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 talk:Joejoebilly

Resolved

Look at that. And his contribs! The has repetedly recreated Pandapede and has been warned for it. User should be blocked. —Coastergeekperson 04^{'s talk}@11/27/2007 04:18

User:Pegasus got him. east.718 at 04:34, November 27, 2007

I am very sorry about the circumstance that I have to come to this site back again. It seems that this article is an advertisement for the living person with information coming from his personal homepage. The whole article is missing sources and is not balanced. I therefore inserted today a neutrality box. Also missed is essential information (like birthday and birth place) which is easily found, because it is published. Beside the fact, that one IP tried to intimidate me and threaded me (see talking page); it seems that there is a group of friends of the living person, which are thinking that the article owns to them. They deleted the neutrality box and some information I inserted today and I do not want to start any Edit-War or something else. I would be very appreciative if an administrator (ore more) can have a look on this. Kind regards--KarlV 09:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The static IP making some nasty legal threats has been blocked (I don't think this is a WP:DOLT issue!). I've tagged the unreferenced statements with {{fact}} as they aren't particularly contentious, restored the DOB (of course we include it if we have it!), and restored the neutrality tag, as it really does read like a resume. If edit warring starts up again, you'll have to ask another admin to step in and take action, though. Neil ☎ 10:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the instance, unfortunately I should contact another admin (I did it already). Regards --KarlV 10:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As Gancefort (talk · contribs) and KarlV (talk · contribs) have continued to edit war without trying to discuss it with each other, either via their talk pages or the article talk page, I have restored the version that has fact tags and the DOB and blocked them both for 24 hours (they'd both breached 3RR, but that was, frankly, incidental). Hopefully the article can be put in shape now (I'm not editing it again). Neil ☎ 11:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And now an IP ([1]) is making the same edits Gancefort did. I rather suspect sockery is afoot, but the IP's already been blocked. Neil ☎ 14:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was asked to take a look at this. Just to let you know that I will as soon as I have some spare time. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 06:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose people have already noticed, but "Gancefort" also seems to be (I am being careful here - google finds only one internet Word document not connected with Wikipedia) a pseudonym of De Zayas and in view of the fact that this info also seems to have been deleted quietly (in any case not being called a lie on the talk page, as far as I see) and that many of the IPs editing the article are from Switzerland, perhaps there is some COI involved here?--Paul Pieniezny 16:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are some OTRS tickets going on about this article; apparently the German wikipedia is having the same problem over the article there. It appears that the subject, KarlV and possible others are edit warring in both places. Shell ^babelfish 17:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I note that de:Benutzer:Gancefort edit warred in an identical manner on the German article to the extent it has been protected, also (see [2]). I'm going to ask a German admin how they are dealing with this, as my German sucks. Neil ☎ 09:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The administrators in Germany dedicated to the article are Achates and Seewolf, please contact them. Anyway I can confirm that on de:WP we have problems because of (I think you named it) COI (Conflict of Interests?). Before doing allegations due to edit warring (I was convinced that I was restoring the version of Neil), please have a careful look, what is going on there. Regards--KarlV (talk) 10:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a message on Seewolf's talk page, as he has an account on this Wiki also, and speaks good English. Thanks Karl. Neil ☎ 11:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The single point of contact for the german OTRS-Tickets is Unscheinbar, he will probably tell you more about how the german OTRS-Team deals with the Spam. Best regards Achates (talk) 11:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC) (en-1)[reply]

