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

User:Thafadi Adahabou

Today User:Thafadi Adahabou treatened to kill some people. He also vandalised some other articles. All his bad-edits have been reverted, and je is indefenitly blocked. But shouldn't you admins bann his IP-adress forever asswell? -The Bold Guy- 15:03, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

He was only active for today. He may very well have been using a dynamic or shared IP address, in which case an indefinite block would not only not block him, but it may needlessly block other contributors. Someguy1221 16:55, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, we don't know his IP address, because having a username masks it. When a username is blocked it does block the underlying IP, but only for 24 hours. If he reappears as an IP, we can block him again. Natalie 14:08, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Threats to commit murder is very serious. Please post diffs. If it is serious, reporting the user to the police may be appropriate. What if the murdered said "I told WP what I was going to do and they only blocked me. They did not do anything even though I told them the person I was going to kill, the victim's address, and the intended date of murder." This scenario may be not applicable in this case but I have not seen any diffs to say one way or another. Archtransit 22:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Look at his last edits. --Golbez 04:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Surely an administrator with CheckUser powers could find their IP address? --saxsux 19:15, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser is not intended to be used for fishing expeditions -- & that would be a fishing expedition. Natalie's answer above is appropriate. Besides, the death threats sound to me a little odd (although the block is justified): threatening to kill trolls? (Maybe it depends on who one considers a troll.) I can't help but wondering if this is some kind of joe job: someone allows a "friend" to use his computer, "friend" creates an account on Wikipedia, causes havoc, gets blocked -- all without the owner of the computer knowing. People do weird things. And if this is not the case, as Natalie says, we'll block the IP when that person makes more threats against trolls. -- llywrch 18:55, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Blockage

This account was posted on the account blocking page and blocked[1]. I ask that it be unblocked, because it is a normal, proper name and does useful things. I also ask, not for the first time, that you avoid giving blocking privileges to users who are retarded.

Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.112.93.84 (talk) 21:33, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

What account? Grzegorz Chrząszcz vel Brzęszczykiewicz (talk · contribs)? Correctly blocked for being too long. Choose a shorter username. Also, insulting other editors is very unlikely to help. Sandstein 21:47, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Uh, what ever happened to WP:BITE? Seriously, who the hell are we to find a user who created their account on the 16th and then block them without warning 6 days later after they made multiple productive edits? Unless anyone objects very shortly I'm going to unblock the user, apologise, and refer them to WP:NAMECHANGE. Cowman109^Talk 21:51, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

The name is a violation of WP:IU due to the fact it is too long so unblocking may not be a good option, GDonato (talk) 22:11, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I have a problem with this one and refused to block it once at WP:UAA. Polish people have long names! Do Polish genealogy and you'll be amazed how long some of their names are. So now we're blindly blocking people who use their own names?! That's awful. —Wknight94 (talk) 22:13, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

If I may quote WP:IU directly, Length alone is not always enough to forbid a username, however; there are many productive users with acceptable usernames over 20 characters in length, and even some with over 30.. I agree that the user's name is a tad inappropriately long (and uses foreign characters), but when a user has made positive edits for 6 days after creating their account, we don't just go blocking people without notice. We're supposed to ask them to change their name first, not block them and get them rightfully upset as this user is now. Cowman109^Talk 22:14, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Three questions. First, why even make it possible to create a username that is going to be judged too long? Second, is the name above too long, really? I don't know about everyone else, but I almost never need to type a username to get to their talk page; that's what wikilinks are for. And if you're just going to refer to them, you can always call them GCvB, or if you have to make a wikilink yourself, just copy/paste. And third, does the "you've been blocked for an inappropriate username" template seem a little bitey to anyone else? Not to add another gratuitous layer of complication, but shouldn't we talk to someone who's name just seems inconveniently long more sweetly than to someone with a "badfaith" name like User:I made love to your mother multiple times? --barneca (talk) 22:15, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

(ec) I would recommend WP:RFCN as it is certainly not blatant as it is a real name but that is not always enough reason. GDonato (talk) 22:17, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure if there were some technical reason why long names were harmful, it would be disabled past a certain character limit in MediaWiki. I'm asking user:ST47 to reply here before I go unblock the user, though. I'll still suggest to the user that he should see WP:RFCN WP:NAMECHANGE (woops, wrong shortcut), however. Cowman109^Talk 22:18, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Blocking someone who uses their real name is terrible. When I said that above, I didn't realize they had already made good-faith edits to *drum roll* Poland-related articles! Now we're punishing an entire nationality?! Please unblock this person ASAP. —Wknight94 (talk) 22:20, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Reply to barneca: there is a technical way to stop long usernames. Add .{x} to MediaWiki:Usernameblacklist, and usernames of x or more characters will be prohibited. The blacklist doesn't affect admins creating new accounts while logged in, so overriding it is possible. In this and other cases, context is an important part of determining what is "too long", but it would be a good idea to have a maximum length of less than 255 (the number of characters the database can store) Gracenotes^T § 00:11, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

What is the message displayed if someone tries to create a name that is too long? I hope the message is not too WP:BITEy... :-) Carcharoth 00:37, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Blacklistedusernametext. Looks like it could use a facelift; go ahead and edit it if you wish :) Gracenotes^T § 00:40, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. The honour of updating that (and updating is needed) will have to fall to someone else. Carcharoth 00:53, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

That's not me. That's good advice, but instead of giving it here, you need to put it on his talk page, preferably being politer than the blocking admin. If the string is short enough to be a name, or a simple phrase, it should be short enough to be his username. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.112.93.84 (talk) 22:22, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I blocked the name because it was too long and confusing, per WP:U. The blocked template suggests that the user change their name. --ST47Talk·Desk 22:23, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, I don't think we should be telling people that in any form when their username is just their real name. Citizendium insists on using your real name, we don't allow it. Not cool. —Wknight94 (talk) 22:26, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

And forget bitey, this is downright insulting to this poor guy. "We don't like your name" is what we're telling him. —Wknight94 (talk) 22:28, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I unblocked the user and I'm suggesting they see WP:NAMECHANGE. Cowman109^Talk 22:29, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Admin-warring is not helpful when you know ST47 opposes an unblock. GDonato (talk) 22:31, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

This doesn't qualify as warring IMHO - it's just common sense. Let's hope we didn't alienate a good user forever. —Wknight94 (talk) 22:33, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Hm? ST47 didn't oppose an unblock.. I asked him to respond here, and he did. No harm comes from unblocking the user. If I misunderstood his reply, my apologies. Cowman109^Talk 22:34, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. GDonato (talk) 22:38, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, I find this particular block reason counterproductive (not in this case alone). Shouldn't simply suggesting that users with overly long or confusing names get them changed be the rule and not the exception? In my humble opinion, WP:U offers plenty of leniency with regard to this particular criterion. (For the record, I have a very, very long name, and it would probably have been blocked if I'd registered under it.) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:43, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. If someone is being cute and using an entire sentence as a user name, I would suggest that they change it. But this is the guy's name! We shouldn't even be suggesting that he change his name! Should we suggest he change it in real life too? This is not some odd name either - see here for another guy who apparently can't edit here under his real name. How is it confusing to refer to this user as Grzegorz anyway? Personally, I'd like to see Can't sleep, clown will eat me change his name before this person. I always have to slowly type CSCWEM when I refer to him. (BTW, I don't actually think CSCWEM should change his name but the point remains). —Wknight94 (talk) 22:49, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

To be brutally honest, I'm somewhat surprised some trigger-happy person hasn't already started an RFCN on CSCWEM. GDonato (talk) 22:51, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps this discussion should be brought to the talk page of WP:IU instead to change the wording of the policy? Cowman109^Talk 22:53, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

If you do, please say so here because I want in on that discussion. This is embarrassing and I really hope the guy isn't insulted just at being asked to change his own damn name. —Wknight94 (talk) 22:57, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

(ec) GDonato, beware of WP:BEANS :) I don't think the policy needs changing; the wording is fine. I think there should be a generally more accepting attitude towards such usernames, backed up by the already generous wording of WP:IU. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

WT:U, thread started. Fvasconcellos, yes, of course, if anyone think about doing that in the immediate future I will be displeased. GDonato (talk) 23:00, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

FYI, I found where I originally refused to block this name after it was bot-reported. Maybe the problem is that there's nothing to stop people from reporting names over and over until someone blocks them. —Wknight94 (talk) 23:27, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

