment within the community of editors. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 16:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

• It's just hypothetical exploration of an idea, I don't support it so much as I think it should at least be considered. I resent the idea that we should be ashamed of ourselves for having an open discussion, which is the very thing you go on to champion. --W.marsh 16:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Right; whether it is a good idea or not, we might consider why people are considering such a thing. Or maybe it is clear why, in light of some of the comments here. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it couldn't possibly just be a good faith suggestion to improve Wikipedia. We must have been trying to create a cabal and wreck Wikipedia. In light of our comments here, it's clear... --W.marsh 16:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you really need Wikipedia to "blow off steam"? The real world works much better, and no-one can accuse you of cabalism if you just go for a walk in the park every time you start getting pissed off. yandman 16:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

It's funny how this thread is becoming an example of why admins get stressed in the first place. All this "you should be our robotic servents" then accusing us of abuse and cabalism and everything else left and right, then we're the incivil ones and should be ashamed of ourselves once we say anything back. Admins are treated by some as a class lower than regular users... expected to just take endless abuse then go "for a walk in the park" if they don't like it. That's just crap. Go to any other site on the internet and see how much the admins bend over backwards to accomodate troublemakers, you won't find it anywhere but here. wp-en is unique in how extreme its expectations of volunteer admins are. --W.marsh 16:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Um... more light, less heat. Yes, Ghirla's comments were incivil and unhelpful... but that is not a reason to respond in kind or 'spread the joy'. Yandman certainly didn't deserve to have his suggestion be described as "just crap"... personally I rather like walks in the park. We don't have to 'bend over backwards', but we DO have to define a clear line between the "troublemakers" and ourselves... and not joining them in swearing, making broad accusations, and heated blowups is a good start. Ideas about dealing with stress are certainly a good thing to discuss - I just don't happen to agree with this one and think the 'don't let it get to you, work on something else, take a walk in the park' approach has considerably better results. --CBD 17:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I find this comment remarkably incivil and unkind. A "clear line" between troublemakers and admins is impossible to define, because the worst troublemakers are usually admins. On the other hand, the best editors (such as User:Wetman, User:Giano, etc) are usually non-admins. Yes, some admins are getting desysopped, but the process is too slow in my opinion. If more than one thousand admins have got enough energy today, I advise them to deal with an appalling backlog on T:TDYK, rather than discuss for hours where they could chat when they get tired of IRC and mailing list conversations. Thanks, Ghirla ^-трёп- 17:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Case in point... admins are what's wrong with Wikipedia! Down with those people trying to improve the project! Comments like that make me want to stop contributing, or actually become the abusive admin people seem to think all admins are. If you care about Wikipedia you'd stop blathering such tripe. --W.marsh 18:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I find your statement that I'm "blathering tripe" insulting and demand apologies. I don't know anyone who thinks that all admins are abusive. Perhaps you do. Furthermore, your statement above that "all this "you should be our robotic servents" then accusing us of abuse and cabalism and everything else left and right", etc, etc. curiously echo a recent statement on my meta talk page: "my point is that we're editing Wikipedia in our free time, as volunteers, and people really shouldn't be telling us that we have to do anything, taking care of backlogs or not. Nobody pays me to do anything on there, etc". I call this attitude the doctrine of official admin irresponsibility. Since you voluntarily (sic!) assumed the heavy burden of adminship, it is too late to whine that "admins are treated by some as a class lower than regular users". No, they are treated not as "lower" or "higher" (there is no hierarchy in Wikipedia) but as a group of people who volunteered to do more work than mere editors. If you are not up to the task, you should lay down your tools. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 18:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Your attitude sucks and I really hope you don't drive away any good editors with it. Other than that I've concluded I really have nothing to say to you and will just continue to contribute as an admin the way I see fit (which clearly you disaprove of). moving on.... --W.marsh 18:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I take it this is the kind of behaviour that you would hold up as a standard? Broad negative generalizations? Only someone completely ignorant of what administrators actually do could make such a vapid, stupid, empty generalization such as that. Disgusting. Mackensen (talk) 18:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

It is immature to bully a non-admin on admin talk page. It is not the first (or the second) time that I witness such incivil outbursts from you in particular, Mackensen. Such epithets as "stupid" or "disgusting" which you liberally apply to your opponents do nothing to raise your esteem in my eyes. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 18:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

It brings me no pleasure. I welcome you to point out where I've ever bullied anyone, admin or no. I'm telling you bluntly what I think of your remark, and I maintain that I have been no more uncivil than you have. I don't much care what you, Giano, Geogre, or Bishonen thinks of me at this point, and I gave up politely asking for civility some time ago. You make your generalizations about evil administrators just as you like, and I'll continue telling you, in language appropriate to the situation, that I think you're out of line in making such remarks. Mackensen (talk) 18:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd appreciate if you reserve this aggressive manner of discourse for IRC and other secretive channels you so emphatically defend. I will not post on this page after such a storm of insults and ad hominems, so don't bother replying. Bye, Ghirla ^-трёп- 18:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I say nothing in private that I would be unwilling to repeat in public. That I dare to have friends is my own concern. I suppose next I'll find out that I shouldn't discuss Wikipedia with my wife (not that she'd mind)? Mackensen (talk) 19:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

This doesn't seem to be improving things. Implausibly I find myself disagreeing with accusations/insults thrown by both 'sides'. 'Who is being least incivil' isn't a great argument to have. Unless someone thinks there is a chance for real understanding and cooperation arising out of this, maybe it'd be a good idea to drop it. --CBD 18:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I would tend to agree with Mackensen but CBD is basically right... nothing's really going to come out of rehashing the "admins are evil" / "shut yo mouth" debate. But I'm not sure anyone's really expecting anything to come of it... just another episode of the usual venting. Blowing off steam, even. Too bad we don't have somewhere off-wiki to take this! :-) --W.marsh 19:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

There are already far too many people here whose only goal is to become admins (some of them going so far as to state it in public). Creating an exclusive page (on top of the exclusive IRC channel) will only make them even more eager to be "made". yandman 17:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I wonder why they are so eager to suffer abuse as members of the cabal. -- Donald Albury 17:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Probably because they don't realize that actual cabalists spend much of their time fending off legal threats and dealing with other nasty things. Mackensen (talk) 18:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

So this discussion started from a suggestion to help alleviate admin stress before messy things happen. Here are a couple of ideas to help reduce admin burn out from me.