Hi, the case is disputed also on the German administartor notice board. Regards --KarlV (talk) 10:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As best I can tell from the de.wiki discissuion and what I have garnered here, the problem is that over the last few years, de Zayas has become quite right wing, to say the least, including supporting David Irving. This has attracted attention. His article is now replete with self-interest (there's even an article here on his writing club, the United Nations Society of Writers‎ which was (not now) terribly self-indulgent). It is also the stomping ground of a number of IPs and SPAs who will revert anything that could be seen as remotely critical, keeping the article as a glowing piece of self-promotion. The fr.wiki article is also suffering from the same problems, but they have not yet taken any action. Any advice on how to proceed would be welcome. Neil ☎ 11:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most recently this article was unprotected by Admin Richardshusr, who did some formatting & added a source or two after Gancefort added several. According to the talk page, he is monitoring the article. -- llywrch (talk) 19:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I would like to inform you shortly about the status report of Unscheinbar on theadministartor notice board, who is member of the OTRS Team Germany and the person in charge of this case. He reported that until now no letter sent to OTRS was written by WP users, so a mediation committee in Germany appears not to make any sense. The indication that these activities are “lobby managed” seems to be justified. All letters contain the same wrong assumptions and claims screamingly the same. Letters of different senders contain sometimes the same typing errors. He poninted out that one cannot rule out a central exertion of influence. Regards--KarlV (talk) 12:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy tag

I saw this on a talk page [3] of a living person's bio and tagged it as controversial, but it was removed. Is this the appropriate use of such tag? Was it wrong for the other (newbie) editor to remove the tag from a talk page? I feel the whole article and its talk page has a distasteful POV. Please advise what to do. Bearian 14:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, not wrong at all. But templates often annoy - especially if a user doesn't understand the purpose of talk pages. I've replied to their post on Talk:Priscilla Painton and offered to help with any article problems they perceive. If there are none, we can ask for the post to be removed by the author (or I'll remove it myself if it is actively unhelpful).

But no, you did nothing wrong by Wikipedia rules. However, it is always preferable to use real discussion rather than templates on article talk pages. ➔ REDVEЯS likes kittens... and you 20:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On 1 December, User:Nbahn added a 'Controversy' section to Priscilla Painton that seems highly POV, saying of an article by Joe Klein that he may or may not have 'deliberately published false information'. Bearian added a {{POV}} tag to the article but Nbahn removed it. Bearian and Squiggleslash have been trying to restore some order, but I believe there is still work to do there. I support Bearian's judgment (above) that the whole article has a distasteful POV. It remains to be seen whether Nbahn will obstruct the rewriting of the offending paragraph that he himself added. EdJohnston (talk) 03:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I freely admit that I'm a neophyte to this editing business. Do you wish a line-by-line justification of the paragraph in question as it currently exists? (By the way a comment left in the explanation section had me in stitches -- to wit, that because Wikipedia does not follow TIME's policy of merely repeating allegations, an offending sentence had to go. Very funny; and I have to concur with that particular sentiment.)

--Nbahn (talk) 14:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the section can be expanded, but I'm not seeing anything that's POV at the moment. It was POV (and speculative) with the "may or may not" stuff, but once that was removed it became a factual story about an actual controversy that Ms Painton is embroiled in. What are you seeing that's POV or "distasteful"? Can whatever it is be fixed by adding more background?

Your last sentence is somewhat unfair on Nbahn. While he may or may not (heh) have been wrong to remove the Controversy tag, he thanked me for the rewording I did, and I see no evidence that he's hostile towards people cleaning up that section. --Squiggleslash (talk) 14:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article now asserts that Klein published false information. We could easily have quoted somebody else who holds that opinion, but the way it reads now, Wikipedia is asserting that Klein's information was false. That appears to be forbidden by the language of WP:NPOV: None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth". EdJohnston (talk) 15:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no real debate any more as to whether Klein published false information, that has been admitted now by Time Magazine and Klein himself (however reluctantly). The statement is cited, citing a Greg Greenwald article that quotes Klein and the FISA amendment itself, Klein makes the claim, the FISA bill clearly contradicts it. It would be a violation of WP:NPOV to give undue weight to the few statements that exist suggesting Klein was actually originally right given the circumstances.