The block was not needed, in my opinion, and was severely counterproductive. Several important points need to be made here (and over on WT:U):

• (1) Grzegorz Chrząszcz vel Brzęszczykiewicz is a real name. Username policy primarily applies to silly-sounding names and offensive names. This is neither.
• (2) "Correctly blocked for being too long" - as has been pointed out, it would be preferable to have the underlying software limit the length of the username, rather than have both the user, and those upholding the letter of law, waste their time worrying about length of user names. I swear I've seen someone running around with a ruler measuring the length of names... (that would be the bot, then).
• (3) The WP:BITE points are extremely important. Any admin or other user who sticks to the letter of policy and guideline while failing to see that their actions are alienating new users is a detriment to the project. I don't normally put things as forcefully as this, but new editors are the lifeblood of Wikipedia, and treating them with respect cannot be emphasised enough.
• (4) This thread was started at 21:33, an hour after the block at 20:26. It took another hour before the user was unblocked. The unblock should have taken place straightaway, followed by an apology. Thankfully the user's talk page is now a bit more welcoming, though the editor has yet (as of the time of writing) to resume editing. If this editor doesn't edit again, I, for one, will be kicking up a huge fuss.
• (5) "I blocked the name because it was too long and confusing, per WP:U. The blocked template suggests that the user change their name." - Hmm. Let's have a look at what the first part of the template says, shall we:

  "Your account with this username has been blocked indefinitely because the username may be rude or inflammatory, be unnecessarily long/confusing, be too similar to an existing user, contain the name of an organization or website, refer to a Wikipedia or Wikimedia Foundation process or namespace, or be otherwise inappropriate (see our blocking and username policies for more information)."

  Not very friendly, is it? Imagine what your reaction would be if the above was the first message you ever received on Wikipedia? The template gives a list of possible reasons for the username block, but the underlying message is "work out for yourself why your name is inappropriate, because I can't be bothered to tell you".
• (6) Some of the other attitudes in this thread beggar belief:
  • (a) "unblocking may not be a good option" - um, the editor was making good contributions! Unblocking would not have done any harm, and keeping the editor blocked could potentially have lost us a new editor.
  • (b) "Admin-warring is not helpful" - again, this completely misses the point. Anyone with an ounce of common sense can see that an unblock does no harm in this case, and that the original block was a misguided application of the letter of the policy. It would only become admin-warring if the block was put back in place.

Apologies for bringing up all these points, but it is threads like this that make me seriously worry about the future of Wikipedia. Unless people who apply the letter of the law without regard for the spirit of the law, are told in no uncertain terms that they got it wrong, and learn from their mistakes, then there is no point in having pages like WP:BITE. And if people try to defend such blocks, that is almost as bad. Carcharoth 23:44, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Well said. Agreed 100% on every point including that I will throw up a fuss if the user never returns. I do want to mention that ST47 should not necessarily be singled out because I know many admins would have applied the same block - but they would have all been equally wrong IMHO. —Wknight94 (talk) 23:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Well summed up Carcharoth. I think this is one of those times where WP:IAR should be applied. · AndonicO ^Talk 00:50, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! :-) Carcharoth 00:53, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Another point, the bot reported the name as being 41 characters long, but I've counted several times, and I can only find 39 characters (including spaces). Do "ą" and "ę" count twice or something? Carcharoth 00:53, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

The user name is 39 characters long, and 41 bytes long. (See Unicode#Mapping and encodings.) The bot should probably use characters :) Gracenotes^T § 00:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Latin characters with diacritics (like the ogonek) use two bytes in UTF-8, I think. Gimmetrow 01:05, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Would it be sensible to ask the operator of user:HBC NameWatcherBot to increase the length limit by a few bytes? Cardamon 08:24, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad that this is sorted out. Now, is anybody going to warn the original complainant about using uncivil comments such as, "I also ask, not for the first time, that you avoid giving blocking privileges to users who are retarded" as being in possible violation of WP:NPA? I don't suggest that we should block, of course, this being an isolated case. LessHeard vanU 10:05, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm thinking more of a barnstar for pointing out the inappropriate block (spirit, remember, not letter). But as it is an IP address, I find warnings and barnstars a bit pointless in this case. You could go and chat to the IP address on their talk page if you like. Carcharoth 11:32, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

The problem is not retarded people at all, it's retarded polices. Wikipedia:Username policy is one of the most moronic, screwball things about this place. Who knows how many potential good contributors we lose because of it? I left a rant about it on the village pump a while back here. Sad to see the same problems still persisting. Moreschi ^Talk 12:21, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Nice points in that village pump post. You almost inspired me to MfD the username policy, but then I saw that it is an official policy. Maybe a "disputed" tag? Carcharoth 12:47, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Update: the timer is still running. Grzegorz Chrząszcz vel Brzęszczykiewicz (talk · contribs) has not edited since he was blocked around 18 hours ago. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:04, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, he stopped editing about 2.5 hours before he was username-blocked. It is not even certain if he is aware that he was blocked. The only way to know for sure is to ask and hope he is still around. Carcharoth 13:12, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Could there be some advantage to modifying the template so it requires the blocking admin to include a specific reason? I think the point above that we are essentially asking users to figure out why their name is inappropriate is an important one, especially since the current template doesn't even list all the possible reasons. What I'm thinking is that we change the template so it's like CSD tags and has to include a specific reason, which I think will go a long way to making the whole blocking experience better. Natalie 14:31, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Agree 100% w/ Natalie. --barneca (talk) 15:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

There already is a reason tag with {{uw-ublock}} (e.g., {{UsernameBlocked|reason=being Polish}}). It has been there for some time. However, it is not required. The problem with making the parameter "required" is that some admins might not be aware that they have to include it, or may forget it. And, the only way to "edit" a block summary is to unblock and reblock (messy). If we had a block reason blacklist, this would be a piece of cake (great example of creeping featurism, too). Gracenotes^T § 17:14, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think requiring something on the block message is likely since, as you've said, the only way to change it is to unblock and reblock and that's just annoying. I see what you're saying about people not being aware, but try tagging something for speedy deletion without adding a reason. You get huge read letters read "This must be replaced with a specific reason" or something similar. The same thing happens when people attempt to add the "hangon" tag to talk pages. Feature creep it may be, but that isn't always a bad thing. Natalie 17:20, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Big red text doesn't work here: the blocking admin would just see ({{uw-ublock}}) as a summary. It is possible to make a bot that annoys admins who do username blocks without a reason. (Not sure if it's a good idea, but it's possible.) Gracenotes^T § 17:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I think we're talking about two different things. I'm talking about the message that's left on the user talk page, and I can only assume that you are talking about the message in the block log. The admin would see the message on the talk page, because when you press submit the current page loads. But yes, it wouldn't work in the block log. Natalie 18:05, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, we are talking about different things. Both are relevant, though. It seems to be a good idea to have the template require a reason, so long as everyone knows about it. Gracenotes^T § 20:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

For general interest

Those who have commented here may like to check out this discussion concerning fixing the username "policy". Moreschi ^Talk 17:29, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Trivia

While this username may be a real name indeed, it may also be a reference to "Grzegorz Brzęczyszczykiewicz", a fake name the protagonist of Jak rozpętałem drugą wojnę światową used when interrogated by a Gestapo officer (see the trivia section of the article). Both "chrząszcz" and "Brzęczyszczykiewicz" are also polish tongue-twister words. Миша13 22:03, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

The user may be named Grzegorz Chrząszcz or Grzegorz Brzęszczykiewicz, not both (vel is similar to aka). He should chose one name/nickname, not two, for reasons discussed above.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  04:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Administrator Future Perfect at Sunrise abusing his power to impose his way

Administrator User: Future Perfect at Sunrise is using his admin standing to impose his way of 'looking at things' on the Wikiproject Republic of Macedonia which allegedly is using for pushing POV, which could not be further from the truth, as the project page is just a mean for coordinating efforts concerning articles that deal with Republic of Macedonia, there is nothing POV on it, and there are Greek and Bulgarian users there which can offer a balanced opinion on all matters. He went even further and proposed the whole project for deletion as his 'authority' was not respected. Capricornis 19:04, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Reference: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject ROMacedonia. I don't see any problem with Fut.Perf's actions here, considering the abuse of the WikiProject system outlined in that nomination. There's already a strong consensus to delete, and for good reason. Seems to me some of the WikiProject participants need to be censured as well. — madman bum and angel 19:10, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Not just censured...probably some bans are in order. Future Perfect has done everything right in trying to restrain an mischievous little nest of POV-pushing. Moreschi ^Talk 19:15, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