Forced breaks. Make admins down tools say one day in every 14, or after x amount of edits, or if they have been online for more than 6 hours at a stretch. The actual limits are obviously debatable.

A buddy system - assign new admins a mentor who they can confer with, being in the same time zone may help.

Don't feel you have to respond to every request. Being an admin doesn't mean you have to have the last word.

Thoughts? Catchpole 18:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I like the general concepts of admins (and users in general) taking breaks from stressful stuff... especially if they are given options for other things to work on during their 'break'. Admin coordination/partnerting, through 'buddies' or otherwise, would also have several obvious benefits though being susceptible to accusations of 'cabalism'. Right now we tend to be 'lone wolves' until a dispute arises and then we get together to ponder it. Having more developed systems for 'handoff' of issues when there are potential conflicts of interest might be beneficial. --CBD 18:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I think mentoring would be an interesting idea to explore. But that asks a lot of the mentors. Still, it would have been interesting if an admin I'd respected at the time I became an admin had mentored me... it took me a while to really venture into certain areas of adminship. I notice a lot of new admins are much more bold than I was though. --W.marsh 19:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

How about the idea of stressing to admins that getting the balance right is important. Do boring housekeeping admin tasks when other admin tasks are too stressful. Do self-reviews where you examine your behaviour in a stressful situation and think what to do next time this sort of thing happens. And if things are getting stressful, don't speed up. Instead, slow down and be more thoughtful, not less. Knowing when to stop, when to cancel the comment you've just written, when to sleep on something and deal with it in the morning, is the most helpful attribute an admin can have. Not all admins can be like that, but they can try and learn from what they have done in the past. Some of the contributors to this thread could look back here in a few days time and review how they acted, for example. Carcharoth 01:04, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

A little less drama from all sides would be helpful. And Ghirla does have a point - we're all admins because we volunteered to take on the extra tools. With power comes responsibility and, one would hope, maturity. If you can't take the occasional sniping without getting upset, then you probably shouldn't be trusted with the extra tools, let alone fending off legal threats. Zocky | picture popups 19:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

• I guess I should be de-sysopped then. The constant bickering about "admin abuse" is annoying. I'm all for being held accountable, but people saying that admins are the biggest troublemakers on Wikipedia is just very insulting. --W.marsh 19:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

A gap in classes?

I think we need to fight any kind of additional social gap between Admin and Non-Admin. Creating any-kind of "special" space for admins widens the gap further. A wide gap can cause a large number of unintended negative consequences.

These tools we have... delete/block/protect... are tools that in a perfect world everyone should have. It's not intended to be a status symbol and should never be treated that way. ---J.S ^(T/C) 19:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

On the other hand, this 'the admin cabal is evil' attitude coming from some quarters perpetuates the perception of a class divide. We are just users, after all, who have been entrusted by the community with some extra tools. We do need to consult with each on the appropriateness of the use of those tools in specific situations but does not mean we are conspiring or forming a cabal. -- Donald Albury 22:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Any group of users are welcome to talk privately. This is not a class issue because non-admins are also welcome to pursue private channels of communication. As for accusations of cabals, don't let them worry you as they will occur no matter what we do hehe. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 22:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I respect JzG immensely, but I think the comment above "mainly because I think we (as admins) should really have been able to stop MONGO going off the rails, and I really feel we failed him" shows that at a subconscious level there is a class-divide. Don't get me wrong, I don't have issue with JzG's comment or the intent. I just think thier is a trend towards two separate communities. It's certainly not at a critical point, but it's something to be concerned about and keep in mind for the future. ---J.S ^(T/C) 00:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Oppose with wanton penguin lust. The existing IRC channel is at the best of times Romulus to #wikipedia's Remus and at the worst of time it is Jeckyll to Wikipedia's Hyde. Bitter, spitefull, and unaccountable. I cannot image any good coming of further accentuating the divide between the hoi and the polloi. - brenneman 10:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The desysopping of MONGO

Isn't it normal practice, if not policy, for the closings of RfAs to be reported here? Should I be reading some sinister reasons into it not having been done in this case? User:Zoe|(talk) 20:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Huh? It's a couple of sections above this one. --Conti|✉ 20:32, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit-conflict] Conti beat me to it, but it is right above. Prodego ^talk 20:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

what's the hell is desysopping? (My dictionaries do not have this word; I think it is a spelling mistake?) I wish to know what happened? -- ALM 20:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

It's a wikipedia-ism for the most part, although sysop is a longstanding computer term, see the jargon file I suppose. "To Sysop" is to give someone administrator access, which means adding a +sysop flag. So "To de-sysop" (or just desysop) is to remove that access. --W.marsh 20:42, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

"Desysopping" =no longer one of the Wikipedia:Administrators. -- Infrogmation 20:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

When I was newish it took me a few days to figure out that "sysop" is a synonym for "administrator" here. See WP:ADMIN. Newyorkbrad 20:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I apologize. Somehow I missed it while looking thru the Table of Contents. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Understandable, if you were looking for "MONGO", because the case is captioned after Seabhcan. Newyorkbrad 20:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, as I write, both are technically still admins (MONGO, Seabhcan). As far as I can tell, no (legitimate) request has been made on m:Requests for permissions. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 21:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

They have been desysopped for about 22 hours now, the notice went striaght into the Permissions archive. NoSeptember 21:17, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

How come it doesn't show up in the rights log? Database lag? -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 21:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Steward actions are recorded in the Meta rights log e.g. [8]. Dragons flight 21:24, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

It's there. NoSeptember 21:26, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I am not an admin anymore...my last admin action was a speedy deletion[9]--MONGO 21:49, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Would you like me to block anybody for you, dear? Bishonen | talk 21:57, 17 December 2006 (UTC).

