Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If you are new, try the Wikipedia:Teahouse instead. Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead use Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent. Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here. Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. If opening a close appeal, use {{RfC closure review}} When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search) Start a new discussion

Current issues

CAT:CSD Nag

I know this must sound annoying, but could somone deal with the pages and images CAT:CSD as there's now more than 115 pages there. Astrovega 02:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

There have been larger backlogs...I've deleted about thirty pages already. Sr13 07:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Damn it, I managed to empty it yesterday (look!) Neil ╦ 07:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone know how many items are listed each day? It would be nice to have a few more admins to deal with some of the admin backlogs. Vegaswikian 08:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Nice, Neil ;). Not sure how many items are on each day, but you're right, Vegaswikian. I'm starting to hack at it a bit now... on this note, Images for Deletion has a large backlog as well... Haha, you can never run out of things to do here :). CattleGirl ^talk 08:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

And I've got it empty again (with, I believe, some help from CattleGirl). Now, if everyone would stop creating articles and uploading images forever, we'd be great. Neil ╦ 08:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Very rough count for the last 24 hours gives some 3750 deleted pages (all namespaces, talk included). I haven't broken it down between Prod, CSD, AfD, MfD, ..., and I of course haven't counted which pages were listed on CSD but not deleted. Still, it seems like a rather quiet period for deletions. On the other hand, the last 24 hours, only 2150 pages were created (and not yet deleted) in the main namespace as well. I suppose it will get busier again in September or so... Fram 09:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The CSD backlog is usually around 300 at 8AM UTC, I'd call today a slow CSD day ;) -- lucasbfr ^talk 10:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

That's because I have nothing to do in work today, and have spent all morning deleting and fixing rationales - I've nearly cleared all the CSD and image speedy backlogs. Neil ╦ 11:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Ta-daaah! Neil ╦ 11:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I nearly had a damn heart attack when I saw it completely empty...I haven't seen that in months at the least. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 11:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

In the 24 hours mentioned above, there were 3853 actions listed in the deleion log, of which 73 were restores. These actions, split to namespaces, come out to:

• Main namespace - 1603 (41.6%); talk - 285 (7.4%)
• Category namespace - 111 (2.9%); Category talk - 17 (0.4%)
• User namespace - 260 (6.7%); User talk - 29 (0.8%)
• Template namespace - 36 (0.9%); Template talk - 6
• Images - 1466 (38%); Image talk - 29 (0.8%)
• Wikipedia namespace - 9; Wikipedia talk - 1
• Help - 1

This seems to indicate that the image deletions account for almost as much as article deletions - each of which is close to 40%. Od Mishehu 12:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Purely subjective and based on the last few hours deletin' I've done, but I would say around 20% of image deletions are images that have already been deleted at least once before. Neil ╦ 12:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) I'll agree with the images being a good percentage of deletions. It's mainly because of us tightening down on fair use images, I would think. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 12:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

• In response to Neil - can't we SALT images? >Radiant< 12:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

There are some at WP:PT, for example Image:Pump.jpg. non-admins can't upload there. -- lucasbfr ^talk 13:01, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Radiant - I believe we could, but probably a better development would be for the uploaders to always be notified via their talk page when an image they uploaded is tagged for deletion (this does not always happen) - this would inform them as to what they should be putting on images they upload. The requirements are now so strict and convoluted, I bet a lot less than half of the image uploads actually remain. If I go through my deletion log, I see lots of bluelinked images which now have the correct tags (clearly some people do learn). Neil ╦ 13:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The problem isn't the size of the backlog, but the fact that it takes so long to get an imaged speedy deleted after tagging. The last two I tagged, according to the log, waited eight hours to be deleted. That doesn't sound very speedy to me. There's just too many jobs and too few admins. Astrovega 13:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Er... maybe I'm crazy, but eight hours doesn't sound that bad to me. Part of the problem is that the category gets the most attention when it's backlogged; if all the admins deleted just ten items a day, we could keep it well under control. EVula // talk // ☯ // 14:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

How bad is the need for more admins? I've been kicking around the idea of making a request, but since Wikipedia:Nominations for sainthood is such a daunting process, I'm hesitant. Nevertheless, every time I check Special:Newpages and retrieve the standard 50 articles, I see at least three articles that deserve speedy deletion -- mostly non-notable bios, attack pages, and spam. Thoughts? --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 15:08, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Increase the emancipation requirements - require 500 edits before you can create a page. That would solve an incredible amount of problems with new pages. Neil ╦ 16:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

That just might work, too. Incidentally, 3 speedies out of 50 is way better than it was when I was doing more NP patrol, back when anons could still create articles — back then it seemed more like 25 out of 50. The decrease seems to have been mostly in the easy cases ("hi mom!!1!"), though; the ones that remain seem to fall more often into the trickier categories where you actually have to spend a few seconds to tell if it's a speedy candidate or not. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 22:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I know I must sound like the Time Cube guy to you experienced users, after about a month of poking around and trying things out, Wikipedia really looks like one of the world's truly great bureaucracies - nothing happens until an admin approves it, and there just aren't enough admins to approve everything in a reasonable amount of time, concentrating power in the hands of a few. I'm going to keep editing, but I'm going to stick to fending off vandals and doing other meaningful tasks rather than try to get anything deleted. Astrovega 15:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

If you think there aren't enough admins, maybe you should find reasonable users to nominate at WP:RFA. Od Mishehu 15:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

It's ironic that just when [C:CSD]] is at a constant low, thanks to some admins focusing their attention there, you are complaining that it is too hard to get anything deleted. We can always use new good admins, but deletions is one of the things that run rather smooth nowadays (with the usual exceptions of course). Fram 12:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

HeivenDuarm (talk · contribs) unblock request

This new user appeared today and redirected the user/talk pages for indef blocked Drennleberrn (talk · contribs) to his/her own pages. I indef blocked HeivenDuarm (talk · contribs) as an obvious sockpuppet of Drennleberrn. I declined HeivenDuarm's request for unblock on the grounds they were allowed to contribute positively with the direction to request an unblock through their main account. HeivenDuarm reverted the unblock denial as "trolling" and included a call to unblock longtime blocked sockpuppet Crayolacrime (talk · contribs). I protected the talkpage to prevent further abuse of the unblock template and given the call to unblock a long stale sock, I suspect the person behind this account has been around for quite a long time. Long story short, if anyone wants to review the denial of request for unblock, the page protection, or any of my other actions in regards to this account, feel free to do so.--Isotope23 16:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

• This edit is all I need to see. I fully endorse your actions. If Drennleberrn is not banned he may get it if he insists. MaxSem 17:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• This edit justifies it even better, I think. WilyD 17:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

• I should mention that the "positive contribution" HeivenDuram was making to Wikipedia was a redirect of "Great jumpin' monkeys" to Monkey Island.--Isotope23 17:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

• This person has already made lots of socks to push spurious AFDs on Wiki articles. --MichaelLinnear 23:13, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Dialup ip addresses and 3R

When a user is using an IP address that changes several times in a 24 hour period -- perhapse they are using a dialup accout that allocates an IP address on demand. What is the procedure if they are in breach of the WP:3R rule? It seems pointless blocking the IP addreess, so can a 24 hour protection on the page that is being edited in breach of the 3R rule be applied? Is there a guidline that covers this? --Philip Baird Shearer 18:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/69.157.117.117 --Philip Baird Shearer 12:32, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair Use of Images on Led Zeppelin

Fair use policy with regards to images confuses me enough that I wanted to ask here for some guidance. On the Led Zeppelin article, there are four shots of the group performing live. These are fairly high res screen-shots from various DVDs. None of them have fair use rationale provided, but that could probably be easily fixed. They are all used in the Hebrew Wikipedia article, which is Featured there. However, I have to wonder if they are necessary/appropriate at all, as it should not be impossible to find free images of a 70s rock band. There has got to be some image around that somebody would provided under creative commons or other free license. As screen shots on the articles about the DVD, they might be reasonable, but they are not used there. One of the images is used on the Heavy metal music article, which also appears to heavily rely on non-fair images. Another is used on Royal Albert Hall ostensibly because the band performed there. Same with Madison Square Garden. Interestingly, none of them are used in articles about the DVDs where they have fair use rationale. I labeled 1977-04-30_Pontiac_ALS.jpg as disputed fair use a while ago and it has now been deleted. The same issues were in my m ind there as well. Thanks. —Gaff ^ταλκ 18:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Wow. I am so glad that I posted my question here hoping that an experienced admin could give me some guidance. The response has really helped shed light. —Gaff ^ταλκ 06:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

May I suggest taking the question to the Village Pump Policy page? Corvus cornix 16:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:UAA and WP:AIV

These two noticeboards should be combined. There is no point in creating an additional page for admins to monitor and for users to have to learn the shortcut and remember to go there, when just having one page would be just as simple. Yes, AIV wasn't technically isn't supposed to have usernames, but there's no reason why blatantly obvious violations couldn't go there instead of to a whole new page. Neither page ever has much of a backlog, so we don't have to worry about the combination making the unified page unmanageable, and both have, essentially, the same phttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&action=edit&section=34 editurpose: to make obvious blocks where no discussion or difficult decision-making is necessary. A system where there was just one page for both of these tasks would be far more efficient than the current one, and would, albeit only slightly, decrease the huge amount of learning and memorization of pages for new users. --Rory096 19:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

One point that was made during the creation of WP:UAA (which was not that long ago), was that a username in violation of policy is not a form of editing abuse, which is what reports made to WP:AIV concern. I don't know how much weight that argument has, but it was mentioned. Leebo ^T/C 19:42, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, if reports made to AIV currently are for editing abuse, but then people started reporting usernames, reports to AIV wouldn't just concern editing abuse. Problem solved. --Rory096 19:58, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[ec] I believe that the crux of the issue is that "AIV" stands for "Administrator intervention against vandalism" (emphasis mine), which WP:U violations are not. AIV backlogs should be cleared as quickly as possible, as often the integrity of various articles is at stake (not to sound too dramatic), whereas username violations aren't quite the issue. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it's MUCH better to keep them separate for several reasons, the main one being that if there are 10 vandals on AIV waiting to be blocked, you want me blocking the ones causing a problem rather than the ones whose only problem is a username. --BigDT 19:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with BigDT. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Seriously, it is good that the boards are seperate because it keeps important issues in WP:AIV and admins who are actually interested in usernames can deal with the username problems. GDonato (talk) 19:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

But it doesn't really make a difference! There's no point in having an entire additional page whose biggest backlogs can be cleared in about a minute, and whose purpose fits rather well with another page. --Rory096 20:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

(ec) So perhaps there should be different sections separating usernames from vandalism, or perhaps by priority. Blatant username violations only take a few seconds to block anyway, so does it really make much of a difference? Anyway, there's very rarely a huge backlog on AIV, and UAA, judging from the history, almost never has more than 4 users on it at a time, so it's not much of a change. Also, if the two pages were combined, admins who only monitor UAA might help out at AIV, and admins who monitor both wouldn't have to waste time switching between the two (not that it probably makes much of a difference anyway, but meh). --Rory096 19:58, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

If you want to have a page with both lists, can't you just make a page in your userspace that transcludes them both? —David Eppstein 20:02, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