And filing an MFD is not an abuse of adminiship tools; it doesn't require that bit to file any sort of deletion case. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 19:20, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I absolutely disagree. Read all the refutals on each an every of Fut.Perf. arguments on the MfD page. His case holds no water whatsoever, he hasn't proven probable cause nor any of his claims are beyond reasonable doubt. He has exhibited conflicts of interests and personal bias.This notice is not for his reporting of the wikiproject to the MfD, but for all of his 'acting as a higher power' by unilaterally deleting parts of the wikiproject without discussion, deciding what constitutes POV without discussion, imposing his opinion without hearing other arguments, etc, etc. His last MfD application was the last drop in the ocean, where he presents only one side of the case, withdraws facts, and misrepresents information just to prove his points right. The people who agreed there are either notorious for their hostility to anything Macedonian like NetProfit (check his contrib history and how many edit wars he is involved in), or the others who probably didn't even bother to check the validity of his claims. I could garner just as many votes against deletion if I alerted many pro-macedonian users who don't spend each and every day (or week) on wikipedia. But that is of no consequence, if he gets his way and this project gets deleted (not that a new one cannot be created within minutes), it would be a final proof of how much wikipedia is fundamentally flawed. Capricornis 19:12, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, nothing to see here. Perhaps a review should be undertaken to see if disruption is occurring so that the problem can be dealt with in an appropriate manner. Orderinchaos 16:19, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Zscout370, you are right, filing an MFD is not an abuse of the adminship tools, but this MfD request came as result of this argue between the Fut.Perf and Capricornis about the To do list of that project:[2], [3] where (see the second link) Fut.Perf concludes that when Capricornis is willing to bring the case to a larger audience, the case would continue at MfD. I don't think that an admin user should fulfill an MfD because the other user wanted to bring the dispute about the To do list to a larger audience and because he found the To do list POV-ish. What is the purpose of the whole project deletion just because the To do list is supposedly wrong? I'm afraid that this deletion is going to happen and I'm disappointed that would be result of an admin user initiative. MatriX 21:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Betacommand bot and a larger environmental threat

I commented above that I think Betacommand bot's over-reaching is symptomatic of a larger problem at Wikipedia. My comments got no reply there--I think they may have been lost in the middle of a discussion that had already moved on--so I'm going to take the liberty of re-posting part of them here, because I think the issue is important to the future of Wikipedia, and I'd like to know whether the admins here (or whoever else is looking in) share my concerns. Here's what I wrote earlier: I think there's a serious problem that is damaging Wikipedia and is not limited to the issue of this bot: people whose mentality is oriented toward rulemaking and law enforcement are making the environment inhospitable to people who are interested in creating high-quality article content. Those who are primarily interested in writing and research are unlikely to spend their time in policy and procedural discussions. The more heavily bureacratized and legislated Wikipedia becomes, the more mechanically and aggressively the laws are enforced, the less attractive this environment is for those interested in writing articles. You personally may not be as interested in the nuances of the writing and illustrations as in the efficiency of the programming or consistency of policy, but surely you recognize that the article contents do matter at wikipedia, and that the interests of volunteer writers (and contributors of relevant images) should be a consideration in all administrative matters. End of self-quotation. Do you agree with my characterization of this issue? If so, are there mechanisms in place to correct for this tendency? BTfromLA 20:01, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is the The Free Encyclopedia; that is one of its core goals. BetacommandBot, and all of the other image patrollers, do us a great service by ensuring that Wikipedia stays a free encyclopedia, composed of free content. --Haemo 20:05, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that's the argument, exactly... indef blocking anyone who ever uploads fair use would technically help us be the free encyclopedia, but some ways of enforcing the philosophy are just obviously bad ideas in the long run, if we want to continue having contributers. There is a long, long record of people who otherwise would be fine with policy getting really angry because an (often malfunctioning) bot is enforcing rules, and anyone who complains gets accused of being against Wikipedia's core goals. --W.marsh 20:09, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

We're not talking about malfunctioning bots here; we're talking about them doing a job which we, as a free encyclopedia, need done. Users who are "fine with policy" should be aware that said policy extends to images, just like any other contribution. Blanket accusations of being "against the encyclopedia" are, of course, silly, but all too often I've seen comments that simply misunderstand what image use on Wikipedia is all about — accusations of "vandalism" to image patrollers, of "ruining other people's work", and outright bad faith all around. People on both sides of the "argument", though there isn't one here, need to understand that everyone is doing it for the good of the project and that bombastic accusations on either side are totally unproductive. --Haemo 20:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Where do you see bombastic accusations in the present discussion? BTfromLA 20:28, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

From Haemo, I think. I read your post and thought: "fair comment". I then read Haemo's comment and though: "that's missing the point". This is about civility and WP:BITE, not WP:NFC. Carcharoth 21:06, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

The bottom line is if you're going to use other people's property for free (non-free media), you're going to have to take the time to learn about the necessarily complex rules and procedures that allow you to do so. Any article writer who doesn't want to deal with this is welcome to use only free media in their article, period. - Merzbow 20:08, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

BTfromLA makes some good points. What he writes, however, has nothing to do with fair use rules or Betacommandbot. Moreschi ^Talk 20:11, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. While I am trying to address a larger issue than BetacommandBot, I think that the bot is related to (and symptomatic of) this problem. Take a look at the example of the bot's behavior that brought me to this page in the first place ("my 2¢...," above.) If that doesn't make the connection clear, I can try to spell it out in further detail. BTfromLA 20:25, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

(To Moreschi) Agreed, which is why we need more content-oriented admins (which I know you already know ;-), so the people with the sysop bit aren't completely clueless as to what editors need or want. --Iamunknown 20:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

BTfromLA is right, it is an important point, and an inherent achilles heel of the wikicracy that needs to be counteracted consciously. It is not entirely unrelated to betacommandbot, as the huge discussion above shows. That we need to get rid of unfree content is undisputed. The debate above is surrounding particulars of how this is being done. It boils down to this: admins need to remember that they are here to serve the project, not to build a watertight bureaucracy. We need the bureaucracy to be able to deal with the sheer scale of the project, but whenever bureaucracy is in the way of improvement of the pedia, we will bend the bureaucracy around the pedia, not vice versa. dab (�) 20:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. Carcharoth 21:09, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Dab misses an essential point here. The present consensus is that Wikipedia content is as free as possible -- that is, due to copyright laws & prior art, Wikipedia will never be 100% free-as-in-speech. On some points, I think the community is in practical consensus (e.g., "No, you may not have a free-use image of your favorite acress on your user page"); but on many, either there is currently no consensus, or the consensus exists against removing free-use content (e.g., the use of logos to help identify corporations or brands). But he is correct that the emphasis should be on the "how" -- not in building a powerful beaucracy or seeking "diktats" to effect these changes. -- llywrch 23:39, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I am aware of this, and do not quite see how I am missing anything. I granted we need to remove blatant fair use violations, but this wasn't the point I made. --dab (𒁳) 08:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. Re-reading what you wrote, Dab, I now see what you meant. I've been annoyed by this ideological purity over image licensing for so long that I'm starting to see its advocates where none exist. Sorry. -- llywrch 22:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

We really do seem to be spending a disproportionate amount of time these days on images, rather than text. Neil ム 09:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I think we will continue to do so as long as we allow fair use images. Patrolling hundreds of thousands of images for adherence to our non-free content criteria is quite difficult. I don't think any rule that is more complicated than "you can upload anything you like" or "free content only" is going to be enforceable without really large effort. For the record, I think we should move to "free content only" (good reasons for this move can be seen on Angr's userpage). Kusma (talk) 09:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