It is not our job to religiously quote every contradicting opinion about a subject with equal weight when the facts are known. This violates the undue weight aspect of NPOV, it would do a disservice to our readers, and arguably constitutes original research. --Squiggleslash (talk) 15:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Banned user talk pages

I know we often protect banned users' talk pages, especially if they abuse the unblock template. I'd like to suggest that we put an expiry on this in future; six months should be sufficient for a community ban or indefinite block, the duration of an ArbCom ban less a month or so for those banned by ArbCom. We allow for the possibility of redemption, I think. I've had several rational conversations with long-term banned users who seem to have done some growing up. Thoughts? Guy (Help!) 19:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If banned for a specific time, I can see this. If indef banned, no. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:05, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Worst that happens is they abuse the unblock template once every six months. If someone was banned for harassment, posting personal information, etc, I could see why not, but if it's for edit warring, persistent vandalism, etc, less of a problem. Maybe it should be something decided on when discussing a ban. Consider that the oldest bans are over five years now. People can change in half a decade.—Random832 19:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, unprotecting those does little or no harm (and if we delete the page, it has the added benefit of not making a permanent memorial to the vandal). >Radiant< 23:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indef blocked users (not banned) talk pages are normally tagged with CAT:TEMP, and are deleted after a month, which resets the protection anyway. -- lucasbfr ^talk 00:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that was only the user page and not the talk page? In any case, where there is a constructive editing history and the talk page contains history of talk page discussions, and the user page contains details of the user's interests and editing areas on Wikipedia, the pages shouldn't be deleted. Use "|category=" to remove the "temporary wikipedians" category. Deletion should only take place if it was a vandalism-only account or other throwaway account. Carcharoth (talk) 01:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a good idea, to me. Forever is a long time, after all, and while a blocked user's talk page isn't strictly their last line of communication, it's probably one of the last easy or public ones, and that has its importance. As Random said, it'll probably be a rare case where somebody comes back in six months to troll on some random page (I have seen it happen, but there's another six month lock, or a year, or I suppose eventually indefinite). We can leave open the possibility of escalating durations. – Luna Santin (talk) 10:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should go ahead and try timed talk page protection. People change, and even the worst of vandals can someday become excellent editors. We should always try to assume good faith, unless we have very good reason to do otherwise. Maser ^(Talk!) 06:55, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Community ban of spammer

Moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Webgeek because this is 38kb of wikitext, 201kb post-expand, and literally half the rendered page.'

Executive summary: Webgeek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and numerous IPs added many links to sites apparently run by him. —Random832 19:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Futuristic timestamp to keep this from getting archived by the bot: 23:59, 31 December 2037 (UTC)

User:Coveritus

I just ran across this edit. Is there any process for verifying the death of a User and/or protecting or archiving their pages? Corvus cornix_talk 23:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given most users are anonymous, no. It could quite possibly be a (rather lame attempt at a) joke. Since the user in question has only 30 or so edits, I wouldn't worry about it. >Radiant< 23:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed deaths of established editors are preserved at Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians and it is customary to indefintely block the account and protect the user/user talk pages from editing. In this circumstance, I wouldn't do any of it. It was made by an IP address saying that he died. We get quite a few of those, most are either sick joke or unconfirmed. There is nothing that actually confirms this users death. — Save_Us_229 03:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Voretus is apparently a friend of his. We might be able to find out from him/her. Corvus cornix_talk 17:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Can't sleep, clown will eat me

Has clearly shown abuse of power by locking RD Reynolds completely, and not following proper procedure. Also, keeps removing info before we have a chance to source it. ^---SilentRAGE! 14:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There appears to be a content dispute going on, he protected the page under the basis of "BLP issues" wich is plausible seeing that the entirety of the material removed is unsourced, I suggest that the users interested in the addition of said material find some references to avoid further conflict, if the refences are found and are reliable drop me a line and I will unprotect the page to allow for sourced inclusion, please note that I may be inactive later today so if the references are found before tommorow please contact another admin if its inclusion is considered that urgent, otherwise I will be available to attend this case from tomorrow onwards. - Caribbean~H.Q. 14:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(ec'd)Looking at the history of the article [4] you kept on adding an unsourced fact. Would not the better method have been to find a reference before adding this "fact" rather than engaging in a revert war? Protection seems sensible to me in light of this. Pedro : Chat 14:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that protecting the article was the right thing to do - but that Can't sleep, clown will eat me shouldn't have been the admin to do it. This is because it seems like this was a dispute that he/she was involved in. Od Mishehu 14:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a problem. CSCWEM is not an involved editor on that article, as far as I can tell; he's simply enforcing WP:BLP. We don't need to jump through hoops in order to prevent repeated reinsertion of unsourced material into a biography,and frankly those who were edit-warring over it should count themselves lucky not to be blocked. I don't think edit-warring to insert unsourced material in a biography is in the least tiny bit appropriate. Guy (Help!) 21:42, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