That... damn, that's a really good idea. I'm gonna make a few tweaks to see if I can add both noticeboards to my admin page. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, it ain't pretty, but User:EVula/admin#Faux AIV Noticeboard and User:EVula/admin#Faux UAA Noticeboard work fairly well as shortcuts to both noticeboards. I might do more work to make it look nicer, but for now, that's fine. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Wasn't AIV used for usernames violation not so long ago? I think it is best that both noticeboards are kept separately, for the same reasons as above. The reports at WP:UAA would add more traffic to WP:AIV that is backlogged often enough without. -- lucasbfr ^talk 20:07, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Unofficially, yes, it was used for usernames, though they were supposed to go to RFCN. AIV backlogs are rarely very bad, and can usually be cleared quite clearly if someone's actually watching. Anyway, just having an additional section in AIV would solve the problem, we don't need an entire new process for this one task that is very rarely used (compared to other pages, traffic at UAA is tiny). More processes is NOT a good thing! --Rory096 20:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The major problem with AIV handling username problems was that unless usernames were blatant, admins referred them to RFCN, a very bitey place for newcomers. UAA allows admins that have a strong understanding of the username policy to evaluate all usernames there without clogging up AIV and without the need for RFCN all the time. Secondally, users with username infringements are not vandals, and should not be labelled as such. Admins that don't wish to monitor usernames don't have to watch the page, they can concentrate on AIV, the 2 boards being kept seperate simply organises things much better. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Is it not the same with UAA? The description of that page says it's for blatant usernames, and those that require discussion are sent to RFCN. Let's not play semantics here; the purposes of both pages are basically the same, to block obvious violations of policy, whatever we call it. Having two separate board may "organize" things, but it's creating more unnecessary processes that help to make Wikipedia a very difficult place to contribute for newcomers, because there are so many things all over the place that have different names and slightly different purposes. We should consolidate where possible, and this is definitely a place where it's possible. --Rory096 20:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Since creating the new noticeboard for just usernames things have gone much better. Things are going just fine. This is a solution looking for a problem. ^(H) 20:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I think ryan has an excellent point when he says that jsut because the username is innapropraite does not mean they are vandals. Often it is the opposite. It is offensive to label a good faith editor as a vandal. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The names aren't important, we can alter the name. Either way, these two processes should be combined. --Rory096 20:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Uh... don't take this the wrong way, but perhaps you should be more familiar with the process(es) before making suggestions about how to improve them. We don't arbitrarily rename users; WP:U-violating editors are indefinitely blocked, but are welcome to register new accounts (considering the fact that they rarely have actual edits, this presents no issue) or they can be unblocked so that they can request to be renamed. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Wait what? I meant we could rename the process, not the user... --Rory096 20:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah, my misunderstanding. Gotta be more specific; when talking about renaming the username noticeboard, saying just "name" lends itself to confusion. :)
At any rate, I'm still opposed to the combination of the two boards for the myriad of reasons that everyone else has presented. I applaud your desire to improve the way things go around here, but I think you're just plain wrong (and, to be fair, a lot of the people who are arguing against are the ones that would be the most affected by the combination). EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying that having UAA instead of RFCN isn't better, but having less process pages would be even better than that. Combining AIV and UAA would reduce the amount of bureaucracy, which is a good thing. If something is a good thing, why shouldn't we do it? --Rory096 20:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Plus the general consensus was that username violations were in the way at AIV, the majority of people welcomed the move to an area where admins interested in username could watch it. It is a fundamentally different type of violation than vandalism. ^(H) 20:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Having a different section on AIV would work just as well. Anyway, when were username violations on AIV, and who said they were in the way (there are very few username violations that end up reported, and they're easy to handle, so it seems like it wouldn't be much of a problem)? --Rory096 20:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Having it on the same page in another section would not allow for separate watchlist items. Frankly I have seen the benefit of the separation, but I have not seen any evidence of a problem caused by the separation. ^(H) 21:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Quite simply, it's just more crap that people have to know in order to contribute. Yes, it wouldn't cause problems for you, or most experienced editors, since they already know about it, but what about all the new contributors who have to learn about all these processes that we have? There's no point in making even more when we don't have to. --Rory096 21:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

No the username violations went to WP:RFCN, not WP:AIV most of the time as AIV would redirect them there. RFCN is not really well suited to dealing with User:a;sfdoiawpefpwermpaescifoeapvnrpaesmrsdpc, but that name is not vandalism. Its not hurting anything to have the additional page. Much ado about nothing :) Also the vast majority of reports are generated by WP:TWINKLE, so the only people really seeing the page are the admins. And rarely do new users ever get involved in watching the new user feed anyway. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 21:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not much ado; a change would require very little effort. Yes, we don't want to use RFCN, but that's the old system, and with the new system, UAA is very similar in terms of how it works to AIV, and the combined page would make it simpler for users. As for new users, I don't mean anons who edit once and leave, I mean people who are just joining the community. --Rory096 21:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

As of now, UAA seems to be working fine. Why is this such a pressing issue as to be discussed on AN? Couldent a proposal be drawn up or something? My opinion is it does not appear to be broken lets not create a hubub and drama. Lets write articles or something? -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 21:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Huh? It's not a particularly pressing issue, just a minor annoyance, which is exactly why I mentioned it here. Creating a proposal (besides defeating my entire point of having less process), would be overkill for such a minor change; a simple discussion is far more efficient, and I certainly wouldn't categorize it as hubbub or drama. --Rory096 21:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Minor annoyance to who? Seems like the admins are ok with this, (they are the ones that have to watch it after all), and the vast majority of reports are done by users that don't even know or care where the reports go. Just a thought. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 21:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it's exactly because there are so many process pages that people can't learn all of them that people don't know where they go. Perhaps we should make Wikipedia less of a hopelessly disorganized bureaucracy so that newer users can more easily learn all the pages, in case they have to do something without the help of TWINKLE. --Rory096 21:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[ec]Merely combining two distinctly different boards, which is something that every single person in this discussion has opposed (with the sole exception of you) is not something I'd call a "minor change". You've yet to explain how this is a legitimate need that needs to be addressed. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Again, it's not a huge problem; Wikipedia won't explode if it's not done. It's a legitimate need because it's making Wikipedia more difficult for new users to "learn." No, it's not a horrible problem, but yes, it is a minor change that would make some difference. Just because others oppose it doesn't mean it's a change that would make much a difference, and this discussion probably is more effort than any extra effort it might have taken to either do the change, or the extra effort necessary for new users to learn the change. --Rory096 21:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

But... you're not showing that anyone is legitimately and consistently being confused about where to report username violations. Someone reports it to AIV once, is told not to do it again and where to report it next time, and then they know. And, with all due respect to the users, but the very administrators who "have to watch both boards" should have equal say in such a matter, and we've voiced our opinion: it's optimal the way it is. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

It is not the effort involved, it is that we think it would work less effectively if we did as you describe. ^(H) 21:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I can understand that, and that's fine, but it seems to me that many people above didn't really say that. Oh well, it doesn't matter. I suppose this little debate is over. --Rory096 21:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Rory, while it is clear that you disagree, consensus seems to want it as it is now. ^(H) 21:26, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, it's not a big deal. --Rory096 21:38, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

You can do a page that includes both noticeboards, but that would be unwatchlistable, though (not that you can't watchlist both pages separately and still use your page for editing). -- lucasbfr ^talk 08:54, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Private island

Two users have edit warred in the past regarding the External links sections of the article. Hawaii-guru (talk · contribs) and Islomaniac (talk · contribs) To correct the situation I removed all links and locked the article on March 2nd. Recently I got an e-mail from "Mark Amherst" Markamherst (talk · contribs) (aka Islomaniac) asking if his http://www.privateislandsblog.com/ could be put in as an External links since it was non-commercial. I added the link, despite being a blog, since it seemed to have decent coverage on the subject. Shortly afterward I got an e-mail from Cheyenne Morrison (http://private-islands.blogspot.com/) claiming that Blogs aren't allowed on Wikipedia (not accurate, though close enough) and that Islomaniac's blog is a parody of Cheyenne blog. The easy solution is to not allow any external links and maintain that status quo; but this claim of parody has caught my curiosity.

I'd like some advice, is it a parody... and if so does it matter? Is the blog sufficiently thorough to add it; or just not chance it. (my opinion is I'd like to have one decent external link, even if it is a blog; so far all other links of note are commercial websites) A checkuser could be helpful to ensure I can get the disputing parties to not use sockpuppets. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 20:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't put both, but that's just me. They just don't sound encyclopedic to me. x42bn6 Talk Mess 20:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

wouldn't put either? Not too clear to me. —Crazytales ^{(talk) (alt)} 01:12, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Feature request, feedback wanted

As an admin, I would find it helpful if a user's deleted contributions also showed up as a subset of their contributions list (ie like deleted versions of pages appear at the top of the history "View or restore 6 deleted edits?") that way when someone is reported as creating attack pages, being disruptive etc we can easily check their deleted contributions rather than requiring the name of the page that has been deleted to look at them. What does everyone else think? Anyone else want to add this to bugzilla for me in a clearer way? Viridae^Talk 01:22, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I would love that function. — Scientizzle 02:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

This used to show up on Kate's Tool on the toolserver, but it was removed for being a privacy violation somehow. --W.marsh 02:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me :-P ^demon^{[omg plz]} 02:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

It seems we're getting close. --MZMcBride 02:56, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou both of you. Viridae^Talk 03:54, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Kate took down the deleted edits viewer because it included edit summaries, which sometimes contained libellous material or personal info. That was before oversight. Chick Bowen 04:41, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I've wanted this for at least a couple years. Thanks for the links. Antandrus (talk) 04:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I have wanted it for a while - just got around to writing down what i wanted though. Viridae^Talk 06:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

That would be great :) CattleGirl ^talk 04:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I for one would be way more useful at WP:AIV. Sometimes I just have to go, "Uh, I dunno" and wait for someone else to be bolder than I am. --Masamage ♫ 05:58, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Sweet! I've always wondered why there wasn't some version of this function. I always get a little nervous blocking people for article creation vandalism. Natalie 06:29, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

This would help admins find vandalism patterns which involve article creation. Od Mishehu 07:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Sweet to have that! Sr13 07:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Even as a non-admin, this would be a great feature. I remember we used to have something to this effect, but I asked on IRC not too long ago for a list of my deleted edits and was told that they could no longer do it. - hahnchen 18:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Serious concerns about User:SlimVirgin and User:Jayjg, admins protecting admins? gangs?

I had typed this up yesterday and decided not to submit it, giving SlimVirgin the benefit of the doubt, but something came up that makes me deeply concerned about this. I found that there is some history and controversy related to these two and their style of admining? I have been earnestly editing wikipedia for some time now and have only recently entered upon any controversial articles as part of my interest in promoting NPOV in cases where it is difficult to attain due to prevailing moral and political opinions. Prior to this, I am especially proud of my work on Emergence in bringing it balance, and I think that my edit history on the whole speaks for itself - I am not a vandal, I am not here to disrupt articles. Most of my edits are on innocuous pages about Scale models and passenger trains. Despite all that, I fear I may have inadvertantly gotten myself on the wrong side of a powerful duo and wouldn't like to find myself blocked - I value my editing here a great deal, and especially the history of edits on this account, etc. I feel that I must speak up before SlimVirgin makes good on her threats and I am prevented from making a broad appeal to the admins.