On the other hand, with a bit more organised effort, with proper use of categories and tags, it should be possible to get the non-free images under control and see the real scale of the problem and some of the details and proportions of different types of images. Just looking at the overall number and going on a case-by-case approach for each image, was never going to be very informative or efficient. A breakdown into different types is a much better way to approach the matter, and this is what has been happening and what is currently being made more efficient. Then more effort can be devoted to examining the free images and making sure they have sources, and making sure they really are free! In other words, even if all images are "free" we still trust out uploaders to be truthful, or we still have to carefully examine thousands and thousands of images. No different to the case with fair-use, except for some small proportion of the fair-use image (by no means all of them) there is some unknown chance of legal repercussions. Carcharoth 09:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

User talk:67.192.60.213

OK, guys, just a heads-up. Please be careful when blocking this IP, as you'll cause massive amounts of autoblocks if you do block it. See the above talk page. From a concerned student, --HurricanVest 09:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Can we confirm this with the district? It seems an extremely inefficient setup, given the size of the region. I'm not saying the anonymous editor who added the caution is spreading misinformation, but he may be misinformed. — madman bum and angel 13:27, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, blocking the IP shouldn't trigger autoblocks (since most blocks are soft), only blocking accounts will. Since we don't know the underlying IPs of named accounts there's not much to be done... -- lucasbfr ^talk (using User:Lucasbfr2) 13:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Both this IP, and the newly created account HurricanVest, are acting very much like socks of a troll, including goofing around with sock notices of other users. An admin might want to look at the contribs of both and see if they think my hunch is right. --barneca (talk) 16:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Nice catch. I've reverted the problems I've seen, and I'm keeping a close eye on them. Thanks! — madman bum and angel 17:03, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Further comment: The IP might be a sockpuppet of Bugman94. [4] — madman bum and angel 17:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely; this is clearly not a new user, was devoted to monkeying with shared-IP templates and sockpuppet tags, and seemed not to be contributing to the improvement of the encyclopedia. MastCell ^Talk 17:12, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Problem solved.  ;) — madman bum and angel 17:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Suggest keeping an eye on 195.188.50.200 (talk · contribs). Odd situation. User:HurricanVest was there earlier this morning. Per user and talk pages, long history of sockpuppetry and claiming to be unfairly blocked on a shared IP that Cyde said (back in August 2006) isn't really shared. 6 month block expired 7 months ago, with what appears to be a mixture of legitimate and vandal edits from there since then, and one vandal edit earlier this month. Still not shared? --barneca (talk) 17:57, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The IP referenced is on a server for Webhosting. Very likely an open proxy.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

• I don't think 195.188.50.200 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is an open proxy. It may well be a public terminal IP per this diff - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:195.188.50.200&oldid=159978063

Sefton Libraries do have a contact form here, select Technical Services and they should be able to confirm or not if their public terminal IPs are 195.188.50.200 or not. Hope this helps. --Solumeiras ^talk 09:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• • I'm referring to the IP that this section starts with...—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:00, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Editing closed AfD

I just pulled an IAR to clarify an out-of-order AfD list in a closed deletion discussion. That seem unreasonable to anyone?--SarekOfVulcan 15:11, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Looks good, that is why we have WP:IAR. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 15:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Editing a closed AfD discussion is not really high up on the list of heinous wiki-crimes. That is more a public order thing. I often edit archived pages and closed discussions. The trick is knowing what sort of changes are reasonable and which aren't. Clarifications and corrections should always be added, while making clear that the addition was made after the closing point. That is one of the advantages of a wiki after all - mistakes can be corrected. The trick is to do it in such a way that people reading the page after you don't have to look through the page history to work out what happened. Carcharoth 15:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

That's about what I figured. Thanks for the input!--SarekOfVulcan 15:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not aware of a written-down policy that closed AfDs shouldn't be edited. It lies in the realm of common sense. Adding a new comment to the debate is inappropriate, but what Sarek did above is OK, and fixing format problems seems OK. A related case was discussed at the Village Pump where half of an AfD was blotted out by an unclosed strikeout. Someone daringly fixed it, and no retribution ensued. EdJohnston 15:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there's any written policy about editing closed anythings, but as has been noted, it depends on the edits. I've edited closed RfAs before, but I've also warned editors for editing closed RfAs (for my part, it's usually either correcting the final tally or removing the "voice your opinion" link; in the later case, it was someone adding bogus supports to his own RfA). Your edit, Sarek, definitely strikes me a proper use of IAR. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, the templates we use to close AfDs say that it shouldn't be edited, but I agree that in this case (and similar cases) common senseical edits are perfectly fine. Natalie 01:21, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Here is an example of editing a closed AFD that definitely should not happen. This would be covered by {{uw-delete1}} (or higher) as a content removal "wiki-crime". --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 04:23, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Special:Watchlist

Resolved

 – It would seem. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Just a heads up: A lot of people experience trouble with Special:Watchlist, getting a database or 500 internal server error. Impact is unknown, but if all editors have this problem, a lot of vandalism is going undetected right now, and all editors have to cleanup big time when it's solved. Is anyone in contact with a dev? — Edokter • Talk • 17:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

It seems to be solved again (for me anyway). — Edokter • Talk • 17:23, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I was getting an error too. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I was having the problem in Firefox, until I did a CTRL+F5 to refresh the cache.--SarekOfVulcan 17:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know, this issue has been resolved. The best I could gather is that Ariel (one of the database servers, it serves the watchlists, from what I'm told) went offline for a bit and took some time to reboot and sort itself off. Don't need to bug devs about it unless the issue persists, I would think. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 19:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Indef blocks vis a vis Proxy

I'm sure this is a redux, but there is really no reason to indef block proxys? Even static IP's change. I'm seeing this done on dynamics also when I view the block feed. Just something to keep in mind. Regards, Navou ^banter 17:33, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I personally think open proxies should be blocked only 2 weeks to 1 month at a time. The common open proxy is detected and shutdown by the ISP it is running on rather quickly, most are running on unsuspecting home computers. An IP that is an open proxy now is unlikely to continue to be so forever. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 17:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

If there was better documentation on how to detect them (or any documentation), they could be checked from time to time and left blocked until they were detected not to be an open proxy. Perhaps even a bot? —Wknight94 (talk) 18:03, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Holy Hannah strong disagree. IPs should be blocked for years on such a case, if not indefinitely. Yes, they change, but most of them do not change. They can always request unblock. If we start blocking them only for a little bit, I am going to guarantee you all right now that you might as well throw our page on WP:BAN right out the window, as every sock in the drawer will be on those addresses. The Evil Spartan 18:13, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked several hundred open proxies and have only been contacted by 3 or 4 asking for unblock, which I always do if I can verify the status of the IP. I doubt you will find many open proxies on truly dynamic IPs like AOL or British Telecom dialup; the proxies aren't useful to users if they are too hard to find. Thatcher131 20:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

2 weeks to a month is MUCH too low. There are hoards of lists of anonymous proxies out there. I usually do five years. It's important when you block one to note in the block message what port the proxy is on, or, if it is a web-based anonymizer, what the URL is. That way, if the IP does change and a legitimate user asks for an unblock, someone can confirm that it is no longer a proxy. --B 20:43, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I know that some people disagree with this, but soft blocking them is a very bad idea too ... if you soft block a proxy then all a banned user has to do is have a friend create an account for him and he can live forever on a soft-blocked proxy. --B 20:45, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Just to drive home the point, this is User:B editing from an open proxy. It took me about two minutes of googling to find an unblocked one. (I will block it.) If we don't block them long term, we will make no headway whatsoever. --208.112.107.20 20:50, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I think people worry about folks that truly have no other means of editing. BTW, is there a definitive way to test the various ports? I know there's nmap but if you find a suspicious port, how can you actually use it to edit? I imagine there is no definitive way since zombie ports could be made to behave however the zombie creator wants but is there a usual method? —Wknight94 (talk) 21:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

One of the simple methods is checking to see what ports are open. 208.112.107.20 has at least five open ports including 80, and 443 which are HTTP ports β^_command 22:28, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

But this particular one isn't a proxy server in that sense ... it's the IP used by a web-based proxy planshost.com. --B 22:43, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

If nmap shows a suspicious open port, the usual way to confirm it is simply to try using it as a proxy and seeing if you can access Wikipedia. This can be as simple as sending "GET http://en.wikipedia.org/ HTTP/1.0\r\n\r\n" to the port and seeing what comes back. If the response is from a Wikimedia server, you can assume you've found an open proxy. Of course, as B points out, this will only work for some types of proxies. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:19, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive username User:CompuHacker?