Anybody I can have a word with, MONGO? Which way Tokyo? Bishzilla | grrrr! 22:00, 17 December 2006 (UTC).

A little AfD help, please.

A recently new Wikipedian (User:Davnel03) has decided to close some AfD topics despite not being an admin and replaced the articles which have unanimous delete results with the deletedarticle template. I've now told him about how the AfD system works and he's ok with this but I would please like a admin to help clean this mess up. Here are the articles affected by this:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tribute to the Troops
  • WWE Tribute to the Troops
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RAW is Owen (2nd nomination)
  • RAW is Owen
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WWE Global Warming Tour
  • WWE Global Warning Tour
  • UK Rampage
  • First WWF UK Event
  • WWF at Royal Albert Hall

Thanks in advance. --  oakster  TALK  21:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Got it.--Kchase T 21:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Done. --Deskbanana 21:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Thankyou very much. --  oakster  TALK  21:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Where are all the admins tonight?

Speedy deletion isn't working very well tonight. Some blatant attack and nn articles I have speedy-tagged are still awaiting deletion:

• Nob head
• DC Care
• My Case Against God
• American Chronicle

Also the 3RR violation I posted over an hour ago is unresolved - I'm not sure how long that usually takes though. StoptheDatabaseState 00:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The only remaining article of your list above has a {{hangon}} applied, and should go to AfD. Jkelly 00:26, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

More Bobabobabo

I just received an e-mail from Zoe detailing an email that she received from the latest sockpuppet of this banned user who is once again asking that I be blocked. The text is as follows:

> May you please block the User: Ryulong, due to "collateral damage", I 
> recevived a email from Jimbo Wales to email admins to get her blocked. 
> He has recently been emailing threating emails. I emailed him so he 
> could unblock me, but i recevived a email from him.

After which, there is a bastardization of an actual e-mail I sent this user after I found out she registered under "Ryulong" at the Japanese Wikipedia (but thanks to Suisui I have that account now), but with many embelishments. I urge any administrator who receives this e-mail to ignore it, as Zoe had, and simply just block the e-mail from this user who has been harassing me on- and off-wiki now.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 00:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Note that I have blocked the IP 64.111.122.25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) indef as an open proxy on Ryulong's advice (on AIV). I have listed it at WP:OP also to double check. If it turns out not to be one, then anyone feel free to unblock without having to consult me. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 03:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, all that Bobabobabo has been using lately are open proxies because we have blocked her home IP address.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I also received an e-mail containing an attached "message" allegedly sent by Ryulong, which I just ignored because it was so fully out of character. The message which preceded this obscenity-and-Pokemon-riddled document was a plea for me to block Ryulong -- for off-Wiki behavior. I'd forgotten about it until I saw this thread. Don't worry Ryulong, I have no intention of blocking you. :) Antandrus (talk) 05:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I did at one point send an e-mail to this individual at which I was at my breaking point, but it was nothing even close to what she's claiming I've said (I may have dropped the f-word, but not as much as she makes it out to be).—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I have received a number of emails from sockpuppets blocked as a result. They generally claim to be from a school and give me the address of a spam site, alumnidirector.com and an email address there, asking to be unblocked. Eventually one of these people claimed to be home schooled, directly contradicting earlier claims. I denied an unblock to this person, Jessica Johnson (jjohnson97@yahoo.com) given the lying and large number of abusive edits from that address and demanded that she stop emailing me. Note of course that alumnidirector.com is not the web site of a school despite claims to the contrary. --Yamla 19:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, seeing as Yamla has just given out the name of the latest sockpuppet e-mail, here are others that Bobabobabo has used in the past:

• apricetx@lycos.com
• aywanajp@lycos.com

As well as atkinson@alumnidirector.com who claimed to be the principal of the school (while editting under the name Ps3queen).—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

CSD backlog, again

Now up to 306, which strikes me as a bit excessive. --Calton | Talk 07:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair warning - about sixty-five of those are my {{db-web}} tags. I did a run-through of the Category:Website stubs and tagged any that said "It's a website" and nothing more. I skipped (I hope) any that had been to AfD of had any claim to notability, however small.
152.91.9.144 07:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Do we need a report that CSD is backlogged every morning? It's a time zone thing, and usually gets sorted fairly quickly once people wake up. Guy (Help!) 08:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I should note that we have an automated backlog warning system - User:Dragons flight/Category tracker/Summary. It's found on WP:BACK and transcluded by several active editors. (Radiant) 15:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Neil SookDeo

I discussed this with Naconkantari, but this may need a greater audience.

I caught the edits of an IP, 207.69.137.201 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), quoting some strange book as a reference for his edits to various articles. Then we found Neil SookDeo (talk · contribs), the author of the doctoral thesis and book that he is using as a reference. I've tried to undo his edits (all of which were in good faith) per WP:NOR. However, since another user reverted me, I would like to ask if there is an actual conflict of interest with Neil SookDeo here, as all of his contributions are essentially spamming his book (and doctoral thesis).—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Deleted page not appearing in logs?

Dear administrator(s),

A page that I started is no longer there. It was under 'unified performance management'. I have just recreated this page as when I searched for it, it was not found. So I checked the deletion logs and still no trace?

If there is a reason why it was deleted I would appreciate if someone told me why. Also if it was deleted, should it not be coming up in the deletion log?

Thank-you in advance,

perfman

The article is still there: Unified performance management. Viridae^Talk 11:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

It's probably a glitch, the server backend has been having synchronization problems. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-18 11:18Z

On another note, I just added a copyvio tag to the article, it seems to be word-for-word taken from the website associated with it: [11]. Anchoress 11:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Undo?