I'll keep it as brief as possible. I made some proposals (Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view/Fact disputedfact value and Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view/Killing NPOV) for clarification on NPOV and additions to the text of the policy. While working on what I thought was a persistent pattern on Wikipedia of stating POV as fact, paraphrasing with bias, etc. in violation of existing policies, I came to holocaust. I then ran into a problem with several administrators who are parked on that article and enforcing a particular version of it (backed up by threat of blocking for "disruption"). Let me quickly itemize what I think are the key problems:

• SlimVirgin "lols" and quotes obvious WP:CIVIL violation by User:Rabbeinu on his talk page[1] and ignores another inappropriate comment by him on her talk page[2].

• SlimVirgin engages in a pattern of edit-warring and it is apparently impossible to get an admin blocked for it ("undoes the actions of another editor in whole or in part" right?) - just an example: ([3] reverts [4], [5] reverts [6], [7] reverts [8], [9] reverts [10]) - 3RRV denied by User:Heimstern with note that slim should "revert less often". Does the rule not clear staying "undoes the actions of another editor in whole or in part"? Because she did this previously (take your pick, two possible sets of 3RR violations from these edits ([11][12][13][14][15][16]) and 3RRV was denied by User:Tariqabjotu - an apparent ally listed below who also blocked me after User:Jayjg listed me for a 3RR which was totally unintentional on my part, a series of consecutive edits which were getting reverted by Slim without me realizing - if these aren't 3RR mine sure wasn't.

• Appears to have protection and cooperation of a group of like-minded admins (User:Jayjg, User:Humus Sapiens, User:Tariqabjotu, User:JoshuaZ)

• Above users ganged up to have me blocked (and protect Slim from being blocked) for what was really two reverts on my part, broken out into a series of consecutive edits - within literally a couple minutes my first and second edit had been reverted, but these were intended as consecutive edits, not an edit war.

• SlimVirgin indicates in edit summary that I am not to "modify lead" or introduce quotes and "counter-claims" on the article. Since when is someone not free to edit an article to try to improve it?

• SlimVirgin persistently (just for example [17], [18], [19]) warns that a clear content and policy dispute is "disruptive editing" and I am concerned that she may have me blocked for it by a friend without even peer review by impartial admins.

• Minor issue, but "SlimVirgin" is a potentially offensive user name and seems to me to violate the user name policy. How has this slipped by? Judging by the names that are summarily banned every day, how isn't this the sort of reference to "reproductive functions"? If people are banned for having "gay" in their username which is not even mentioned in the policy, how does this clear reference to "reproductive functions" go unquestioned? Seems that admins protect admins whereas new users get no consideration at all. There are cases of people being banned summarily for all sorts of innocuous names which are not directly covered by the policy.

Please see Talk:Holocaust, and I think these [20][21][22][23] edits mentioned above (that she reverted in whole or in part) exemplify what I am trying to do, which is nothing other than a good-faith effort to improve the neutrality of wikipedia.

I would like the edit-warring and threats to stop. I don't know SlimVirgin's history or if she is prone to this sort of conflict but she strikes me as someone who does not have the sort of impartiality that should be associated with administrative privileges. The wider problem of admins protecting admins needs to be addressed too - although that is such a fundamental problem of this system with its "discretions" and powers that I have no idea what could be done about it. Fourdee 11:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest you focus on trying to change the admin system and dont focus on individual admins, SqueakBox 02:40, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Without commenting on the rest of what you say just yet, the examples of your edits that you give at the end there are hardly unproblematic. In this edit and this edit you rely on one source to assert a fact (a practice you complain about here) without identifying the source, but importantly without identifying that he is only speaking about terms used in a particular period (from 1939 to early 1942). In this edit you are simply removing information without explanation. --bainer (talk) 12:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I haven't investigated the current situation in detail, but I would note that in the Wikipedia talk pages cited, you advocated an interpretation of NPOV that I found extreme and unconventional. If you are now trying to apply your interpretation of NPOV to the Holocaust, I wouldn't be surprised if it is creating friction. Dragons flight 12:56, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

As I have had to remind certain people on occasion, Wikipedia is not the real world and, with that said, the title of Admin can not be equated always with a mature and sensible person. So, while not referring to the Slim situation (I know nothing about that person) I agree completely that there are some bad admins out there and there are “admin gangs” that pop up as well as people who badly abuse their powers. While some admins are upstanding and respectable people with jobs, homes, and the 2.5 children of the American Dream, other admins may be exactly the opposite. In particular, there is a growing number of admins who are college students and (not that there’s anything wrong with being a college student) it is a little scary to think about a 22 or 23 year old passing judgment or becoming involved in a dispute with someone twice their age and having the attitude on Wikipedia that those involved in the dispute should be treated as equals and as if they are the same with knowledge and experience which just isn’t the case sometimes. For instance, imagine you were a 63 year old lawyer working on a case and a 19 year old who saw an episode of Matlock came into your firm and told you how wrong you were. In the real world, you could throw the person out on the street but here at Wikipedia the person just be taken seriously and debated with as a mature party. Conflicts then erupt, disputes happen, and if the 19 year happens to be an Admin there might arise a situation of unfair behavior and abuse of admin powers. So, extremely valid points. Whether or not anything can be done about it, that is the true question. -38.119.112.187 12:51, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah 250 words or less please. Viridae^Talk 13:45, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

While there is certainly a problem with cliques on Wikipedia, and it's also true that SlimVirgin can be a bit abrupt at times (aren't we all?), I have to say that in this case she has a point. I agree with Dragonsflight and Thebainer that you seem to have a rather odd view of NPOV. Some of your earlier edits (e.g. to Nazism - diff) seem a little questionable as well. -- ChrisO 23:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I came across Fourdee first when he wanted to change the Emmett Till article to say that the subject had been "killed", not "murdered", because no one was convicted (even though two people confessed). When he began to lose that argument he proposed the NPOV policy be changed to specifically prohibit designating deaths as murders unless there have been convictions. It would have also had disruptive effects on articles about genocides, massacres, etc. When that proposal was shot down he apparently started to go after those who opposed it, including these admins. This editor appears to shop for forums seeking better outcomes. While I haven't reviewed the case he lays out here, I've seen enough of his previous actions to doubt its merits. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the people in question were acquitted of murder. Fourdee 02:37, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, I am not aware of any of these editors having anything to do with the Emmett Till article or the NPOV proposals, nor do I care to retaliate against anyone for disagreeing with me. People have opinions, why should that bother me or anyone else? This isn't about the content dispute, it's about whether there is a cabal or gang of admins who work together to silence opponents. Fourdee 02:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Having failed to bring rogue admins on the Hebrew wikipedia to justice (sadly, due to the size of their wiki it's a true cabal), I'm always on the lookout for admin "gangs" as it were, but here I think the problem lies in interpreting NPOV, not the admin's conduct. David Fuchs 01:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't have time to find diffs right now, but Fourdee has been insisting that we call the Holocaust an "eradication project," and argues that we can't use the term "mass murder," because it's POV, given that not everyone was convicted of murder. We're also not allowed to say that every arm of the German bureaucracy was involved in the genocide (for which we have a good source, and which no scholar disputes), unless we can find a source showing that every single civil servant knew it was genocide. And so on. This has been accompanied by long talk-page explanations of how Fourdee is the only person who understands NPOV. It's tiresome, particularly as we're currently trying to improve the article, and most of his edits have been reverted.

As for my user name and "reproductive functions"(!), as everyone knows, my name is a reference to extra-virgin olive oil, which is not to my knowledge connected to reproduction, though I stand to be corrected, and knowing Fourdee I no doubt will be. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:08, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Same argument could be made for "gay" (happy) and "dick" (richard) and so on for probably anything - I guess "gaydick" is a valid username because it could mean "happy richard". It has the appearance of mentioning sexual function and there's sure no phrase "slim virgin" about olive oil or anything else. The only things that turn up in searching for that on google are pornography and rather detailed complaints about you. Anyway, maybe not "everyone knows" what it's supposed to mean.

The rest of what you said is, as a whole, false or distorted. At any rate, I would just like to be free from the threat of being blocked because of a content/policy dispute. And you appear to have made it clear you don't want quotes and counter-claims in the article so I think we are going to continue to have this dispute. Fourdee 02:37, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Funny, I honestly thought it was a reference to Virginia Slims o.O ... —freak(talk) 02:42, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Since when does virginity have anything to do with reproduction anyway? Your username concern reeks of trolling, Fourdee. —freak(talk) 03:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

shrug check out the usernames that are banned summarily every day. As to what Virgin means please notice the article mentions reproductive functions in the first sentence. This is a totally trivial issue I just mentioned it because I don't think any policies are being enforced uniformly or fairly. Fourdee 03:22, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I could say a lot here, but I'll simply point out that Fourdee insisted on removing the term "mass murder" as a description of the Holocaust because it was either a WP:BLP violation, or because it wasn't the "proper legal term", or various other claims. I then specifically sourced the term "mass murder". Unsurprisingly, I was immediately reverted, with a claim of "mixed cites, synthesis". Fourdee is right when he says this isn't about a content dispute, but he's wrong when he says it's "about cabal or gang of admins who work together to silence opponents." In fact, it is about his own disruptive behavior. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:55, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that's right. You can't combine sources like that and SV later removed that citation herself. That's a content/policy dispute though, not the reason we are here.

You linked to WP:POINT as disruptive behavior (there is a separate page Wikipedia:Disruptive editing) - WP:POINT describes ironic parodies to illustrate that someone or some policy is wrong, which is not what I'm doing. As to whether this behavior is disruptive that's what we're here for, and so far I have not heard any impartial (uninvolved) persons labeling this as clear disruption. I just want the question answered: is this behavior "disruptive" if so which parts of it do I need to change to avoid being blocked? Blocking for disruption is only allowed by consensus of "neutral parties" and I wanted the chance to make my case and ask for that neutral decision before it happens. Fourdee 05:52, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Fourdee has decided to enlighten other users about his opinions in new and innovative (read: totally unrelated) forums.[24] I don't know what to make of this exactly, but since the post doesn't address the article in anyway, I think it is trolling. nadav (talk) 09:16, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

My comments directly address the conflict there. I'm not sure what "trolling" means in this sense but I have always heard it used to mean something like "affecting a false position merely to get a rise out of people". I'm not playing around. Fourdee 09:47, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

The word has other meanings. My use of the word was closer to WP:TROLL#Misplaced criticism. I'll assume good faith, but you should know that these kinds of posts come across badly. nadav (talk) 10:08, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

After reading the above and viewing the diffs, I have blocked User:Fourdee for a period of 48 hours for tendentious editing ^demon^{[omg plz]} 17:04, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Could people please please (pretty please) stop citing essays when blocking people? I know that TE covers material that's already covered by other policies, but then, please, use those policies as support? It just looks bad. Really really bad. Bladestorm 17:31, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

ZOMG! SLIM VIRGIN! JAYJG! CABALS! ADMIN ABUSE! Will ^(talk) 17:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

He didn't cite it (i.e. as per WP:TE); he linked it. Big difference. El_C 17:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

True, and in any case, tendentious editing is a subset of disruptive editing, a widely accepted guideline the violation of which is grounds for blocking. I think linking the essay was just an attempt to be specific about the subtype of disruptiveness involved. For what it's worth, 2 unblock requests by Fourdee have since been declined, the second by me. MastCell ^Talk 22:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Talk page protected; objections?

As Fourdee (talk · contribs) has posted his 3rd unblock template (6 minutes after I'd declined the second and warned him about abusing the template), I've protected his talk page for the duration of his block. The 3rd unblock request has been declined by ElinorD (talk · contribs). The block and page protection are again submitted here for review. MastCell ^Talk 23:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Question - as an admin, what would you do?