Resolved

 – Eagle 101 provides an appropriate conclusion to this discussion. llywrch 19:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I read on the username page that usernames that allude to hacking are inappropriate (under "Disruptive usernames"), I'm not sure if this counts. 172.142.128.94 18:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Try WP:RFCN. The Evil Spartan 18:13, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

(ec) It may have been whacked when it was created but now there is an established positive editor behind the name so there's no point raising the issue to him/her now. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Hacker can be either a positive or a negative term. There's nothing inherently wrong with it. --Carnildo 18:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Black hat or white hat; we like the whites. --Haemo 18:57, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Stop trying to find fault with names, watch for disruptive edits. There are the blatantly wrong names like FUCKAGOAT or something, but then there are the ones that are just indicators that you should watch for activity. Hacking has both good and bad meanings. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 23:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Hoaxer User:Woofe705

Recently I detected a hoax paragraph at Bourges that had lain undetected for months. The User's other hoaxes, all entered 1-15 February 2007, were detected more quickly: at Gaafu Dhaalu Atoll, Doune of Invernochty, and King of Bavaria. Hoax text was cut and pasted by an unwary editor to Huvadhu Atoll, causing a brief kerfuffle. Clio helped unmask the hoaxes: Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#Sir Fergus Woodward, Scottish explorer?

These deleted hoaxes have been translated into other wikis and spread over the Internet: Google "Sir Fergus Woodward". "Sir Fergus Woodward" was inserted at Fergus.

I'd like someone to check whether the IP is currently logged-in under other aliases and note them here: other hoax insertions may be detectable this way. --Wetman 19:02, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

His last edits are far too old to run a checkuser and find his IP. Someguy1221 20:00, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Kudos to Wetman for spotting the subtlest variety of vandalism that went unchallenged for months. It is these things that undermine our credibility the most. What disturbs me is that more than one logged-in account was employed for perpetuating the hoax. --Ghirla^-трёп- 20:57, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:FLAGGED anyone? —Wknight94 (talk) 21:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I've mis-stated that: the seemingly cooperating edit was from an IP. A moderately credible dead-pan hoax may be hard to detect.--Wetman 23:15, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Incidents

I have been having a constant battle for about a year now with user Metros I created two pages on notable, sourced internet radio stations. Each had at least 3 sources from an outside source, but Metros thought since the page existed a year ago, that it should be deleted again. The two pages are currently up for AfD 207 Live and DHMRO which is even listed on the NYSE from the parent company Applied Technologies. I am requesting administrator intervention, before this is brought up to the arbitration group.--NightRider63 19:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Listed on the NYSE? Dude, you need to stop with the blatant lies. Your "ticker symbol" that you listed in your article on DHMRO came up with this listing. So suddenly your company is somehow related to Structured Obligations Corporation? As for your "parent company" Applied Technologies, how come there are no Google hits to link these two? Nor no mention in the DHMRO article about this. Is your grandpa suddenly the owner of your radio station, a mattress store, and Applied Technologies? Metros 20:04, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Some people are more successful then some people who just edit day after day--NightRider63 20:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to go off-topic but isn't this more appropriate for WP:ANI? Hell, the word "Incidents" is the section heading. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, unless there is some suggestion of Merope's using the tools inappropriately (especially if in furtherance of some personal grudge) or of the community's needing to involve itself, a discussion probably need not to be had at AN/I (or, for that matter, RfC); it seems that, the ostensibly insignificant editor/admin conduct issues aside, the issue is being properly addressed by the community at the relevant AfDs, and I cannot imagine that any administrative attention/intervention should be necessary. Joe 23:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not seeing the need for admin intervention here. ANI is not part of the dispute resolution process (down the hall, if you're interested). Joe, did you mean Metros, or is Merope also involved somehow? Natalie 01:23, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[EC]You mean Metros (talk · contribs) and not Merope (talk · contribs), I imagine? — Scientizzle 01:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I have no idea how/why I made that substitution. I did indeed mean Metros; thanks to you both for catching that. Joe 03:25, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Digitally Imported looks like a WP:POINT AfD to me...and PownedByWindows (talk · contribs) looks like a sock, too, having only really participated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DHMRO‎ & Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/207 Live, another Metros-nominated internet radio station. — Scientizzle 01:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Religion in India history split

Resolved

Hi. I need help with splitting the history at Talk:Religion in India:

• Everything up to the version dated "11:09, 31 August 2007" should be at Talk:Religion in India
• All revisions after that one should be moved to Talk:Indian religions

I already tried doing this by following the directions at WP:CPMV. Thanks in advance. Saravask 22:16, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Let me see what I can do. (Responding now to avoid duplication of effort and move conflicts.) — TKD::Talk 23:47, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Page histories should be fine now. Let me know if I goofed, or if you need anything else. — TKD::Talk 00:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, TKD. It looks great now. Saravask 00:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Attempts to solicit emails and personal details from children in 1993 Births

Resolved

I just saw this at AFD, it's been there for 15 hours but no one has even commented on suspect this is. The creator Camcd has added 26 requests for children born in 1993 to email him with their name and birthdates, and incuded his personal email address. I find this extremely suspect, as it could be a pedophile attempting to get personal details from kids. Could someone deal with this as none of the people in the discussion seem to have realised what could be going on here. Masaruemoto 00:33, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Page deleted and user blocked by Krimpet. Someguy1221 00:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I blocked him and speedied the page; this was a blatant attempt to solicit information from minors, and will not be tolerated at all. --krimpet⟲ 00:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the fast response, I'm surprised no one at AFD questioned this article sooner. Masaruemoto 00:42, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Email blocked as well - don't want to take any risks here. Mr.Z-man 01:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I checked the article. Good call, Krimpet - Alison ^❤ 05:32, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Should probably be reported to gmail as well.-gadfium 06:20, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I've just done exactly that - Alison ^❤ 06:34, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Please create a page prevented from being created

A user at Wikipedia:Articles for creation suggested to create a redirect from Cronology to Chronology, which is the correct spelling. No problem, said Ariel Gold, until he tried it and found that the page was protected against creation, having been deleted twice as A7 and then G4.

Please unprotect Cronology and create the redirect, adding the Template:R from misspelling. Thank you. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 03:47, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Done. Viridae^Talk 04:00, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I have removed it from Wikipedia:Protected titles/September 2007/List and fully protected the redirect to prevent the NN band to take over the redirect. We should be able to unprotect it in some weeks. -- ReyBrujo 04:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Merge?

Most of the merge discussions I've seen take forever, but I can't think of any reason not to move one of Maya Herrera or Alejandro Herrera to Maya and Alejandro Herrera and redirect the other to it, since the content is the same. But I wasn't sure how bold that would be, and the Heroes editors always seem to get really picky when I touch their stuff, and I don't have the time to establish myself on their turf. Since the character Alejandro can't leave Maya's side, though, it seems unlikely that they're going to have separate experiences to merit separate character pages anytime soon. Anyone?--Thespian 06:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

• A suggestion to get more people from the Heroes crowd talking about it would be to go also to the Wikiproject Heroes group (Personally I don't have a problem with merging until they do have separate experiences on the show)-- Marcsin | ^Talk 14:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

TfD needing a review

I would like for someone to review a TfD. Essentially, the lone opponent to the template's deletion is declaring the TfD void because of a old AbCom ruling on an unrelated dispute. The AbCom ruling itself was about two editors engaged in an editwar over BC/AD vs BCE/CE when both formats were expectable by the MoS. He is also using the AbCom ruling to practically declared owner over the template and articles it is/was transcluded on. --Farix (Talk) 11:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Could you please link to the discussion? Shalom (Hello • Peace) 11:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

My bad. I just realized I forgot to provide the link. Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 September 17#Template:Infobox Oh My Goddess! character --Farix (Talk) 11:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there's a problem there - it looks like it will be deleted despite that one user's objections. violet/riga (t) 12:13, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

After reviewing it, I closed the discussion as delete. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:22, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the close and the explanation. The only reason I had brought it up here was because that same editor has a long history of displaying ownership on articles in the subject area. --Farix (Talk) 20:28, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that editor has been mentioned here more than a few times. ::sigh:: -- llywrch 19:14, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jmfangio-Chrisjnelson closed