Eh? --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 10:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

...? Do you have a question? Viridae^Talk 11:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

<Sigh> What the hell is the Undo function (which I have heretofore not seen) supposed to do? Is it an admin function? Then why does it not appear to work? --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 11:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about? CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 11:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

It is a function avaliable to all users that allows you to undo a specific edit of a page without affecting the rest of the page. To be used for past vandalism etc. It does not always work, if the following change was a rollback to a previous version for instance, you cannot undo that edit. Viridae^Talk 11:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Yup. Good for fishing WP:SPA linkspam out of articles, in my experience. Guy (Help!) 12:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I must be missing something. Where is that function? Am I stupid? Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see it either. So you're not the only stupid one, FP - where is this magical new button? Proto::► 14:21, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

On old diff pages e.g. [12], next to the date and time of the newer revision. the wub "?!" 14:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Temporary injunction passed in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Brahma Kumaris

A temporary injunction has been passed in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Brahma Kumaris. All editors listed as a party to this case are banned from editing Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University until the case is settled.

For the Arbitration Committee --Srikeit 11:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

72.177.68.38 email (Titanicprincess)

Just a heads up - got an email from someone saying that 72.177.68.38 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) should be unblocked because it is a school ip, and since I haven't had any contact to my knowledge of the sockusers at this address I assume they are just going down the admin list and emailing them all. Syrthiss 13:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

ARIN Whois [13] says this IP belongs to Road Runner, with a note that says, "Allocations for this OrgID serve Road Runner residential customers out of the Austin, TX and Tampa Bay, FL RDCs." I would say that we need an e-mail from a confirmed administrator at the school before acting on this. -- Donald Albury 14:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I would heavily suggest you don't unblock without considerable evidence. I believe this is User:Bobabobabo [14], [15], [16], [17], and who has a history of stalking User:Ryulong and falsely claiming to represent a school in the past: See User:Bobabobabo. Patstuart^talk|edits 14:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. The email address that Ryulong referred to as having been sent to me above was from Titanicprincess. Ignore and filter any more emails from this spurious account. User:Zoe|(talk) 17:55, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

You may have me confused with someone gullible. ;) Syrthiss 00:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't you guys read? :P—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 00:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Right to vanish?

Cross-posting from my userpage:

Someone is making my life here miserable by claiming to be me and adding nonsense to my user page. I'm tired of this. If it's possible, Please delete my account so that I can just browse as a guest from now on. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sean Canavi (talk • contribs) 15:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC).

This is the first request of this sort that I've received. I've looked around the contribution list and the history of his userpage. I don't see any reason not to grant the request, but I'd like to run this by some more experienced admins before I act. Durova^Charge! 16:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I have accepted such requests, I let them know that it is not reversable, then if they request I delete their talk pages and block the user to prevent possible future misuse. However this is different than invoking the right to vanish(wow it really does sound like a magical spell). HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Of course a talk page should not be deleted if it has information relevent to ongoing issues. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

• This looks like an external battle brought to Wikipedia, but it does seem that User:Sean James Canavi is an impostor and troll, so I will block that account. Guy (Help!) 16:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

• Too late! Donald beat me to it :-) Guy (Help!) 16:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I didn't have to think long about that one. :-) -- Donald Albury 16:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I've also deleted the trolling user's user page, which was an attack page for the subject. -- Renesis (talk) 17:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Accounts cannot be deleted. User and Talk pages can be, but should preferably be blanked and protected so the history is still visible. User:Zoe|(talk) 17:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Better version of Template:Test

I think that this is a better version of Template:Test:

Welcome to Wikipedia. While this may not have been your intent, your recent edits have been unconstructive and have been reverted or removed. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia, or if you simply want to practice editing, please use the sandbox. If you need any assistance, please contact the one who left you this message.--Azer Red Si? 16:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I prefer the current one. The first test message is intended for edits than are (or could be) genuine tests. If someone is trying to make constructive edits and failing, they need to be educated about what they're doing wrong. If someone is trying to be unconstructive, you can jump straight to test2. --Tango 17:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Tango on all points. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

PMA and Block logs

As people may be aware, a recent rfc revealed that PMA was blocking good faith editors who apparently simply had a different political point of view than himself on pages he was monitoring. The rfc led PMA to resign his admin capabilities. However, I am still encountering editors who have been blocked in the past as result of this activity. This editor, Chicocvenancio (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), was blocked by PMA without any legitimate justification at all, during a period of rampant disruption involving a number of PMA's fellow Australian editors and admins. Where users who simply disagreed with one long term, high profile Australian editor were being attacked and blocked etc en masse.

Since User:Chicocvenancio has returned to wikipedia, I spotted the history in the user's block log. And it reveals an unseemly black mark in an innocent editor's record that I don't believe is warranted. Would it be possible for another admin to add a note to the block log of this user, to clarify that the block was in error. Without it, a fellow editor could draw a false conclusion about User:Chicocvenancio and assume that the user had been disruptive in the past. Which is clearly not the case. --Zleitzen 18:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The block log should not be used as a note pad. The user could always create a user subpage with any diffs to exonerating comments by other respected users, and then could refer anyone who may question his block log history in the future to this page. NoSeptember 18:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Is there a way to add a note to the block log, anyway? I guess by blocking him again with the exculpatory explanation in the text and then unblocking him, which seems rather convoluted... it's not like it's going to affect his annual salary review... let him consider it a badge of honor. I suggest also that you award him a Purple Star (it's at Wikipedia:Personal user awards#WikiProject Kindness Campaign and Dispute Resolution and is designed precisely to help take the sting out of this type of situation. Herostratus 18:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks NoSeptember. True. The user could do that, but then most inexperienced users are not aware of what "sub pages", "diffs", etc are. And it seems to be a lot of work for an innocent editor, who likely doesn't even know any other users, to create such an exoneration. I imagined it would be easier if an admin added a futher block with an attached summary "This block was in error". Which would clear the thing up in seconds. I wouldn't consider being blocked and accused of a falsehood a badge of honour, I'd consider it an unsavoury slur.--Zleitzen 18:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that admins don't agree as a group any more than any other random grouping of users. So when one admin adds a note to a log, it is not saying anything other than that particular admin believes what he has written. Exonerating notes in block logs is not a path we want to go down. As for the subpages, if the user is inexperienced in subpages, you can help him out. Only a user who is likely to get involved in edit warring in the future even needs to worry about exoneration at this point, you would be surprised how many good users have inappropriate blocks in their logs, but they get along just fine. NoSeptember 18:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree. A false accusation of being a "sockpuppet" and a "POV pusher" that permanently and publicly stays on a users record without any exoneration at all is problematic regardless of whether one "edit wars" or not. If you receieved an accusation of being a "sockpuppet" and a "POV pusher" on your log, would you let it lie?--Zleitzen 19:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I would let it lie (or create a subpage while it's fresh in my mind, if it were a complicated situation), and I know other users in that situation who have let it lie. A 6+ month old block is not going to be a heavy factor in an admin's decision to block in the future, only current and a recent pattern of behavior would be. People pass RfAs with negative information in their block logs all the time, a simple straightforward explanation is all it takes. Anyway, this user should be pleased to have you in his corner :). NoSeptember 19:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