Here's a not hypothetical question for admins:

Someone joins Wikipedia today and starts making controversial edits. These edits make changes to articles (in this case, Cyclone Larry and Cyclone Tracy), changes to bits of the article that are included by the standard of the relevant WikiProject (in this case, WP:WPTC). This standard has consensus within the WikiProject and is followed for all articles (in this case, to include a comparison against the U.S. Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale). This user repeatedly removes this information after being reverted, claiming it's just a "guideline" (fair enough). But the guideline has widespread consensus (or even, arguably, unanimous support) within the project. The new user has come off as a dick (history of Cyclone Larry: an edit summary shows "WPTC has no rules, only guidelines, so this article has been guided back to the domain of accuracy"). This user has nearly violated WP:3RR.

What would you suggest? This obviously isn't going to go away with a simple slap on the hand. And what he's trying to remove has widespread support for inclusion which is unlikely to change, so is there really a point discussing the issue over again? Do we (meaning the majority) just keep reverting every time he tries to change it?

Thoughts? – Chacor 12:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

No @ the keep reverting suggestion - the wikiproject does not have the power to dictate a subjects contents, I suggest you try and engage him on his talk page and talk it over. Viridae^Talk 12:13, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Correct on the first count, but what is important to remember is that there's widespread-to-unanimous consensus for what he's trying to remove. Regardless, if he tries to change it again any time soon he breaks WP:3RR, so... – Chacor 12:17, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm guessing you're referring to The Snout? Here's an example edit. The editor was removing, from an article about an Australian tropical cyclone, a sentence about a classification system that is only used in America - and all the sentence said was that it's not known where the cyclone falls on the scale. What's the problem? I don't see how this is relevant to the article at all. --bainer (talk) 12:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

As I said above, there is consensus to include, in non-U.S. storm articles, a general comparison against the U.S. scale. Regardless, having double-checked, the sentence he removed was rather incorrect (the guideline is to use the Joint Typhoon Warning Center's estimate as the comparison), so... moot point. – Chacor 12:29, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Some further tangentially-related discussion split to User talk:Thebainer. – Chacor 12:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

What do you know, he's a vandal. Can't say I'm surprised. – Chacor 12:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that doesn't look too good. In the spirit of don't bite and good faith, I've left a warning/suggestion on his talk page. We'll see how he responds. MastCell ^Talk 15:45, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Rollback and watchlist

Is there an easy way to set the rollback function so that it adds the page you roll back to your watchlist? Fram 13:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

On Special:Preferences, click watchlist, then check add pages that I edit. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

To my knowledge that does have no effect - infact I use rollback over any revertscript when in particular I don't want the page to clutter my watchlist. Agathoclea 13:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

An alternative is to use popups with the preferences set to add pages you edit to watchlist, because popups actually "makes an edit" (i.e. clicks "save page"). Of course, popups is too much trouble for most admins. – Chacor 13:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Yah, rolling back isn't actually editing... otherwise my watchlist would have exploded by now :/ Riana ⁂ 13:17, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Allright, thanks! Fram 13:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser block

First of all sorry if I am reposting this, it seems my edit wasn't saved the first time (browser crash)

I got asked on my talk page to enforce a block after a checkuser request that showed it was  Likely that User:Heqong = TingMing. Since Heqong was claiming his innocence on the case talk page, I assume he will fill an unblock request. I already blocked confirmed users, but I was wondering what the process exactly was on likely socks? -- lucasbfr ^talk 13:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

It's a judgement call. Personally, I see an account which was dormant for 9 months; then suddenly after TingMing was blocked, jumped into the same articles, from the same POV, making 50 edits/day. Add in a "likely" from checkuser, and I'd say it smells like a sleeper account/sock puppet. My inclination would be to indefinitely block it, but I'll see what others have to say. MastCell ^Talk 16:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Passes the duck test. Guy (Help!) 18:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

A "Likely" from a CheckUser is more than enough to warrant a block. AmiDaniel (talk) 22:13, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Quick Image question

Regarding the images,

• Image:MacOSX10-5.jpg
• Image:Leopard Finder.jpg
• Image:Timemachine-prescreenshot.jpg
• Image:IChat-prescreenshot.jpg
• Image:leopard_quicklook.jpg

just ebecause they were taken off a web page does not mean they are copyvios, do they? Especially they have a FUR (ignoring the validity at the moment). --soum ^talk 15:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'm afraid it does mean they are copyright violations. The screenshot tag is for screenshots taken by the user, not right click and saved from Apple's website. Neil ╦ 15:22, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

No, my question is whether using a screenshot, even if it is from the developers' website, is allowed here under WP:FU as long as there isnt a public NDA-free release available? Of course with a valid rationale and a proper tag like saying it is a non standard fair usage, thats not the point of the question. --soum ^talk 15:35, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Saying as they are screenshots of an unreleased piece of software (OSX 10.5), I'd say they are fairly irreplaceable. That said, I doubt the iChat or Finder articles are severely lacking just because these pictures got removed... EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, the suitability is an issue, which we were discussing at the article talk page, but it was not the point here. What I asked was just because a screenshot was copied off a web page, does it become a copyvio regardless of everything else? Yeah, I know the policy and as I interpret it, its not (assuming its irreplaceable and has a valid FUR). I just want to know if my interpretation is missing anything. --soum ^talk 17:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Does the page have a copyright statement? Guy (Help!) 18:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Which page? The Apple page? Yeah it does. But the question is not just about this specific set of images. It is about any generic screenshot of a copyrighted software. If any such screenshot is retrieved from the software title publishers' website, and uploaded here, does it become a copyright infringement suitable for CSD #G12? The way I see it is that FU still applies to it, so it is not a clear case of delete at sight (as these can be a valid fair usage). I just want clarification that I am interpreting correctly. Again, I am not referring to these set of images. --soum ^talk 18:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, it is a copyright violation in all cases. The interface is copyrighted and we reproduce it without a proper authorization. Fair Use is an exception that permits to infringe the rule, and I don't think there is any clear cut rule copyvio/non copyvio there. The fact that the screenshot has been taken by an apple employee and that apple is communicating using these screenshots is a risk factor. My own personal view is that the fair use rationale was valid (assuming there is no way to make the picture yourself for the moment), but I am not a lawyer. -- lucasbfr ^talk 18:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

To answer Soum's question - if you have taken the image from a website, it is not a screenshot, by definition. A screenshot is an image you have taken yourself of a screen, not an image taken by someone else of someone else's screen that you right-click and saved. That is a copyright violation. Neil ╦ 13:21, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

No, Neil. That is completely wrong. Whoever presses the print-screen button is irrelevant. It does not have to be the uploader pressing the print-screen button to qualify as a screenshot. Many screens are taken from promotional material released by their copyright owners. As long as these are sourced, and include a valid fair-use rationale, then they are OK for use. - hahnchen 19:43, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

The stolen image of Mac 10.5 is being used on Graphical user interface, Mac OS X and operating system - definitely not fair use there (plenty of free images can be used to illustrate those). A fair use image could possibly be argued for on Mac OS X 10.5 ("identification of and critical commentary on the software in question"), but the {{screenshot}} tag is invalid - these are not screenshots; they are images stolen from the Apple website. Neil ╦ 13:14, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

The time machine and Ichat pictures taken from Apple's website are also not fair use (just being used as decoration), ao have also been deleted as blatant copyvios. I strongly believe the remaining Image:MacOSX10-5.jpg image, now solely being used on Mac OSX 10.5 remains a copy vio, as the screenshot rationale is for screenshots, not a stolen propietary image based on a screenshot. Neil ╦ 13:18, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I've deleted it. There was no source, and the rationale claimed it was a screenshot. It is a blatant copyright violation (WP:CSD#G12) - note the big copyright notice at http://www.apple.com/macosx/leopard/ Neil ╦ 13:30, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Apple can put all the scary warnings on their website they want. No-one is denying that they hold the copyright to it, but fair use and more specifically our non-free content says that using the images is allowable. Whether you or an Apple employee took the screenshot is irrelevant. Of course whether the images are being used appropriately i.e. with critical commentary is important. the wub "?!" 22:14, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Copyrighted images for internal use only?

I came across Category:Images_of_Wikipedians_used_with_permission just now. It asserts that user-created copyrighted photos may be used *inside the project itself* if re-use is not planned. (It should be noted that the wikipedia logo is licensed similarly, and the community appears to accept this). They were all uploaded in 2004, before our current policies came into place. Is this allowed? This could open a can of worms with users licensing their user page photos just for themselves, or just for their wikiproject. -N 19:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I would say no, but I would ask the uploaders before doing anything. Ask them to rechange the license, and if that doesn't work, then come back here. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 23:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

No, a proposal for such a license have been shot down before, these are "legacy" photos taken during some meetup by Raul654 but not released under a free license because he had not asked permission from the subjects of the photos. Then they seem to have just sort of gotten stuck in limbo and a couple of users have found the tag and used it for theyr own photos as well. It's been years though so I's probably time to clear them out (move to an off site facebook type place or something maybe). --Sherool (talk) 10:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, they could be tagged with {{subst:orfud}} as they are non-free images not being used in any articles. ;) --BigDT 13:23, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Deco Da Man unblocked

I have unblocked Deco Da Man (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who was blocked indef by Ryulong (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) for stupid sockpuppetry. Since Deco has apologised I'm giving him a second chance. Ryulong is offline for some time, so reporting it here. MaxSem 20:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with a second chance, provided he's on a short leash. Of course, since almost all of his edits were in his userspace even before the block, he could stay blocked and it might not make much difference... :) MastCell ^Talk 20:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Though I'm not an admin, I'm willing to commit to keep an eye on him -- esp. since I was a major advocate of his release from blocking. Basically, this is a 13-year-old kid who's pretty smart, but needs to sharpen his discernment for what's appropriate to do or not do on Wikipedia. --Yksin 21:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Advise on a slowly ongoing problem

I just reverted warned two people on the Julianna Rose Mauriello article. The situation is this: There have been rumors spread on a nonreputable blog, speculating on Ms. Mauriello's sexuality. These rumors were spread by a known stalker of Ms. Mauriello, who also lifted private pics from her (now nonexistant) facebook. The two Wiki users in question added this gossip to the article and tried uploading the image to her article. It is a private image taken during Ms. Mauriello's 16th birthday party. I don't want to go to RFPP, because the vandalism is well, lazy (Given the subject, pardon the pun.) I warned the one user with uw-upload because that was the nearest thing I could find to this, though I don't know if it's appropriate. Any suggestions? Should I take a chill pill? The reason I know the image is inappropriate, by the way, is because an anon user tried to upload the same image earlier this month. Thanks. --Ispy1981 20:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't think a chill pill is necessary; after all, we're talking about violations of WP:BLP here. I think you're correct to take a strong line against adding speculative, poorly sourced material and illicit images; you can use Template:Uw-blp1 and up. If continued insertion of this material is a problem, then come back here or let me know, as repeatedly violating WP:BLP is grounds for a block. MastCell ^Talk 20:56, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Not only is it a BLP violation, but she's only sixteen. This needs to be severely curbed. Corvus cornix 22:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you both for your replies/advice. I have had the article on watch for quite some time, as a small favor to her family, and will report if it gets out of hand. --Ispy1981 00:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