The above arbitration case is closed. Jmfangio has been blocked as a sockpuppet of banned user Tecmobowl. Chrisjnelson is restricted to one revert per page per week (excepting obvious vandalism), and is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page for a duration of six months. If he exceeds this limit, fails to discuss a content reversion, or makes any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he may be blocked. For the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (t) 15:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

User page and talk page moved - muddle

Hallo, I think user "Vivi Greenwell" has managed to move her pages into a muddle - see CONTENTS and Special:Contributions/Vivi_greenwell. I'm not sure I know enough to fix it and suspect she doesn't either - have left a note on her talk page, but perhaps someone expert could help? Thanks. PamD 17:15, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I've moved the pages back and deleted the resulting redirects. I've also left her a note. Thanks for notifying. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 17:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Simon Wessely

Heads-up: User:Angela Kennedy has arrived and set up her stall over at the talk page for Simon Wessely. Kennedy has a visceral hatred for Wessely, and is one half of the noxious One Click Group website, see Wesselygate. This individual should under no circumstances be allowed to edit the article if it is unprotected, and should probably be topic-banned from the talk page and all ME / CFS articles as well. User:Jfdwolff will probably need a lot of help over there, vicious ad-hominem is the stock in trade of this particular bunch. Check the history of the Wessely article before Jimbo's deletion last year to see the One-Click mob's style, and their version of "neutral" point of view. One-Click's first neutral comment on the subject of Simon Wessely will probably be delivered by flying pig sometime in the third millennium of the Hades ice age, shortly after the heat death of the universe. OTRS volunteers should be on the lookout, as Wessely has had to complain several times over biased editing by members of minority patient activist groups bitterly opposed on principle to Wessely's ideas on palliative treatment for ME/CFS, a subject on which he is one of the most published experts in Europe. Kennedy proposes citations form the Countess of Mar and from Malcolm Hooper. Hooper, especially, is speaking well out of his field, he has no qualifications or accepted expertise in the subject, and his comments have been excluded by consensus from the article on that basis. (Guy) 21:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

The basic problem here, as Guy points out, is that Simon Wessely's page is frequented by a host of single-purpose accounts who have used the page to criticize him and, through him, his work. This is one of those real-world disputes that's spilled over onto Wikipedia, with the requisite WP:BLP violations, apparent meatpuppetry, tendentiousness, etc. User:Jfdwolff is reasonably on top of things, but given the battleground that the article has been and continues to be, he could no doubt use assistance. User:Angela Kennedy has thus far confined her input to the talk page; while possibly violating the talk page guidelines, I would be inclined to give her a bit more slack there, but this article and talk page have generally been a WP:BLP Superfund site; I'd encourage a few more admins to watchlist the page. MastCell ^Talk 22:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Read her talk page. Her fundamental problem is that as far as she is concerned, all the experts are wrong, except the ones that agree with her, which at present includes virtually none of the active research community. Her view of the past conflicts is that Wikipedia has systematically undermined "the little guy" by insisting on mainstream published sources and rejecting polemic written by people working back from a conclusion. The Wessely article will never be negative enough for these people, and they are virtually the only ones (outside of our admin community enforcing policy) who give a rats ass about the article. Maybe it should simply be nuked. I removed a link to one of Angela Kennedy's papers from the article very recently, please read it and see her perspective on this. They have invented their own pejorative term to describe Wessely's approach, and they complain that we are not giving enough weight to those who use this term. Peer review is notably absent from all the stuff they want inserted. In short: they want to use Wikipedia to fix a real-world problem, which is that psychological palliatives for ME/CFS are widespread and supported by substantial peer-reviewed research evidence. These individuals have also harassed Wessely in real life. That we can't include because it's not directly stated in the sources, but I have now exchanged emails with Wessely and it is the case. (Guy) 15:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Complaint about a member

Resolved

Physik=Vanilla2. Maxim_(talk) 14:16, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I'd like to make a complaint about Vanilla2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I first heard of Vanilla2 when he tried to had an RFA. I wanted to help him steer towards his goal, but reviewing his contributions, he has done some bad things here. Examples:

Stop it you fucking non-members

Added "300 Part II" to 300 (film), then reverted his own edit and added it again Note that he was told to stop, but continued (see below diff)

Vandalized Prison Break (although he reverted this himself)

Blanked a redirect

Telling Pascal.Tesson to go to hell because Pascal removed a fair user image on Vanilla2's userpage

Removed a user from WikiProject Saw because "he copied him."

Tried to unblock a serial vandal

I would like to maybe see what an administrator thinks of this. Forgive me if this is in the wrong place. Thank you. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 21:34, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

You've been too kind. Seriously. He's stretching his welcome too thin. Maxim_(talk) 21:50, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I know. I've been trying to hlep this guy out but it's become frustrating. What do you think we should do about him? Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 21:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I concur with JetLover's concerns about this user. There appears to be an issue with impulse control when making edits and comments, and the user has not availed himself of the ample help which has been offered. --- Taroaldo 00:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Only two edits within the last week are self-reverted vandalism. Follow up if problems resume. I'd definitely have blocked for some of the previous actions if I'd been aware of them when they were new. Durova^Charge! 10:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

As somebody who followed Physik during his tenure here at Wikipedia, I really think that Vanilla2 is probably a sock puppet of that user. His grammar, his editing habits (what he uploads, the content of what he edits), his obsession with adminship, and the fact that he tried to unblock Physik as one of his first acts as an editor all point to that conclusion. Maybe I'm crazy; I wanted to get some second opinions first and this seems a good forum in which to do it. bwowen talk•contribs 12:16, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser? MER-C 13:25, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd endorse a block. Bwowen raises some good points about his habits. Even if he isn't the sockpuppet in question, he's worn out his welcome and it's time he's shown the door. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 13:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Confirmed by checkuser Dmcdevit as a "very clear" match between Physik and Vanilla2. Blocked as well. Maxim_(talk) 14:16, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

User names

I requested a review of a user name at WP:UAA (BCSPM (talk · contribs)) because they had created Boldt Consulting Services, and it seems like they have the same name as the article they created. It was deleted and I was told to take it to WP:RFCN. So I took it there and it was deleted without discussion, not even a friendly note on my Talk page. What's the point in having either page, if a questionable User name can't get discussed anywhere? Corvus cornix 22:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I didn't dig through the history, but I'm assuming that the reason it was deleted from RFCN is because the user was not asked to either clarify or voluntarily change their username on their talk page prior to bringing it to RFCN. Quoting from the instructions at the top of the noticeboard:

Do not list a user here unless they have refused to change their username or have continued to edit without reply. If after that you still believe someone has chosen an inappropriate username under Wikipedia's username policy, you may list it here and explain which part of the username policy you think it violates.

It's a pretty strictly enforced requirement. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 22:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

So, how about if I go to WP:COIN instead? Corvus cornix 22:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

You never put {{UsernameConcern}} on his talk page. Give him a few days to respond, then report him. It's not blatant, anyway. After all, it still doesn't say "Boldt Consulting Services". Looking at the username, I don't see anything wrong with it. Only "BC" matches with the company, the rest is un-related. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 22:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, the "BCS" part matches up exactly, and, from looking at the deleted page, the "PM" likely refers to "Project Management", which is a listed division of the company in question. It's clearly related to the company, but that doesn't mean we can or should bite them without explaining why. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 22:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

RFCN is the proper venue, but only after it has been discussed (or there has been an attempted discussion) with the user in question. Basically, it's to ensure we don't WP:BITE new users for inadvertently choosing a name that might possibly violate the username policy. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 22:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, does this edit satisfy the concern? Corvus cornix 22:49, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Give him some time to respond, though. Maybe about a day or two. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 22:50, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, sure, I understand. Corvus cornix 23:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Protected Administrator User Talk Pages

# To request assistance from a specific administrator, enter User talk:Whomever in the search box to the left and press "Go."