In February, Giano was blocked by Carnildo for a bunch of things (which was overturned quite rapidly). Later on, another admin instituted a 10-second block to make a note that Carnildo's blcok reason was incorrect. Hbdragon88 21:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, this type of thing is neither uncommon, nor controversial. When a clear breach such this occurs, it is the most effective way of resolving the situation. I am surprised by the resistance above.--Zleitzen 22:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to initiate the novelty of block note wheel warring more than anybody else does, but a case this clear, where the admin was forced to desysop himself for misuse of the block button, should be corrected. I have made a note in Chicocvenancio's log. (The way to do it is to block for one second, please compare this recent thread). Bishonen | talk 22:26, 18 December 2006 (UTC).

Good work Bishonen. I think that is wisest. I will return if - and probably when - I discover more of these incidents, which have entered double figures. Most of these blocks were amended shortly after by the admin or other admins. However, as I have noticed, skeletons keep appearing that went unnoticed at the time.--Zleitzen 22:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

ThisIsHowIDisappear (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

I've indef'ed per WP:USERNAME, WP:POINT and WP:VAND. Comments appreciated. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 18:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see username problems, but it is clearly a vandal only account, good block. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The username (and point) issue: a direct reference to the "right to disappear" and how the user's intent was the opposite. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 19:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it looks like it might be a reference to a My Chemical Romance song. (I support your block anyway) -- Renesis (talk) 19:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I might have bought that if the user vandalized something a bit more resembling that article... ;) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 19:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Another banned User:Irate sock

Someone please block User:84.9.194.195 ASAP. Keeps making personal attacks on my talk page. [18] [19]. Speedy assistance appreciated. MRSC • Talk 19:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Blocked. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 19:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Would you like semi-protection? Durova^Charge! 20:55, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:OfficialPhoto.jpg - Stephen Harper - Copyright conflict -- revert war

This is a photograph of the Prime Minister of Canada. It has been listed since December 13, 2006 and no admin has addressed it. During the time that it has been listed, I have had to engage in several page reverts to keep the image excluded until the copyright can be resolved. Please expedite this review or protect the image page so these conflicting editors cannot continue to remove the copyright notice. Alan.ca 23:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The copyright has been established already. It is currently in the realm of crown copyright, and therefore rightfully ours to use. Permission was given from the copyright holder already. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 23:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Permission is not enough, it needs to be licensed freely per WP:FUC. This man is living and a free image could be reasonably created (FUC #1). Hbdragon88 23:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

See commons:Category:Stephen Harper, and my comment here about this particular image. Jkelly 23:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The House of the Commons is a government organization with permissions held by the public. The problem is that Alan.ca has been perpetrating this edit war over an outdated page because of the basis Herman is supposedly the only copyright holder although I can't find my way to that page from the Parliament's site.

This how I got to Stephen Harper's biography where it clearly states "© House of Commons"

1. Go to http://www.parl.gc.ca/

2. Click your appropriate language

3. Click "Members of Parliament (Current)"

4. Click "Harper, Stephen (Right Hon.)"

OR

1. Go to http://www.parl.gc.ca/

2. Click your appropriate language

3. Click "The Canadian Ministry (Current)"

4. Click "Harper, Stephen (Right Hon.)"

Also there is an email from Stephen Harper's contact email approving of this distribution as well. But Alan.ca is going ahead with no confirmation that this is not acceptable when other people have confirmed that this is acceptable. ViriiK 00:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it couldn't be fair use. However, the PMO wrote that the image is their's and that it is freely-licensed, so it should still be usable unless someone has evidence that the Prime Minister of Canada is lying to us. --Arctic Gnome 00:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Separate issue entirely, if it's on the commons, why is the bulk of the discussion on this image taking place here on en-wiki?—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The image is not on commons. Alan.ca 01:35, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

• Another link with Herman Chung listed as the copyright holder. [Stephen Harper]. This one I acquired by: http://parl.gc.ca, site map, Members of the House of Commons - 39th Parliament, HARPER, Stephen. Alan.ca 01:35, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Alan, we all know that there are old sites that list the image as copyright Mr. Chung. That is not the point. The PMO has specificially said that the image is their's on August 8, 2006 regardless of what some pages on the House of Commons web site said. Do you have any evidence that the Prime Minister was lying to us or that the copyright has changed hands since August 8? --Arctic Gnome 02:22, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

You show me something that demonstrates the PMO owns the copyright for that image and we can start discussing the credibility of your e-mail. As in, Copyright Prime Minister's Office. That second source I included is not out of date, it is the current page for Stephen Harper of the 39th parliament of Canada. Alan.ca 02:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Can we keep this discussion either here or on ANI? If this email could be forwarded to the permissions list, the image can be cleared. – Chacor 02:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The problem is they are getting the release from the Prime Minister's Office, when there are 2 urls that show it belongs to Herman Chung and one that says House of Commons. The PMO is separate from the House of Commons and the 2 Herman Chung references are on the parliamentary web site. I'm new to this kind of dispute, but I would think we would have to see them remove the Herman Chung notice or provide a release from Herman Chung. Additionally, the PMO isn't the right place to contact for a release, it's the House of Commons. I did e-mail them regarding this issue, but I have not received a response yet. I had contacted <infonetATparlDOTgcDOTca> on Dec. 14/06 Alan.ca 02:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