On my watchlist as well. I'll keep an eye out for anything inappropriate. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 13:39, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOT attacks on new user pages

I'm all for WP:NOT#myspace but lately editors have been taking it to the extreme. See for instance User:JimmySan. One sentence. One sentence. Deleting a new user's page for having a single sentence is ridiculous. I wrote a new paragraph in WP:UP (here that gained consensus for the addition here) that I thought might help stem the tide of this, but editors don't seem to have noticed. This is becoming a real problem. -N 21:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

category deletion v. depopulation

Recently, some admins speedily deleted a bunch of user categories without depopulating them first. I believe any categories should be depopulated if they are to be deleted. Populated categories that are deleted create unnecessary redlinks. If an admin is deleting a user category, the admin should inform all entries in the category first to facilitate depopulation. Think about if an island sinks with all people still on it. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 21:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Surely they'll notice it by seeing that the category has been deleted? It's easier for 100 people to make 1 quick edit each than for one person to make 100 edits. Friday (talk) 21:39, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

But many users do not periodically check the bottoms of their userpage. Redlinks on userpages are harmful to the project. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 21:45, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Harmful how? I think a category I was in was deleted once.. at some point I noticed and removed it, but it wasn't hurting anything, as far as I know. Friday (talk) 21:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

A category with a huge population should not be deleted summarily, period. Residents on an island should be informed when the island is sinking. A redlink category with whole lot of residents are simply ugly and detrimental. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 21:49, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

It may be ugly, but it's detrimental to who? A little bit of ugliness of userpages harms no one at all. Moreschi ^Talk 10:33, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Shrugs, it's more that it's simply a sloppy admin action. We have workpages for the Wikignomes to "go to it". If you feel the need to speedy delete a category, but don't have the inclination (for whatever reason) to "finish", then simply post the category at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working or Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working/User, whichever applies. - jc37 10:41, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I have been working to depopulate these categories. I know how to find them and what to do to fix them. If someone wants to give me a list I can work off that, but either way, I'll get it sorted out. The bigger question for me is what to do when the user re-adds the category once it is removed twice despite an edit summary that asks them not to. Example can be found here. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 12:31, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

There are a lot of "support/oppose" redlinked cats people like to have on their user pages, and it's typically within the "leeway" we generally give. My general thought is: If they are determined to have a redlinked cat, let them. (As long as having it isn't disrutive in some way.) - jc37 13:43, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

If a user category has an enormous population and the entrants like it, it probably should not be deleted. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 13:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about that, but it should probably at least not be speedily deleted, in order to prevent disruption. "Speedy" closures, and speedy deletions are under discussion at several talk pages, and from what I can see, most seem to agree that the political issue cats should have been deleted, but that they should have been nominated first. (Though I wonder at following that up with speedily deleting even more cats...) At this point, let's just agree to both the former and the latter points. No comment atm about the political ideology cats, or the "other" group of cats summarily deleted (the latter of which I may still take to DRV). - jc37 14:21, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

oh yawn, more user page categories being summarily deleted for no reason at all except a few with nothing better to do have decided they don't like it. SchmuckyTheCat 23:02, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Creator of deleted page

Hi. Me and a bot operator are trying to find out if the bot made a mistake. Could an admin tell me the creator of User talk:Wikihermit/Archive One? Thanks, --(Review Me) R ^ParlateContribs_@(Let's Go Yankees!) 22:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

The creator and only editor was User:Wikihermit. AmiDaniel (talk) 22:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks AmiDaniel. --(Review Me) R ^ParlateContribs_@(Let's Go Yankees!) 22:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

PR person attempting to turn article into a press release

In the New York International Independent Film and Video Festival article, for a while a few anon users and one registered user have been attempting to remove all content sourced by reliable sources and replace it with completely un-sourced or press release sourced material. [25] [26] [27] [28] [29]

I personally suspect that people (person?) involved with this festival are behind these attempts. The only sourced parts of the article's history is criticism of this festival and the material they try to replace it with are press-release like material sourced only by other press releases. The registered editor, User:Beedyeyes, identifies them-self as Briege McGarrity, a "Publicity Event Producer Film Consultant".[30] Briege McGarrity seems to be associated with this film festival. [31] The need for proper sourcing has been posted in the article's talk page, edit summaries and on User:Beedyeyes and 71.50.64.3 talk pages[32], but User:beedyeyes continues to ignore warnings to stop doing this.

Other editors and I are bordering on 3RR. Can we have some help with this? Thank you. --Oakshade 22:51, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I've protected the page, given the edit-warring and reluctance of User:Beedyeyes, thus far, to engage on the talk page. In deference to the fact that they do seem to be a genuine newbie, I haven't blocked them for edit-warring but instead encouraged them to engage on the talk page. Once there's been some meaningful discussion (or if this user does not engage on the talk page) and you'd like the page unprotected so that editing can resume, you can ask me on my talk page or go to WP:RFPP and request unprotection. MastCell ^Talk 23:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Protection error

I keep getting an error message when trying to protect pages. It reads like this:

A database query syntax error has occurred. This may indicate a bug in the software. The last attempted database query was:

(SQL query hidden)

from within function "Title::purgeExpiredRestrictions". MySQL returned error "1205: Lock wait timeout exceeded; Try restarting transaction (10.0.0.237)".

Can someone help me fix this problem? bibliomaniac15 Join or die! 23:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Is that for a particular page or all of them? Just now I protected my sandbox for 20 minutes with no problem. —freak(talk) 04:04, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Do we delete attack pages or not?

Can uninterested parties look on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Digwuren/Petri Krohn's Story of Estonians? Currently the discussion is dominated by users named in inconclusive Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Digwuren. Alex Bakharev 00:10, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

In these cases, don't we just mark with {{spa}} and let the closing admin decide whether to discount those votes or not? hbdragon88 00:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

What {{spa}} are you talking about? These are established users. And it is hardly surprising that almost only Estonian editors are interested in this topic. Colchicum 11:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• I don't know much about Estonian history...I understand the one user is mocking the other for his version of history but what's the actual dispute about? Just mocking somebody doesn't make it an attack page... -N 01:09, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• Uh, no. The word "mocking" ought to have been a clue, there. --Calton | Talk 01:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• There is also a similiar page Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Petri_Krohn/Evidence. Both those pages should stay. There are no insults in them. We should be more tolerant regarding userspace, one of the legitimate usage of userspace is to help other wikipedians to understand with whom they are interacting. Also, is legitimate for wikipedians to question the edits of other wikipedians, this is part of a free debate which is helping to built a better encyclopedia. As long as no insults are used, I don't see reason for deletion.--MariusM 02:48, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I find it quite strange that Alex nominated that page, which is mocking Petri's views of Estonian history, for deletion on grounds of being attack page but at same time completely ignored User:Petri Krohn/Evidence where numerous editors are openly accused in wide variety of things from harrasment to holocaust denial.--Staberinde 10:30, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Splitting edit histories

Not sure this is the right place for this, but it isn't really an "incident", so if this is the wrong place, please direct me to the correct place. The most recent bombing of the al-Askari Mosque was added to the article for the first bombing instead of being given its own article. I moved the content for the recent bombing to its own article and removed it from the original article. I know it's possible to merge edit histories of articles, but is it possible to split the edit history of an article? --Bobblehead ^(rants) 03:52, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

If this is a case where a section of an article was created over time as part of a larger article, no, there's no easy way to split apart only the edit history relevant to that section. At first I thought you meant that B was cut and pasted to C and A was cut and pasted to B, which would require splitting to fix properly, due to the development of unrelated content on top of content that belongs with the first move. —freak(talk) 03:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Gotcha. Thanks for checking. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 04:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Isarig POV pushing

User:Isarig, a frequent editor on all things related to the Israeli-Palastinin conflict, is POV pushing on House demolition, and I've just about reached the end of my patience with him. Can someone please take steps to reign him in, before I block him over it? Raul654 04:10, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

You'd block someone who you were in a conflict with? hbdragon88 04:15, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe he's calling for someone else to intervene before he is tempted to go through with such an act.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:18, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Vintagekits and meatpuppetry

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Hello fellow admins. Many of you will be familiar with Vintagekits (talk · contribs) an Irish editor who has been embroiled in a long-running and wide-ranging conflict with a number of English editors. Quite frankly, the behaviour of editors on both sides of this dispute have been poor, resulting in blocks being issued for edit-warring, personal attacks and incivility, e.g. [33] [34]. A case in point can be seen within the number of AfD's that have served as battlegrounds (see, for example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sir William Arbuthnot, 2nd Baronet). There has been allegations of sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry from editors on both sides, and a glance at the AfD will reveal plenty of SPA's. A recent AfD inspired the re-appearance of a few SPA friends, resulting in a report being filed on suspected sockpuppets of Vintagkits. Consequent to this an editor provided me with compelling evidence of Vintagekits soliciting support off wiki to help, in his own words, with a bit of voterigging. The evidence is detailed at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Vintagekits. As someone who has been involved in collecting this evidence, I don't believe I'm the right person to judge how to use it in determining what, if any, action should be taken. I'm asking for the opinion of others, especially those familiar with Vintagekit's history. Thanks. Rockpocket 06:27, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

The evidence on the page is circumstantial. Is there concrete evidence of solicitation, e.g. a post on a message board? Tyrenius 17:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC) Just spotted new material that answers the question. Tyrenius 17:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

See also my post at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Vintagekits again. I know both "sides" have behaved badly here, but I don't think one wrong excuses another. In the absence of any commitment to improve from Vintagekits, and in the light of this new evidence of Vintagekits' failure to respect policy, I think we have to be looking at a longish block. --John 17:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, lets centralise this discussion. I'm going to take the liberty of merging the posts here over to the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, and archiving this. Rockpocket 17:58, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Kai (talk · contribs · logs · block log)

Kai has been acting strange lately. He contributes to the Habbo Hotel article like myself, but lately there has been discussions about inclusion of hotel raids in the article, whether the article is written like an advertisement, disputes about Habbo Hotel being a game or not and other issues. Digging through his contributions, I found this vandalism warning to my talk page, prior to the English-only warning template on my talk page. Then a month or so later, he is vandalising my status box on my userpage as shown in these: [35] [36] [37]. Later on he awards me a barnstar on my talk page and adds "Why are you so cool?" to my editor review. I have no problem with the barnstar and the question and it is appreciated (I did the same to him and awarded him a barnstar for his kindness), but what confuses me is that one moment he is kind, and then he warns me for owning the article. Anyone else find something suspicious about his actions? –Sebi ~ 08:58, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh lord. Did you just happen to forget that we have a relationship outside of Wikipedia? I find this highly unnecessary... --Kai 09:58, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Is that relevant? You have vandalised pages in my userspace, warned me for WP:OWN unneccessarily and then treat me with praise and respect. What is going on? –Sebi ~ 10:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I obviously thought it was necessary to advise you of WP:OWN. In regards to the above, you knew I was having a joke, and why wait until now to complain... and what's the harm in giving a barnstar here and there. Kai 10:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Watchlist

Can a few people add Sivaji: The Boss to their watchlist. This is likely to be edited very frequently over the next few days and the editors (good and bad) will mostly be anons. Tintin 10:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, this needs to be added on the pgkbot watchlist as well. One of the most expensive films to be ever released in India, was released only a few days ago and will attract lot of vandalism. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 10:36, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Done. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 10:45, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

<misza13> computer cvp add Sivaji: The Boss

<pgkbot> Added Sivaji:_The_Boss to watchlist, "No reason given". Expires indefinite

<misza13> bonkbonk :P

<misza13> XD

IRC Log Violation! IRC Log Violation! Censure! Abuse! Terror! Fattening!  ;-) Georgewilliamherbert 23:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Actually, it was released just this morning. Tintin 11:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Image012 (2).jpg

Image:Image012 (2).jpg is the picture of an 11-year old which contains his contact information. Could somebody please speedy delete? Corvus cornix 23:17, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Done. Has the user who uploaded been contacted? Neil ╦ 23:21, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah, yes he has. Good good good. Neil ╦ 23:22, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. Corvus cornix 23:23, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

He has now created a new image at Image:Nathan Galea .jpg with the same contact information and same information about his age. Corvus cornix 02:02, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. -- Infrogmation 03:35, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Corvus cornix 04:09, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Question

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Speedy deleted the article in question. See explanation at bottom. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 02:05, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

---

Long story short: Gene Poole and I are in a dispute and he keeps adding a comment of mine that he took completely out of context onto this page (see here). I've MFD'd it (if you ask me it should be speedied) but I think his continual adding of this comment constitutes as abuse. He has threatened me before, and two administrators are already involved, but right now neither of them are online. What do I do? --Captain Wikify ^Argh! 23:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

This is not the disengagement I asked you to do this morning...