How do I leave messages to admins who've sprotected their usertalk page? (and their user page). 132.205.44.5 22:47, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

You can click the "E-mail this user" link in the toolbox on the left side of the administrator's page. Unless their talk page is suffering from enormous amounts of disruption or vandalism, sprotecting it is generally not endorsed. If you can point out the page in question, someone can look into it and ask the admin in question about unprotecting it. Thanks! —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 22:50, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I dont't see such a link. Is it only available to non-anons? 132.205.44.5 23:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

User Talk:Bishonen 09:17, 29 July 2007 Bishonen (Talk | contribs) m (Protected User talk:Bishonen: fed up with abusive IP edits for now. [edit=autoconfirmed:move=autoconfirmed]) (undo)

You can also create an account. Corvus cornix 22:50, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

You'll have to wait four days after creating your account if you wish to edit a semi-protected page, though, so e-mail is of course faster if you need to contact a specific administrator urgently. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:55, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

The anon is right; "E-mail this user" is only available for logged-in users. For that reason, admins should not semi-protect their talk pages long-term or without a pressing situation. Chick Bowen 01:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

And over two months is far too long. Bishonen should really unprotect his/her talk page. Natalie 13:43, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Her email is enabled, and that's good enough.--MONGO 17:00, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

No, anonymous users cannot use the Special:Emailuser function, so they currently have no way to contact Bishonen. Melsaran (talk) 17:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Did anyone happen to mention to Bishonen that this discussion is going on, in case she didn't see it? I'll mention it to her just in case. Newyorkbrad 15:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

CrossRef here.Rlevse 17:35, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Since the thread on ANI is marked "resolved" and will soon be removed, I'll reply to both that and this one here. First of all, thank you, MONGO, your defense is much appreciated. Secondly, it's not that I'm especially sensitive to having anonymous little penis vandals I've blocked coming to my pages and calling me Bitchonen. (Disappointingly, only a few have in fact had the inventiveness for such a simple pun.) Not at all. There's another reason why I've sometimes been keeping my userpages semiprotected for quite long times: it's to discourage a special "friend" of mine who never gives up. I would rather not elaborate, but instead ask people to consider my record before they decide whether or not to extend an assumption of good faith to my words. If Wikipedia is in fact not for me,[5] I suppose now is as good a time as any to find out. Bishonen | talk 21:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC).

As I have so recently asked another administrator, please unprotect your talk page, user talk page protection is not nice to legitimate anon and new users, as well as being a violation of the protection policy. Prodego ^talk 21:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Friday's post, to which Bishonen linked above ("If you can't handle being abused by random strangers, Wikipedia is not for you."), I very much doubt that Bishonen would protect her page because of random strangers. I am aware of several cases of user talk pages being semi-protected because of a particularly vicious form of trolling. I don't think one should do it just out of whim, but I have no trouble in extending an assumption of good faith to productive users and admins who don't have a reputation for being over sensitive or for making unreasonable demands. Nor do I feel that it's ever essential for an anon to be able to post directly on a particular admin's page. If Bishonen blocked you, posting on her page would be block evasion anyway; use the {{unblock}} template or try the unblock mailing list. If she protected a page that you want unprotected, make a request at WP:RFPP. If she deleted a page, there's always deletion review. If you have something you badly want to say to her, you could make a post on the talk page of one of her friends. And I don't see that it's a violation of the protection policy, which says merely that it shouldn't be used "with the sole purpose of prohibiting editing by anonymous users." Let's not make too big a thing of this. There are hundreds of active administrators with fully editable talk pages. If a very small number, who are not known for being unreasonable and who are known for contributing productively to the encyclopaedia, have personal reasons for being more comfortable with semi-protection, it's not really doing any harm to anyone, so why not just leave it and go and spend more time writing an encyclopaedia? ElinorD (talk) 21:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Article namespace

I've noticed that the terms "article namespace" and "main namespace" are used in thousands wikipedia pages, many of which are policies, style guides and other important pages. I was quite surprized that there was no Wikipedia:Main namespace/Wikipedia:Article namespace artile, not even a redirect, so I quickly hacked one from several other instruction pages. I guess y'all have to take a good look at it. `'Míkka 23:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, there is Help:Namespace (the shortcut for it is WP:NAMESPACE). EVula // talk // ☯ // 01:35, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Not well. It is for meta and way too general. `'Míkka 08:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Burgz33

I just logged in and found the folling at User talk:CambridgeBayWeather#Any vadalism here?. As I was one of the ones he was attacking I'm not sure that I should be taking any action so I bring it here for others to decide. However, I'm concerned that he now appears to be trying to find out where others live as in "Do you know if Quartet or Yankees is from Toronto?" CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 00:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

No wikipedian should be collecting nor distributing personal info on wikipedia. It's suggested not to give it out either. For example, some minors put their ages on their user page. Such is not recommended, especially for minors. Warn the offender. I'm not sure if there's a written wiki policy on this, it's just common sense though.Rlevse 14:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Paulcicero

This stalking story has started around middle of August this year with this revert [6] by user:Paulcicero. It is interested to notice that 2 statements confirmed with internet links has been reverted/changed with facts without sources. (he has never edited before this article)

Then it has come this : [7] (he has never edited before)

Then on 24 september it has been this [8] (he has never edited before on this page)

My personal best is article House of Trpimirović where new user has started edit war (in which I have not been) so in the end on 23 september I have reverted article to User:Paulcicero version of 8 July with which everybody has been happy (part of article which speak about archont Petar [9]). But now user:Paulcicero is not happy anymore with his version and he is reverting me [10] If this is not bad faith edith and stalking I do not know what it is ??

All in all user:Paulcicero has reverted me or on any other way made changes of 9 articles (Creation of Yugoslavia , Dalmatian anti-Serb riots of May 1991 , Chetniks , Independent State of Croatia *, Jasenovac concentration camp *, Serbs of Croatia *, Extermination camp , The Holocaust *, House of Trpimirović *, which I have edited in last 40 days. You must take in account that I have taken pause between 9 and 22 september tired of his games. Where is writen * he has deleted statement confirmed with internet links which he do not like. This is clear example of bad faith editing. In the end I will like to know if it is possible to revert without thinking of 3RR rule if somebody is deleting statement confirmed with internet link. --user:Rjecina 02:25 27 September 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.91.99.205 (talk) 02:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Help

Resolved

Wasn't sure where to ask for help on this... I've been asked to break up List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people/S into 2 articles due to pre-expansion template limit. So I've broken into List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people/Sa-Sh and List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people/Si-Sz. I then moved List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people/S to List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people/Sa-Sh. Now, my issue here is not knowing how to change the Siblings output found on each of the pages within List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people. Visit List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people and you'll see at the top of the page: Siblings:

-- this is put on each article within List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people and I need to change the output that {{List LGBT short}} is giving from [ A • B • C-E • F-J • K-O • P-R • S • T-V • W-Z ] to [ A • B • C-E • F-J • K-O • P-R • Sa-Sh • Si-Sz • T-V • W-Z ] but I can't figure out where {{List LGBT short}} is located to make changes to it. Thanks for any help. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 03:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Template:List LGBT short. When something is included between double {}, it is a template and can be found in the template: namespace. I have changed it for you. Fram 08:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you very much. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 08:37, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

An admin acting like the Supreme Court, more tact is advised????

Resolved

I commented on an AFD about one of the minor 9-11 hijackers (not Atta, the ringleader). That article was proposed for deletion. I disagree but am for merge/redirect (as WP states that the event, not the non-notable person is to be covered in articles).

The other AFD's of the same day were decided around day 5 or 6 as expected. This one sat longer, probably because there was not a clear answer. Then an admin stated "Keep, Groundless AFD".

I can see how someone would say "Keep" and as an admin, their decision is the law. However, "Groundless AFD" is in violation of AGF and isn't true at all, given that so many admins passed up the decision because it was a harder decision. Certainly a speedily keep or speedily deleted AFD is groundless, not this one.