And while this image is on the commons, can we wait for the issue of its true copyright be dealt with before it's deleted from either place?—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Uprotection of many test templates / wikipedia pages

Aaron Brenneman has started an unprotection spree, I'm looking at some of the pages and I have to say, they're vandal magnets and I'm not sure unprotecting them might be a good idea. Just throwing it up for discussion, I think unprotection here is more of a hassle than it's worth. -- Tawker 00:31, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

• See the log here: (link removed) - looks like a man on a mission. Guy (Help!) 00:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
• Looking over the logs, I agree with most of the unprotections. I started forming my thoughts on this issue a while ago at User:Renesis13/sandbox but never got around to finishing. Most of these were protected on a whim at RFPP, without any community input. Aaron's reasoning in the logs ("this should always be subst -> not a high risk template", etc.) is sound and he is doing the community (especially excellent non-admins on the [[WP:UW|User warnings WikiProject) like User:Khukri) a big favor. -- Renesis (talk) 00:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

• I'm not sure why {{IPA}} was unprotected, this template is transcluded on several thousand articles, and is about as "high-risk" as high-risk can get. Especially with the recent rash of <includeonly> vandalism we've been experiencing with our Main Page articles. I have re-enabled protection and am posting my action here for review. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 00:50, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
• I'll agree with Renesis13 that Aaron Brenneman has made a good decision here, and the edit summaries... well, —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SunStar Net (talk • contribs) 00:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC).
• I'll agree with Renesis13 that Aaron Brenneman has made a good decision here. Endorsed! --SunStar Net^talk 00:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Aaron Brenneman, was thier ever a discussion prior to the mass-protection removal? There is some valid concerns over vandalism on many of those templates that you shouldn't ignore.

"No reason to protect - does not appear on articles" - I think that logic is flawed. Expecialy since you said that about Template:IPA - used in more then 1000 articles. ---J.S ^(T/C) 00:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

There was no discussion prior to protecting most of these templates. I agree that some of these need to be reviewed, but I don't start a wheel war or make Aaron Brenneman think I'm wiki-stalking and bad-faith-reverting his changes, so I'll wait for this to play out a little bit more and for him to finish his unprotecting. -- Renesis (talk) 01:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm a little worried about this one too: Template:REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD ---J.S ^(T/C) 00:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Some of the unprotects might have been a good idea, but I'm not sure I like the thought of unprotecting {{unsigned}}. That could do some fairly serious damage. Alphachimp 01:02, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Unsigned should most definitely remain protected... I should say that overall I agree with the unprotections but a few seem to have slipped through. Unsigned is NOT always meant to be substed... see Wikipedia:Subst. -- Renesis (talk) 01:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Isn't this a bit of a case of shoot first and ask questions later? I'm worried then, because any administrator who undoes any of his actions might be accused of wheel warring as soon as it becomes clear that people have a problem with the edits. Whether the community agrees with him or not, it would have been proper to ask for consensus first. -Patstuart^talk|edits 01:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

True, Patstuart, very true. If I was in this situation, I'd try and get consensus before going ahead with such an action. Wheel-warring is unproductive, in my opinion. --SunStar Net^talk 01:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

As I said above to J.smith, some should have been discussed, yes. Others (most) are fine because they were protected on a whim and the reasoning for unprotecting is completely legitimate (the {{test}} templates, for example). I just don't want to start re-protecting in the middle of the wide-spread change unless it's a serious situation, because it may cause hard feelings and the best way to proceed from here is to simply bring the matter to discussion. I don't expect too much irreversible damage from having these unprotected for the next few hours. -- Renesis (talk) 01:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

• In fact, I have made a couple of mistakes here: I did in fct snap at tawker when he reversed two protections, for which I have fully recanted. I was clearly smoking crack with IPA, I looked at it three times and still confused it with Template:IPblock. I'm going to wander off now. And don't hesitate before re-protecting something if you have a good reason: I may be a cranky but I'm a 0RR on admin actions kind of guy.
  brenneman 01:26, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know exactly how quietly I can say this, but the changes seem to have created a list of pages that can now be vandalized. Out of 8 or so I've clicked, I've found 2 or 3 instances of vandalism, some repeating, within the last hour and a half. I removed the original link posted by JzG to obscure this a little bit. -- Renesis (talk) 01:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

• Awww Beans. - brenneman 01:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, Beans indeed ;). Patstuart^talk|edits 02:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with many of these unprotections (particularly for templates not used in article space), though not all of them. But I must quibble I'm afraid with Renesis's statement "Most of these were protected on a whim at RFPP, without any community input." That's the way protection works--we protect if there's a problem, and someone can come along and unprotect, and it's not a big deal. At least, that's the way it should work; if we've gotten so nervous about wheel wars that we're not willing to undo someone else's protection, then that's a problem. I urge any admin who sees something that badly needs protecting to protect it, and similarly to unprotect something that needn't be protected, and if there's a dispute then deal with it. The overwhelming majority of protections and unprotections are not controversial. Chick Bowen 07:29, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the concept behind the unprotection is sound... just gotta be sure people are ready for it:) ---J.S ^(T/C) 08:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I should have been more clear... no community input and no prior problems (I'm referring to the user warning templates). -- Renesis (talk) 08:22, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think we agree about the user warning templates. I'm just talking about the general principle--it was fine to protect them; it was fine to unprotect them: no dispute, no problem. Chick Bowen 08:27, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

True. I think the biggest concern is that when one admin starts to see multiple actions being undone, a wheel war might spring out of a misunderstanding. -- Renesis (talk) 08:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

• I am dissapointed however that Can't sleep, clown will eat me chose to reprotect several without discussion here, on my talk page, or on any template talk page. There's "casual" and there's "bold" but there is also "get bent I'm just going to undo this without comment or discussion." Once it is clear that there is a disagreement over the bast way forward, more talking is better than less. - brenneman 10:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