Could you please let an uninvolved admin deal with his page? You have an obvious conflict of interest and it's just exacerbating things. I'm involved enough not to want to judge if that page constitutes a WP:NPA issue or an attack page, but if you'll leave it alone and let others reading ANI deal with it, it will help. Georgewilliamherbert 23:44, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to break any rules but I'm certainly not letting him slander me like that. That's why I keep reverting and why I left a comment here. --Captain Wikify ^Argh! 23:48, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

If this keeps up for another hour, I predict both of you will be blocked for 48 hrs to cool off. What is it going to take for the two of you to step back and stop provoking each other? Georgewilliamherbert 23:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

See note on talk page.--Captain Wikify ^Argh! 23:52, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

On my talk page, you partly wrote: I've had it with Gene and his childish actions.. This is the problem. Neither of you are acting in a civil and responsible manner regarding the other one's actions right now. It's impossible for me to assess blame for "who started it". It's clear that you're both taking provocative responsive measures over and over again rather than shutting up and cooling off. The normal admin response to this is a cooldown block on both parties. If you do not wish an admin to block you, you need to stop continuing and escalating the debate, now. (applies equally to Gene).

Knock it off. Georgewilliamherbert 00:05, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

[38], [39], [40]. Oh, and [41]. --Captain Wikify ^Argh! 00:11, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

For those just coming in, Captain Wikify has announced s/he is taking a wikibreak. Hopefully this both defuses the immediate situation and doesn't lead to them leaving the project permanently, as one bout of interpersonal conflict doesn't affect their history of having been a productive contributor. Georgewilliamherbert 01:11, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I've deleted the comment from the page, which may or may not survive a pending MfD, and if Gene reinstates the comment then I will speedy-delete the page because at that point it will clearly be being used as an instrument of harassment. As a general matter, pages of this nature, which have the effect of perpetuating quarrels and incivilities rather than letting them fade into the past, should be severely deprecated. Newyorkbrad 01:13, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I have speedy deleted this subpage. This page only served to antagonize those who may have made a mistake in there wiki experience. The fact is, we all ahve made a mistake and focusing on those mistakes and keeping a record is unhelpful and unencylopedic. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 02:04, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Bossaball

Bossaball is currently up for AFD but is a a huge copyright violation of [42] Can i Be Bold and Speedy tag the article or is that bad faith? ExtraDry 23:53, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• I would say that's bad faith. You could have just asked the writer of the article (me) to re-edit it, on the talk-page of the article. Which is what I did after reading this notice : I rephrased / rewrote everything one could consider a violation of copyright.

It is not at all bad faith, it should have been speedied and a {{nothanks}} tag placed on the editor's page. Corvus cornix 07:48, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deleted and AfD closed, it's a copvio. Ryan Postlethwaite 07:53, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Selective release of incidental checkuser discovery of Tor usage

Hello, At the CharlotteWebb Rfa[43] a user with Checkuser rights revealed that the candidate had used TOR proxies to edit.

Is this disclosure acceptable to the community?

There seem to be a few possible answers to this:

1. Yes it is acceptable to reveal Tor usage by all editors (anonymous or non-anonymous) as the use of Tor is against policy. To be consistant, Tor usage by all editors should be revealed.
2. Yes it is acceptable to reveal Tor usage, but only for editors seeking Administrator privileges. There is no need for consistency, only names that randomly come up during a checkuser will be revealed and even then, only if the one performing the checkuser chooses to reveal them. No attempt will be made to reveal Tor usage for all candidates for Administrator.
3. Yes, it is acceptable to reveal Tor usage by editors seeking Administrator rights, but it is not acceptable to reveal Tor usage by current Administators.
4. No, Tor usage by non-anonymous users should not be revealed if no checkuser was indended to be performed for that user.

I may have missed some choices. Uncle uncle uncle 00:51, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Users can be blocked for using Tor, in which case the blocking summary will reveal it. So revealing it without blocking can't be any worse. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:10, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Clarify, please... TOR IPs are blocked on sight, but are users who have used TOR to edit Wikipedia specifically blocked as well? To be clear, I'm not talking about autoblocks here. My understanding is that Accounts that use TOR are not blocked, just the TOR IPs themselves. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 01:16, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking of autoblocks. It isn't standard to bock users just because they have previously editited from tor. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:02, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the proper forum, if any, is the Ombudsman commission if there is concern about violating policy. However, I don't think any personally identifiable information was released. In fact the policy seems to specifically note that there is nothing amiss when saying that the user is part of a large system the probability of releasing personally identifiable information is low. [44] It might have been handled differently but that's a different issue I think. I would hate to see this get out of hand. JodyB _talk 01:17, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) It doesn't sound like he sought out CharlotteWebb to checkuser ... he encountered her username while checkusering vandals. As for revealing that information? Good grief, no, that's inappropriate ... but what is there to discuss here? I think a WP:RFC would be more appropriate. --BigDT 01:19, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

By creating an account you are allowing Wikipedia to track your edits despite your anonymous position. So I don't see the point in blocking usernames for using tor. ^(H) 01:19, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

My thoughts: Checkuser can be quite personal and it shouldn't be used liberally ("Let's go and check up the IP addresses of a random user over lunch while my work is being printed."). Checkuser should be reserved when requested (in good faith via WP:RFCU) or perhaps during disruptive sockpuppet/meatpuppet activity at WP:AN and WP:AN/I. On the other hand, it might not hurt to run checkusers on potential Administrator candidates to ensure they are not former banned users. I'm not sure if people are running them as the candidacies come in, but if they are, I think that people should know because not everyone is happy to have some part of their IP nature revealed (as demonstrated above).

However, I do think that if it is demonstrated that a candidate is using Tor/open proxies to edit, then it should be revealed. Lest the candidate gets blocked instead and the reason cannot be revealed (transparency?).

So I guess it comes down, to me, to whether "silent" checkusers are being performed on RfA candidates - something that should've been said beforehand. I'm more inclined to say no to checkusers unless there is consensus to allow them. After all, a checkuser isn't part of the RfA process, from what I can gather. x42bn6 Talk Mess 01:20, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Read what Jayjg said on the RFA - he was NOT setting out to checkuser CharlotteWebb. He was checkusering vandals, found TOR nodes, and when listing names of users on those nodes, found her name. --BigDT 01:24, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Someone made a great point about blocking TOR on the RFA. We're blocking it to prevent admin accounts from being hijacked. But how are we preventing it if admins are IP-block exempt. If the whole reason to block TOR was just to avoid admin account hijackings, we've done nothing, because admins can still edit. And you know what, we probably have a few admins editing via TOR right now. Also, is there and can there be a checkuser log of checkusers performed (not the results, just the fact that it was done). Also, if it's possible, it could be like the oversight log, which can only be viewed by oversight users. I have a feeling that we have a few checkusers who use it whenever they feel like it, included for all RFA candidates. --(Review Me) R ^ParlateContribs_@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 01:29, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

The whole reason to block TOR is not just to avoid admin account hijackings. Tor is an anonymous proxy. It is used almost exclusively by vandals, trolls, and banned users in order to evade detection. This is why we block open proxies, not admin hacking, and it is why Tor is being blocked too. There already is a CheckUser log, and there always has been, and it is viewable to all CheckUsers on all projects. I happen to think IP-exempt is a bad idea, especially if it's just for admins as a whole, which is needless hierarchy. Finally, please keep your assumptions of bad faith ("we have a few checkusers who use it whenever they feel like it"), especially for serious matters like CheckUser to yourself. Dmcdevit·t 02:09, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying the reason TOR is blocked. And about my comment, exactly, it's something serious, that shouldn't me misused. I didn't know there was a log, but thanks for telling me. I guess that eliminates the chance of someone doing checkusers against whoever they feel like. --(Review Me) R ^ParlateContribs_@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 02:17, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if I'm missing the obvious, but if TORs are blocked, how has CW been editing? Mackan79 02:29, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking of that before also. He/she could be editing from their own IP, or from a different proxy server. --(Review Me) R ^ParlateContribs_@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 02:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Not all TORs are blocked, as it is not obvious that one is editing on a TOR IP until someone uses it to vandalize Wikipedia, at which time it's checked (for other editors using that IP, normally to catch sleeper accounts), logged and blocked. In this case. the Checkuser prepatory to blocking the IP found that CW had been editing from these IP's. SirFozzie 02:35, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, what Jayjg said here was that he had run across this situation with CW several times but hadn't done anything about it. Perhaps these are details we can't have; I don't know. I think a problem occurs when it reaches the stage of revealing this in an RfA, though, which does harm that editor in a way they couldn't exactly anticipate. It might also be worth considering whether this approach is the best way to enforce any of the objectives which have been offered, especially with the self-contradictory exemption mentioned above. Per User:Uncle, we currently have either policy 2 or 3 under his list, which I'm still curious to see defended. Mackan79 03:17, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

For the record, the m:privacy policy largely concerns itself with "personally identifiable" information -- mentioning that someone has used Tor at some point doesn't seem, strictly, to qualify. The m:checkuser policy mentions that "Unless someone is violating policy with their actions (e.g. massive bot vandalism or spam) and revealing information about them is necessary to stop the disruption, it is a violation of the privacy policy to reveal their IP..." -- true, we have a policy against the use of open proxies. That policy, with particular reference to Tor, has recently been more and more controversial, I've noticed; likewise, it's not immediately clear to me personally what "disruption," if any, the user was engaged in or planned to engage in. It's natural enough to run into a user while in the process of checking Tor -- finding the information and releasing the information are two very distinct steps, however. Finally, I haven't yet run across any material relating to the release of private information that mentions "except if they're running for admin, then release away." I'm not ready to lead any witchhunts on this, but for the record, I am very concerned and earnestly hope this wasn't done casually, and won't be done casually in the future. – Luna Santin (talk) 02:56, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