Is there any support to declaring the AFD as "keep" and not "keep, groundless AFD". You can say it here and I would be satisfied with the matter and the matter closed (IMHO). It would soothe feelings, right the process, yet have no change in the article's retention. This is not a major issue, hence it is not in AN/I. I certainly don't want to be part of a vote where I voted "redirect/merge" while the official result was "groundless AFD" because that potentially harms my reputation ("Mrs.EasterBunny voted yes in support of a groundless AFD, therefore Mrs.EasterBunny is actually Mrs.Satan" Oh!!!) Mrs.EasterBunny 16:58, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

For one thing, "redirect/merge" is not a 'yes' vote on deletion because such a result would not result in the article being deleted. For another thing, people really don't care all that much about your votes in AFDs - it really doesn't matter (I've contacted the admin regardless, but maybe you should work on not being so thin-skinned about these things) —Random832 17:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Your reputation would not be hurt at all if you provided a well-reasoned and policy-based argument for redirect/merge. Leebo ^T/C 17:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Tact is a good idea. The decision may be rouge (I don't know, I haven't looked into it), but admins are not gods and do make mistakes; if you challenge (pleasantly) a seeming mistake and an admin gets busy on your ass because of your challenge, it won't stand and others will notice. But that almost never happens. Instead, admins being yer actual human beings, a quick tap to say "I'm confused, your decision [[here]] made no sense to me. Can you tell me what you meant?" will almost always provoke forehead-slapping in the admin, rather than kvetching. In my experience. And with me. In my case, I may take the opportunity to boringly lecture you on how obvious the decision was, but I'd also quietly learn a lesson for next time and also instantly forget your troublemaking :o) ➔ This is REDVEЯS 19:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Relevant info: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marwan al-Shehhi, closed by Wknight94 (talk · contribs); subsequest DRV opened by Mrs.EasterBunny (talk · contribs) (who contacted Wknight94 here).

For what it's worth, I agree with the comment that this was a "groundless AfD." The overwhelming consensus was to keep. This is a sourced article about a historical significant person. In addition, the person who made the AfD nomination stated he/she did it because "the victims of (9-11) terrorist attack articles are routinely deleted citing non-notability." The admin was being polite in saying this was a "groundless AfD." I'd probably have closed the AfD earlier with stronger words than that.--Alabamaboy 19:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

It could have been done more politely. The nomination was technically correct, al-Shehhi really is known solely for a single incident. However, it seems clear that participants agreed it was a rather important incident, and al-Shehhi became sufficiently notable as an outcome. So I agree with the closing as keep, but do think saying the nomination was groundless could have been phrased better. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 20:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Sadly, some single incidents are of such importance they make the people who caused the incident important. Overall, I agree with the single incident rule, but in this case it doesn't apply. I also disagree that saying something is groundless is not being polite. The comment on the AfD which asked the nominator if they were "legally retarded" is an example of civility issues, not merely stating the truth about an AfD. Best,--Alabamaboy 20:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Quotes from above:
Your reputation would not be hurt at all if you provided a well-reasoned and policy-based argument for redirect/merge
It could have been done more politely
I agree with the closing as keep, but do think saying the nomination was groundless could have been phrased better.
As a result of these comments and the facts that you brought up, I now declare that this AFD is keep, striking out the "groundless" comment. Nobody gave any reason for it to be groundless. Some did say that the magnitude of the attack was sufficient that even a minor player in the attack warrants an article. I am commenting because I have some experience in disputes of a Middle East related article. UTAFA 21:37, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

View source

I have come across protected page and the blocked message at my school (since my school IP is blocked), and I see "View source" lots of times, which may be confusing for many users.

Sometimes, I see the words "View source" when I come to a page that is fully protected. Even clicking a red link on a salted page (protected and deleted page) it still says View source, but there are no "source", so the title "View source" doesn't make sense for the message saying that the page is protected to prevent creation. We will have to think about a new title for the message that says that the page has been protected to prevent creation.

Regarding the block message, my school IP address has been blocked from editing because many students continued to vandalize, so I checked out the block message, to see what it is like. It also was titled "View source" instead of "User is blocked". "View source" would also not make sense for block message, especially for block message that blocked users get when they click on a red link. "User is blocked" makes more sense for block message that blocked users get when they click on the "edit" button or a red link, since "View source" can be a bit confusing for people. NHRHS2010 ^Talk 19:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I see where you're coming from, but long experience hanging about Category:Requests for unblock has shown that innocent users getting a message saying anything like "user is blocked" is often reason for detonation, ANGRY SHOUTING, threats, recrimination etc. It's spin to just say "view source" rather than "edit" on a page, but good spin - the alternative is hordes of angry, innocent users calling for the scalp of the blocking/protecting admin or writing semi-informed articles in newspapers about how Wikipedia is no longer editable by anyone. ➔ This is REDVEЯS 19:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

It only makes sense if it says "view source" when actually viewing the source on a protected page, but in a message saying that the page has been deleted and protected to prevent creation, there are no source so "view source" does not make sense there, as well as the block message. "User is blocked" would make more sense to a block message since sometimes, block messages doesn't even have sources, when the blocked user clicks on the red link. View source can be confusing particularly to block message because users have to scroll all the way down if there is a source. NHRHS2010 ^Talk 19:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Right, I see. Do users who are encountering an editing block or a protected page immediately go and click "view source"? Is this something we can predict that they will do with confidence? I know that some people would suggest not trying to second-guess what a user would do, but in this case, my thoughts would be that this is a reaction that neither a brand-new user nor an experienced user would have. Perhaps an intermediate-level user?

Anyhow, the change you suggest would, I think, require a conditional (if x=y then z=a else z=b) modification of the MediaWiki interface; if so, it's nothing that admins can do, so you might be better to ask about it at the village pump or propose a change via Bugzilla. ➔ This is REDVEЯS 19:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this seems like a MediaWiki bug: the edit tab for nonexistent cascade-protected pages shouldn't say "view source". Perhaps there should be no edit tab at all in this case (since you can't edit and there's no source to view)? —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 19:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes. It may be the bug. Instead of "view source", it should say "page protected" when users click on the "edit" button on a protected, nonexistent page, while the block message should say "User is blocked" because the block message can sometimes have no source to view. NHRHS2010 ^Talk 19:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd still argue against any element of the interface saying "user is blocked" automatically. Heavens to Jimbo, the very word "blocked" appearing automatically to people not directly blocked causes enough ructions as it is. It could even (he says, producing a card that seems to trump absolutely everything these days) be thought to be biting. ➔ This is REDVEЯS 20:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I've just committed rev:26189 to fix this. It simply removes the "view source" tab entirely if the page doesn't exist. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 20:45, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the block message, the title "view source" still wouldn't make sense since sometimes, there are no source to view, usually when a red link is clicked. The block message shows that the block is meant for a specific user, IP address, or IP range, and also shows whether the user is blocked directly or not. So "User is blocked" still makes more sense than "View source". NHRHS2010 ^Talk 21:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

(Followup) Ethnic-warring and nationality

Sorry if this is intrusive, I don't want to canvass each of the ANI individuals concerned so I thought of posting a single ping/followup here: anyone who participated or was interested in the ANI section "Ethnic war brewing, and abuse of WP:MINOR" last week may be interested (as an editor, not an admin) about the 3 (con)current new RFCs on exactly the very same problem/solution/war:

• at Talk:P. G. Wodehouse#RFC (British vs. English) (disclosure: that's mine)
• at Talk:Andy Murray (tennis)#Nationality
• at Talk:Colin McRae#Protected.

As well as:

• about the possibility for an admin to merge the three RFCs into a single-page general RFC for the topic of representation of nationality (which is essentially independent of the bio subjects)? (Dunno if that's doable/done.)
• about an advance call to policy-makers at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Representation of nationality

Regards,

— Komusou ^talk @ 19:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alyssa Ortiz

This is a pretty obvious hoax article, and it's neither notable nor verifiable. Either the author or the subject came into the discussion and asked for it to be deleted because it was all untrue. This meets either WP:SPEEDY delete criteria A7 (request by author) or A10 (defamation of a living person), depending on whether we believe that the requestor was the subject or the author. It kind of confuses me, but I think it can be speedy d'ed, and it probably should be on the slim chance that there actually is an Alyssa Ortiz, that this article contains libellous information about her, and that she asked for it to be deleted. I suspect that because this is a few days old, no admins will look at it until the end of the normal waiting period.

I also suspect that if I knew how to change the template to a speedy, I wouldn't have to do this on the noticeboard. Sorry to bother. Thanks in advance. Deltopia 20:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I've speedied it. Someone ought to look into the other contributions of Sxe lifer (talk · contribs) and the various IPs that have contributed to the article. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I've also deleted Travis Helmsley and NATW X-Factor Championship. Others seem to have already handled most of the rest. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I've checked out the IPs, and I've tagged an orphaned image the user uploaded for deletion (another image has already been tagged for speedy deletion). I believe most of the loose ends are tied up. I'll leave a kind but stern message to the user.-Andrew c ^[talk] 21:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neo-Darwinism

Hi there, this AfD has been open for over a week now. Could somebody try to assess what the consensus was? Tim Vickers 21:30, 27 September 2007 (UTC)