• Hey Brenneman, {{IPA}} is used on 12,050 articles. You should be apologizing for unprotecting it in the first place, which was obviously the wrong move, not trying to blame CSCWEM. He didn't do anything wrong, and it's funny that you accuse him of reversing without discussion when you are the one who just reversed without discussion on dozens of pages. You have no right to get all bent out of shape when he does exactly the same thing you just did, except on a much smaller scale and for the right reasons. --Cyde Weys 11:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Um apart from IPA, that link only shows protection being restored after the beans discussion above. Catchpole 10:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

This massive, unilateral unprotection of templates is disruptive, and a serious violation of WP:POINT. These templates were properly protected by a large number of administrators per Wikipedia:High-risk templates, which authorizes an exception to the general protection policy, and recommends that heavily used templates be fully protected as a preemptive measure, before any substantial vandalism occurs, due to the severe harm caused by template vandalism. The assertion that template substitution is somehow a panacea that will ward off the evils of template vandalism is quite incorrect -- the danger associated with template vandalism is that a single act of vandalism on a heavily used template will result in a large number of vandalized versions of the template being displayed. This is true even if the templates are substituted -- when a heavily used, substituted template is vandalized, hundreds of vandalized versions of the template may be generated before the damage to the template is repaired. Additionally, because template substitution breaks the link between the original template and the substituted versions, vandalized substitutions of the template will remain after reversion of the vandalism on the template itself, and may be difficult to find and repair. Moreover, when a user applies a substituted template, the text of the template is displayed in the user's contribution history as though they entered it themself. The vandalized text of a template will thus appear as if entered by the users applying the template, and without any indications that a template is being substituted, if the vandal removes comments such as .<!-- Template:Test (first level warning) --> from the template. Vandalism of substituted templates is the only type of vandalism that can be used to falsify users' edit histories, thereby causing immense disruption. I urge administrators to protect the high-risk templates that Aaron Brenneman has taken it upon himself to unilaterally unprotect. John254 11:31, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

John254, you are incorrect about the history of 'high risk templates'. They were not "protected by a large number of administrators", but rather by individual admins acting 'unilaterally'. Often doing so for large swaths of templates at once. This is not "a serious violation of WP:POINT" as you describe, but rather 'an admin doing his job properly'. I've both added and removed templates from that list several times myself... it's called making updates to fit the current situation. If people disagree with some of the actions they can be discussed and reversed if need be. No need for hyperventilating. As to your theory that hundreds of usages of a substituted template might occur before vandalism is repaired... it seems exceedingly doubtful to me. The second someone substitutes a template and gets results different than they expected they are going to correct and/or report it. Maybe a couple people use it without actually looking at the results, but not "hundreds". --CBD 12:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I stand by my claim that these templates were "protected by a large number of administrators", since many different administrators were involved in effectuating these protections. No one administrator protected all of these templates him/herself. When many different administrators act to protect templates, it shows far more consensus than Aaron Brenneman personally unprotecting almost every user talk namespace template that was protected. Moreover, these templates are often applied by automated means, such as vandalproof, so vandalism won't necessarily be detected instantaneously. Users participating in RC patrol generally aren't looking to see if the warning templates have been vandalized, since, until recently, it was essentially impossible to vandalize these templates. Nor should such vigilance be required -- reverting vandalism on articles is a sufficiently difficult task already without worrying about the vandalism warnings themselves being vandalized. A cost-benefits analysis weighs in favor of full protection for these templates: it's far more important to ensure that no one has tampered with these warnings when they are placed on user talk pages than to maximize the editability of the warning templates themselves, which seldom require editing. There was certainly no shortage of administrators willing to edit the warning templates when they were fully protected. John254 12:31, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I expect that the test templates used for vandalism warnings are used without checking by hundreds of people who revert vandalism with automatic tools. (I don't use any automated anti-vandalism tools myself, so correct me if I'm wrong). For this reason, they should probably stay protected. Kusma (討論) 12:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Without commenting on the merits of protecting various templates or not (except to say that I tend to favour protection of high risk templates and would err on the side of caution, that is, keep those puppies protected, er oops, I guess I just did comment on the merits...), I'll just say Aaron acted in accordance with the Bold-Revert-Discuss mantra, as is proper in the general case in my view, although MAYBE a bit over the top in this case? ++Lar: t/c 15:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

AFD December 18 - Dodoria

Would an admin please close the discussion on this - obvious sock-puppet voting, concensus is a speedy keep. I would also ask for some restrictions on users/sock puppets in this bad faith nomination/voting scheme. SkierRMH 02:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Though the AfD has already been closed, in the future, I would recommend providing a link to whatever page you're talking about. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:29, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Midnight Syndicate

A Temporary injunction has been enacted in the above titled arbitration case. Dionyseus (talk · contribs), GuardianZ (talk · contribs), and Skinny McGee (talk · contribs) are placed on standard revert parole until the conclusion of this case. They are restricted to one content revert per page per day each, and may be blocked for 24 hours for each violation. Blocks imposed under this injunction should be listed at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Midnight_Syndicate#Log_of_blocks_and_bans. For the arbitration committee, Thatcher131 03:25, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Small text for anonymous users

For anonymous readers - me, at least - the text of all pages appears very small. Could an admin fix this? Swearing is a sin 03:27, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

This seems to have been an error in the sitenotice, which has been corrected. — Dan | talk 03:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. Titoxd^(?!?) 03:36, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Good catch. To original poster: If you still have a problem, try hitting CTRL + 0 (zero) (if you are using Firefox) or going to View -> Text Size -> Medium if you are using Internet Explorer. -- Renesis (talk) 03:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Cromoser

• Cromoser (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Microcon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I have blocked this account from editing indefinitely as a sock-puppet of User:Microcon. Both have inserted the same linkspam into PIC16x84. For example, compare these edits: [20] & [21]. If anyone thinks I'm out of line, please say so. ---J.S ^(T/C) 03:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks the same to me. Justified block. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 04:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:POTD can be speedied?