That is somewhat true, but whereas before the user CharlotteWebb was completely anonymous at about one in 4 billion (or whatever the population of the earth currently is). Now, due to the reporting of information obtained from a checkuser released perhaps in violation of "If you're in any doubt, give no detail" policy [45], CharlotteWebb's identity is now narrowed down to the much smaller number of Tor users. By stating that CharlotteWebb is using Tor, Jay has in addition revealed nearly complete information about the timing for Charlotte's ip usage(through the ability to see a user's edit log) to anyone running a Tor entry node who can now compare their usage logs against Charlotte's Wikipedia usage logs to determine with high probability what her IP address is. Yes, that check could have been done before, but Jay's disclosure has very much narrowed down the number of places to look. It is perhaps worse than revealing an ISP, because most ISP's have legal privacy policies which may not be present on the Tor network. Uncle uncle uncle 05:00, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

It would seem WP:NOP needs a revision sooner rather than later, to say in effect (per one good suggestion here) that open proxies are heavily discouraged and may be blocked any time for cause, but aren't categorically prohibited. This could involve caveats such as a prohibition for admins if necessary (to accompany the prohibition on multiple admin accounts). I generally agree with the arguments that we can't have some people openly disregarding policy, though that's mostly separate from how to check, but the the policy should probably resolve both issues. Mackan79 04:40, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

But you see, they are categorically prohibited. Wikipedia:No open proxies is a local copy of m:Meta:No open proxies, a Foundation-wide policy since March 2004. --bainer (talk) 05:50, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I assume you've seen Jimbo's statement that this should change, though? [46] I'm suggesting one way to go about that, which seems a bit more pressing with situations like this one in mind. Mackan79 15:36, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

But interestingly enough, m:Meta:No open proxies actually points users who are caused hardship by the policy to a page titled "Wikipedia:Advice to users using Tor to bypass the Great Firewall" :::::

"This policy is known to cause hardship to some editors, who must use open proxies to circumvent censorship where they live; a well-known example is the government of the People's Republic of China, which attempts to prevent its citizens from reading or editing Wikipedia. Chinese readers who wish to edit Meta should read Wikipedia:Advice to users using Tor to bypass the Great Firewall."

Uncle uncle uncle 06:11, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

You've clearly just read the title, because the page advises people to stop using Tor if they find themselves blocked, and use the HTTPS gateway instead (because at the time that was written, only the HTTP gateways were blocked by the Great Firewall). --bainer (talk) 10:56, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

The meta policy permits/encourages proxies to be softblocked only, allowing users to edit through them. You must know this. The way, the truth, and the light 06:09, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

It certainly does not. "Users are prohibited from editing Wikimedia projects through open or anonymous proxies." It's pretty clear. --bainer (talk) 10:56, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

It's open to interpretation. Here on en-wiki, proxies are generally softblocked. Please see the related talk pages here and on meta. - hahnchen 12:45, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• A few points. It's not exactly rare that we (that is, we checkuser operators) say that an editor has been using Tor; in fact, we do so on a regular basis. Usually it's of the form "we can't tell whether X is a sockpuppet of Y, because Y's using Tor." We don't penalize people in any way for using Tor; we just plug the holes. But we've never made any effort to keep such knowledge secret. I've certainly seen Charlotte Webb's name on user lists from Tor proxies when running checkuser; I've certainly wondered why an apparently good editor like CW does that, but that was about it; there was no particular reason at the time to delve any further. Uncle uncle etc -- are you sure about the exposure there? I don't know a lot about the Tor architecture, but it seems to me that sure, someone running a Tor node could make such an analysis, but why would they think that CW had used their Tor node? It would be a fishing expedition that would come up dry almost all the time, and come up with lots of false hits, give that there are hundreds of thousands of Tor users. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 06:14, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarifications. It seems to me there's a significant difference between keeping it secret and specifically revealing it in an RfA, though. If practice is not to block all Tor addresses, or even to reveal the information, then I'd think that would be applied consistently across the board. I haven't seen the comments on the mailing list, but Jay's initial explanation was that he revealed it because he considered this an issue of trust for prospective administrators; I think there are several problems with a checkuser making that kind of determination though, and particularly in the manner here. Mackan79 16:51, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

The Tor FAQ lists such an attack vector. "As mentioned above, it is possible for an observer who can view both you and either the destination website or your Tor exit node to correlate timings of your traffic as it enters the Tor network and also as it exits. Tor does not defend against such a threat model." Now that Charlotte's Tor usage has been revealed, the servers running the Tor entry nodes can use her edit logs to perform time correlation against their own logs. Previously the entry nodes had no idea where her traffic went - now they do, it went to Wikipedia. And likewise - previously no one knew where Charlotte's traffic at Wikipedia came from, now they do, it came from Tor, so if you want to know Charlotte's IP address, search the Tor entry node logs. Uncle uncle uncle 06:54, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand that attack vector. The initial node would have to know that it's Charlotte and can then cross reference the time of requests and actions at the remote end. That doesn't work in this case since (a) the source doesn't know that it's Charlotte and (b) the edit times wikipedia gives are only accurate to the minute. To look down the access log on an entry node and decide access from a source coincides to within the same minute as an edit Charlotte makes must therefore be Charlotte. That would be ridiculous, anyone doing general webbrowsing at the time that Charlotte is accessing wikipedia is reasonably likely to be making requests in the same minute as Charlotte is editing, across the whole network there are likely to be thousands of users making requests in the same minute... --pgk 16:08, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

As an aside, this is also being discussed on mail:wikien-l, including some responses from Jayjg. – Luna Santin (talk) 07:43, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Is there a place to find this without signing up? Mackan79 16:39, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Archives are here: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/ -- Jonel | Speak 18:04, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I have to say, people are talking there a great deal about privacy, but I think that misses the point. My concern is that checkuser provides quite powerful information, which probably reveals a fair amount of shenanigans going on around wikipedia. To minimize the possibility that such information could be used unfairly, we seem to have rather strict limits on its use -- most importantly no fishing, no explanation of results, and a log where other checkusers are supposed to ensure that nobody is looking people up without good reason. This may not be obvious, but I think it strongly suggests that checkusers shouldn't use the incidental information they glean in any way that could appear selective, regardless of what their intent in any situation might be. Mackan79 18:41, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Related question: is checkuser a lifetime privilege? Members of ArbComm are normally granted checkuser privileges. Don't those privileges expire when their ArbComm term expires? --John Nagle 16:16, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• There's no particular time limit; it is incorrect that members of ArbCom are normally granted such privileges (some of us have them, others of us lack either the interest, the technical background, or the masochistic tendencies to ask for them.) You don't have to be on ArbCom to get the privilege; some of us are, some of us used to be, some of us never have been. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 00:45, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Resumption of sockpuppetry & disruption by Dr CareBear

Can I have advice of other admins please re User:Dr CareBear who has just come off a 1 week block for using sockpuppets (Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Dr CareBear) to evade a block for disrupting POV editing to multiple neuroleptic medication articles, failing to engage in discussion when asked (see also Wikiproject discussion) and reverting repeatedly other editors who removed the alarmist POV pushing. Original block actions had been reviewed here on WP:AN/I#Request_for_outside_admin_review (but can't seem to find it now in archives).

Now used User:203.177.247.166 for http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Promazine&diff=prev&oldid=138469990 - As per Wikipedia:Sock puppetry#Avoiding scrutiny from other editors, I feel that again using other accounts to continue the POV push against consensus of other editors and failing to engage in talk page discussion as previously asked to do is being disruptive to the community wikipedian process. I'm mindful to reblock for an increased duration, would this be correct interpretion and use of policies though, and if so, how long should such a reblock be for ? David Ruben ^Talk 02:55, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I blocked the IP for 72 hours as an obvious reincarnation of User:Dr CareBear, making identical tendentious edits and with the same WHOIS as other CareBear socks, before noticing this thread. I'm happy to have the block adjusted if it's felt to be appropriate by others. User:Dr CareBear is a persistent, disruptive puppeteer, though, and I was about to re-block the sockmaster account as well; I'll wait and let others chime in first. MastCell ^Talk 04:57, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Angry German Kid

Could somebody please delete and salt Angry German Kid? it has been deleted four times already, and just got recreated yet again. Corvus cornix 07:54, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Deleted and salted. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 08:03, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Proposal: Change of policy on "established editors".

I've been seeing a major problem with "semi-protected" pages especially in relation to the Brock Lesnar page. Though there are numerous other pages with the same problem, My personal experience is with that page. That page is on an "indefinite full protection"(it keeps being re-protected when the time expires, for months on end) apparently due to a single vandal making sockpuppet accounts. Apparently this person makes "sleeper accounts" and waits for a few days to be able to edit semi-protected articles and then vandalizes them. I wanted to know if it would be possible to change the policy to make it so editors can't edit semi-protected pages unless they have both waited 5 days as well as have made at least a dozen good non-vandalism edits. This would erase the possibility of making "sleeper accounts" because most vandals would not go through the trouble of making 12 good edits simply to make one vandalism edit which will instantly get reverted and get them banned as a sockpuppet. I believe this would drastically decrease the amount of vandalism to semi-protected pages on Wikipedia and prevent pages such as Brock Lesnar (just a single example among many) from being indefinitely protected due to fear of a single vandal. We're currently being held hostage by vandals with "sleeper" sockpuppets who are able to vandalize pages after waiting the amount of time needed to edit semi-protected pages. We need to make it so in order to edit semi-protected pages you need at least 12 good edits and must be a registered user for at least 5 days. When I say "good edits" I simply mean edits of anykind because if they were vandalism, the person would be banned before ever being able to get to the necessary 12 to vandalize semi-protected pages. Both the waiting period and the minimum edit-count would be required to curtail many vandals who vandalize semi-protected pages. It should be both a waiting period of a few days as well as an edit minimum prior to being able to edit semi-protected pages. If they had a choice they would choose to build sleeper sock puppets, making several at a time just to wait out the time period and then vandalize pages. There needs to be both a waiting period as well as an edit minimum prior to being able to edit semi-protected pages. I got support for this when I posted it on Wikipedia talk:Protection policy and was told I should bring it here which has higher traffic. I would like some input on this proposal as well as methods for enacting such a policy. I believe it would drastically improve our ability to fight vandalism against semi-protected articles and spot vandals prior to them being able to edit semi-protected articles. I also posted this in the village pump.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 11:41, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

As soon as I read this, my foremost thought was "this is why we need a moderation system, where edits need to be approved". But on second thoughts, it is going to be havily abused. How about we increase the threshold to, say 2 weeks and 100 edits with no blocks in the last week? In the meanwhile, if they want to edit protected articles, they will put a request, and established editors will review their contribs and promote them prematurely if their contribs are legitimate. --soum ^talk 11:53, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean by "abused"? Perhaps a 12 edit minimum is too small but a 100 edit minimum is too much. Perhaps somewhere in between such as 20-30 "good edits"(edits that don't result in a ban) plus a 1 week waiting period before being able to edit semi-protected articles? And as you say, legitimate users will be able to request the changes if they want them to be made prior to that. It's a lot better than our current scenario.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 12:27, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Abused as in a lot of articles could get into moderation mode, against our motto that anyone can edit. And 20 good edits seems way too low. We cannot define "good edits" as taking an article from stub to FA in two weeks. Typo fixing and formatting also counts as "good edits", and it is not really tough to create a throwaway account and pile up 2 typo fixes before going on a short burst of rampage (if a vandal is really determined). Maybe something like 3-4 edits a day (which adds up to 50 odd edits over a two week period) is better! --soum ^talk 13:25, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• This could work, but probably not here on Wikipedia. Maybe it should be tried at test.wikipedia first, before being used here, just to see if it's popular enough, and if it causes any problems... --SunStar Net ^talk 12:29, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe it would be a definite improvement to Wikipedia to help curtail vandalism on semi-protected articles. See what you can do help get this proposal tested and enacted.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 12:33, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Response to Soumyasch: "Good edits" would be simply defined as ANY edits. I.E. edits that result in a block. I don't see how 20 edits is too low. How many vandals will go through the effort to make 20 edits and wait a week just to vandalize a page one time? Not that many, that's for sure. If not 20 edits then 30 seems reasonable. 30 edits and a 7 day waiting period before one can edit semi-protected articles. Anything higher is unreasonable, Tests are too difficult to enforce and are tedious.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 13:30, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Sleeper accounts are not really a problem, they spend a week brewing up 10 accounts, and get them all blocked in an hour. Accounts that are clearly just there to edit semi-protected pages can be treated as single purpose accounts. ^(H) 13:32, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, It's definitly a problem. Check out the Brock Lesnar page for an example of a specific user who has (apparantly) been creating sleeper accounts then vandalizing the page. My proposal would prevent this from occurring in most cases.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 13:35, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