The current Pic of the day, Image:LakeEffect-Superior-Michigan-EO.jpg, has a non-commercial use restriction, so it is a speedy deletion candidate on Commons. That said, it is also a speedy deletion candidate here. So, what should we do? Uploading it under fair use would be a pretty flimsy rationale, but uploading it with {{noncommercial}} will cause some sysop here to delete it. It should be deleted eventually, but do we wait until its day on the Main Page is up before doing so? Titoxd^(?!?) 05:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

If it is a non-commercial license then it does not meet featured picture standards and should not be picture of the day, the way I see it. I would go to the next on the list. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 05:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

(ec)It was a mistake to ever chose it as the picture of the day. Non-com is a major problem. ---J.S ^(T/C) 05:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

It was listed as pd-NASA when it was selected, however since then it was determined not to be a NASA image, and not PD. Can we change the POTD? Move on to the next one? People who mirror Wikipedia for profit under GFDL will unwittingly violate the non-commercial license. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 05:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh dear. This is a major problem. I think we have to go to the next one and just leave it for the extra day. We have in fact had unfree pictures on the main page before, if they were the lead image in an article, but as POTD it's not so good. Chick Bowen 06:38, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I was bold and did this. I haven't deleted the image, though, since it's still in use elsewhere, and I'd like someone to check what I did (and also to see if anyone cries bloody murder), since I don't do much POTD stuff normally. Chick Bowen 06:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The confusing thing is that the RSS Feed still talks about the lake effect picture -- at least it does on my personalized Google home page. Can we add a link to this discussion to the picture page? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rpresser (talk • contribs) 15:04, 19 December 2006 (UTC).

Misplaced page

The information for İstemihan Taviloğlu got accidentally placed at Category:Classical music/IstemihanTaviloglu. I'd ask that this page (the latter one, the category) be deleted, as it really doesn't belong there. --Eyrian 08:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

please unblock my account

Someone said on the main page I should post here. Good afternoon. I joined this site two days ago and yesterday my account was blocked forever becuase I tried to help out another person. I was invited to join this site by an old web buddy named Coolcat and he pointed me in the right direction towards a couple of articles and some other users. People then started saying I was another person named Husnock and, in violation of my privacy, conducted an ip address and posted I was living in the UAE. I then went to Husnock's web page and saw some very mean messages towards him by some other people. I responded to one of them and thought it would show up as his name, but my name instead appeared. I was then told that I was permanently banned from this site and my user page was blanked. I'm new to this site, for the most part, so dont know your policies but, hey, that seems really brutal. I was just trying to help this guy out. Please see my account: user:CamelCommodore. If I broke a rule, I'm sorry. I just want a fresh start. Regards- Camel Commo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.42.2.27 (talk • contribs)

Ridiculous. CheckUser is not an invasion of privacy. This guy is either a disruptive sock of Husnock, or a disruptive meatpuppet of the same, or - if the above is true, which I rather doubt - a disruptive meatpuppet of Cool Cat. Either way this troll should stay blocked and requests like this for unblock should be ignored. Moreschi ^Deletion! 10:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I will say that putting the unblock template on your talk page is the way to do it, not posting here. --Woohookitty^(meow) 10:38, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello again. I put the template on my talk page, it was denied. How can I appeal this? I am not a meat or a sock, whatever that means. I do know Coolcat and he told me about Husnock. I was only trying to help but now I can't log on to this site. I am sorry for putting the message on Husnock's page. Can't I at least get a second chance instead of being kicked off this website forever? Please help me, thank you. Regards- Camel Commo

I think that response confirms this person is just here to disrupt - not many innocent blocked newbies would shorten "meatpuppet/sockpuppet" into "meat/sock". – Chacor 10:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

This appears to be a real person and I'm not just saying that because I'm involved. The person sent me two e-mails giving me his real name and e-mail address. He is swearing this is a misunderstanding and is asking to be let back on the site. See my edit here [22]. I feel bad about this as this person has been banned from Wikipedia becuase of me. I've caused enough trouble and this is unfair to this man. Also, lets us assume good faith, here. I recommend clearing this block and giving him a second chance. -Husnock 15:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I was going to hold my tongue but this is pretty pathetic stuff - AGF does not mean that we are required to remove our brains. It's you, it's always been you - all those tales of mysterious figures (all in your immediate area and all off the same or similar IP addresses) be they come colonels, generals or commanders has been one of the most transparent cases of game-playing and frankly trolling I've seen in a while. I have no idea why you are insulting the intelligence of the community with this game - I can only assume it's to muddy the waters in some manner with your current ARBCOM case. Stop - just stop. At the moment, there are a fair number of people who want to see you continue to contribute to the encyclopedia but those constant dramas and games are getting to be pretty tiresome. --Charlesknight 15:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the block, the user was disruptive to an already sensitive issue. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I got another opinion on this guys. I don't see any problem w/ unblocking. If it would appear later that he was just trolling or a sock/meatpuppet of Husnock or anybody else than we can easily block again. Nobody is sure who is this person so why are we acting as if we already know who is this guy? -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 15:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Good sir, please understand me...this is not a trick. I have that person's e-mail address if you want it and there is a way I can get it to you without posting it here. He is not me, but has sent me e-mails about this sitation. He has tried for two days to get unblocked and be put back on the site and has been met with nothing but accusations and cold shoulders. I feel very badly that he was blocked. All I am asking is that he is unblocked and given a second chance and not be punished for trying to help me. Is there so much hate and mistrust here that we can't even do that? Thank you. -Husnock 15:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

forward the emails to me - morwen@evilmagic.org (with headers) - or even better get him to email me himself. I don't know what you mean "tried for two days to get unblocked", as he was only blocked last night. And hey, let's not forget you thanked the blocking admin to start with. Morwen - Talk 15:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll pass the e-mail address on to him so he can e-mail you. I'm trying to give this person a break since, at first, I thought it was a nasty trick but now seems to be a misunderstanding. -Husnock 15:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)