A few reverts, a few blocks, the guy is back at square one and are article is as it was. No big deal. ^(H) 13:38, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Two Admins there are using it as justification for basically an indefinite full protection of the article. I tried requesting an un-protected and it was denied, I tried talking to the two admins and they both refused to discuss it any further, I requested a comment concerning the dispute and got none. So I think this might remove their (in my opinion already invalid) justification for fully protecting the article as well as would help wikipedia semi-protected articles drastically.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 13:41, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

This is, hopefully, a complete response to the points mentioned above. The issue with Brock Lesnar is that the person doing the vandalism has had dozens (literally) of sockpuppets, not just one or two. over the period of months. The goal of the protection is to wait until he gets bored and goes somewhere else.

Very similar to moderation is Wikipedia:Flagged revisions, which will help a lot once it's implemented.

You ought to suggest policy changes on the village pump, not this page. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:02, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Unblock requests

I have declined three unblock requests - is it OK for a non-admin to decline them?? I wasn't sure if this was the right thing to do, so have come here for advice. If I've done wrong, let me know. Thanks, --SunStar Net ^talk 12:23, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Non-Admins can neither block or unblock. How could you "deny" an unblock request if you don't have the authority to unblock? It seems pretty trivial to me. You should direct such users to the people who blocked them or other administrators.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 12:28, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Non-Admins can neither delete or restore articles, how then can they close AFD debates as keep? Very easily. --pgk 12:59, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• I am aware of that. I was being careful about it. However, I was dealing with users that were either sockpuppets or had been confirmed as one by a Checkuser, and was directing them towards the relevant people, or the unblocken-l mailing list. --SunStar Net ^talk 12:31, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how it makes much of a difference really. You should always make sure they're truly sockpuppets though before dismissing them. They might be good faith editors who might have been mistakenly banned, so denying their request when you have no ability to un-ban them is sort of misleading.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 12:35, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• Sorry, Wikidudeman. My mistake. However, the talk page did say on one of them it had been confirmed by a checkuser, so I directed the blocked user to email the checkuser to discuss it with him. I'll avoid doing these unless I'm an admin. Sorry. --SunStar Net ^talk 12:38, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
  • One of your denials was just overturned and unblocked by an admin, so I suggest you avoid the unblock process again. Metros 12:42, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned non-admins in good standing can decline unblock requests all day long, if they like. I used to, pre-adminship, though usually only in obvious cases, such as checkuser-confirmed socks and/or Jacob Peters and/or obvious vandals. Moreschi ^Talk 12:44, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I know, I've discussed it with him. As it is, I was trying to be bold, but this time I failed. Oh well, I've learnt something new on Wikipedia today - non-admins shouldn't try doing Category:Requests for unblock. But Moreschi's argument is equally good as well. As it was, I declined an unblock for a checkuser-confirmed sock anyway. But I'll refrain from this, as I was clearly wrong. --SunStar Net ^talk 12:46, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Non-admins should not be prohibited from having a go at unblock requests, though at first they should probably stick to obvious cases. One mistake does not equate to the end of the world. Moreschi ^Talk 13:01, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

A non-admin should not purport to resolve an unblock request as granted/declined, but is free to add a relevant comment to the blocked user's talkpage for the information of the reviewing administrator. Newyorkbrad 13:39, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Sun Star, this comes up periodically and people can never agree. Some people think it is fine for established non-admins to review and decline obvious unblock requests in the same way that they help with closing obvious keep AfDs, while others think only admins should handle the requests. I personally do not have a problem with established non-admins helping out, whether by commenting or even declining the very clear and obvious ones, but you should be aware that some people who have helped with processing requests have picked up criticism at their RfAs because of it. Anyway, if you're interested in that kind of work, you might consider joining the unblock list where trusted non-admins are most welcome to sign up and pitch in and help out. Cheers, Sarah 14:02, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• The best solution here is to make very sure that you are right when doing things like this. Nobody is going to say "Oh no, you're not allowed to make correct decisions because you're not an admin". -Amarkov moo! 14:14, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

As Amarkov and Sarah have said, it's fine when it comes to unblock requests like "UNBLOCK ME NOW THIS IS TOTALLY UNFAIR", but if it's possible it could be controversial (and even checkuser blocks can end up being controversial, I got myself involved in one a few months ago) then it closing the case could very easily end up casting you in a bad light. If you don't want that, I'd stick to the simple cases. Make sure to review contribution history, block log, the admin's blocking log, etc. -- Renesis (talk) 23:35, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Incivility of Labyrinth13 (talk · contribs)

This user has been involved in disputes at Broadcast signal intrusion and Max Headroom pirating incident. The user has repeatedly deleted entire sections of the talk page, claiming it contained libel and personal attacks against him. After undoing these edits initially, he replied with these two extremely incivil edit summaries: BSI 1 and MHPI 1. Deleting the comments for a third time, he replied with these edit summaries BSI 2 and MHPI 2. Please discipline this rude and incivil editor, who is himself falsely claiming personal attacks and libel against him. Thanks. Parsecboy 16:03, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Labyrinth13 has made a series of incivil edits against me and other editors, here, herehere, here, and here, as well as here. Please render assistance. Thanks. Parsecboy 16:28, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, please get an admin over to look at all of the talk pages where RHKlein accuses me of theft, and the called me a liar and a coward. All I was trying to do was remove the libel and false statements when this idiot named Parsecboy showed up and started trying to throw his weight around.

To read RHKlein's libel for yourself, go to: Talk Broadcast signal intrusion

And to:Talk Max Headroom pirating incident

Labyrinth13 17:08, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

This is what I'm dealing with. Labyrinth13 is trying to remove relevant comments from the talk pages, falsely claiming libel and personal attacks as justification. His disruptive editing and numerous personal attacks warrant blocking. Parsecboy 17:12, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I have indef blocked this account. I noted he had just come off a 24 block for exactly the same reasons on exactly the same articles. LessHeard vanU 21:53, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

(further comment) It looks as if Labyrinth13 was deleted at his own request prior to my issuing the block. LessHeard vanU 22:14, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Shadowbot3 Unicode problem

Shadowbot3 is having problems with high-byte Unicode characters all over the place. A number of people of reported the issue at User talk:Shadow1 and User talk:Shadowbot3. Could someone please block it until Shadow1 can work out the problem. There's already a ton of cleanup to do to repair the damage done so far. Mike Dillon 16:53, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours. Let us know if more time is necessary. - KrakatoaKatie 17:46, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Crap. Looks like I've got some work to do before I add that Unicode support into the bot. Thanks for blocking it, I'll work on fixing the problem. Shadow1 (talk) 21:35, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Condoleezza Rice

There are multiple IPs vandalizing article Condoleezza Rice with racial slurs. The page should be semi-protected. Help, please. Mikebar 17:57, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Privacy advice

A good idea on the mailing list: add a link to a page with privacy advice to the welcome template. Something about not adding personal information, especially if you are a minor, and being mindful of the potential for people to try to find your personal details if you edit contentious subjects. Guy (Help!) 18:17, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Scheherazade Requested move

Resolved

 – NO immediate problem

On 5 June I started a move requests (Shahrazad → Scheherazade). The request was a supported unanimously and the page was moved on 10 June. The discussion was then reopened by Eclecticology. The discussion was then closed again by Kintetsubuffalo, then reopened again by Eclecticology. The reason given by Eclecticology in the edit summary for the reopening was "nobody has the right to close talk page discussions". Is this correct? --Philip Stevens 20:12, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you can close talk page discussions, but it isn't required, so if this other person insists on opening it again, I would recommend that you just let it sit open and let him speak his peace. Eventually discussion will die down on its own. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:58, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Article RFC looks like a user conduct RFC

Can I get some opinions on Talk:La_Toya_Jackson#Request_for_comment? Rhythmnation2004 (talk · contribs) opened this RFC about actions that I took on the article. However, the RFC seems to resemble a user conduct RFC instead of an article RFC. In other words, he's looking for comments about my actions rather than about the issue my actions were focused on (the removal of items without reliable sources). I tried to explain the difference to him but he refuses to listen to any statement I make it appears. Any thoughts would be appreciated, Metros 20:14, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Meerkat Manor

Some users keep on adding to page Meerkat Manor more information about particular meerkats and groups, and other users keep querying it and deleting it. Some of this information has been "in and out like planes at an airport". Is it possible to run an IP check on some of these users? If one of their IP's is area-specific to whatever internet nodes serve the Kuruman area of South Africa, that user may genuinely be someone in the Kalahari Meerkat Project and therefore with reliable information. Anthony Appleyard 20:52, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, technically, it is possible. The correct place to request a checkuser would be WP:RCU. In a case like this, however, it's highly doubtful that a checkuser request would be accepted. As far as I can see, this is a content dispute. And it's precisely for those, that we have WP:CITE, WP:RS and WP:V. Since WP is not a publisher of original thought, the burden to provide a proper citation to back up an edit is on the editor making the edit, and not on the person questioning its legitimacy. If new material is challenged, it's up to the editor who added it to provide a reliable source. Addressing this issue on the article's talk page would probably be the most constructive and reasonable way to deal with this. Please bear in mind, though, that I know nothing about this show (that is one of the reasons why adding proper sources is important - with sources, I can verify the information myself; in the absence of reliable sources, I have to take the information at face value). This isn't about choosing sides, it's really about verifiability. --S ^up? 22:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:COIN

We need more admins watching WP:COIN. At the moment we have at least two active COI spammers making big messes. We need to block these are quickly as possible to help keep the messes from getting larger! See [47] and [48]. Nip it in the bud, and all that. Thanks! Jehochman ^Talk 23:55, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Gene Poole

Gene Poole recently had a page of his deleted because it was abusive and attacked legitimate editors. Well, he created it again, this time on a separate website. The only reason he's doing it is to spite me, and I personally find it childish and sick. See my talk page and contributions for the full story. Honestly, I think this constitutes as abusive and could merit legal action; yes, I know I'm not supposed to go there, but this is borderline abuse and something should be done. According to him, the dispute has been resolved, but as you can see he obviously can't go without having the last word. (By the way, the reason I'm involved is that he's repeatedly adding my name to the page and a comment of mine taken completely out of context to make it seem like I'm a vandal. --Captain Wikify ^Argh! 01:30, 17 June 2007 (UTC)