/me reads first sentence. Troll. Move along. (and by the way, removing BLP violations is not a content dispute ) Will ^(talk) 14:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anythying involving that many reverts is a content dispute regardless of its nature. - Caribbean~H.Q. 14:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. Removing BLP violations isn't a content dispute. If it was, it wouldn't be a 3RR exception. (The same applies to copyvios, vandalism, and banned user contributions) Will ^(talk) 14:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I said BLP violations within this text are plausible, however this is not a obvious BLP violation and the admin involved should have tried to resolve this before doing several reverts. - Caribbean~H.Q. —Preceding comment was added at 15:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Not obvious"? I think the text "{{fact|date=October 2007}}" about ten times is pretty much obvious. From BLP, "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles.", emphasis policy's. Will ^(talk) 15:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I must admit that the fact templates weren't particulary noticed by me, but you are just giving to much emphazize on this, the issue here is concerning edit warring which is not apropiate of a admin, and any kind of edit warring is a content dispute that is logic whenever a editor may have policy on his behalf or not, why because there is actually some material being disputed we are wasting our time discussing the proper definition of this kind of revert war here anyways, I doubt that this will help the case in any way. - Caribbean~H.Q. 15:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't an edit war when an admin, or anybody is trying to enforce policy. Corvus cornix_talk 17:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SilentRage, the best advice I can give you is to not revert war and find sources. So what if the material isn't on the current revision of the article? Once you find sources, revert and add the references. I would prefer if the article wasn't protected by CSCWEM though. CSCWEM was actively revert warring on the article and he should not have been the administrator to add the protection if it was nessecary. — Save_Us_229 14:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with Can't sleep, clown will eat me's actions in this matter, the aggressive removal of material that violates WP:BLP is allowed and is not subject to WP:3RR. Can't sleep's protection of the page to prevent continued addition of unsourced material to a BLP article was the right move according to WP:BLP#Semi-protection and protection. There’s no abuse of power here, just an administrator doing his job. Dreadstar † 15:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't a revert war, it was an attempt at enforcing policy. Corvus cornix_talk 17:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Investigation of alleged RD Reynolds revert warring

RD Reynolds (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Here are diffs showing unsourced biographical material being added: [5] [6] [7] Don't be fooled by the {{fact}} tags. Those don't make it kosher

Here's a spot of nasty vandalism: [8]

Accounts that have been blocked thus far by User:Can't sleep, clown will eat me

Pebblesmaster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Alfonso Tyson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Barney Rubbleton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

We know that a certain banned user has a fixation on wrestling articles and likes to mint sock puppets. I am not sure if these are socks belonging to him, or if they are others behaving the same way. After these accounts were blocked, SilentRage (talk · contribs) twice tried to add policy violating material [9] [10] and was reverted by User:Can't sleep, clown will eat me. I think page protection is appropriate and that CSCWEM has done nothing wrong. I do not see CSCWEM editing the article, except to enforce WP:BLP policy or revert vandalism; he does not seem to be involved in a content dispute at all. - Jehochman ^Talk 15:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually we have at least two known puppeters that enjoy adding nonsense to the wrestling pages, however this appears to be quite common even by users that aren't proven as puppets of either. - Caribbean~H.Q. 15:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. This creates a confusing situation. Perhaps we should request a checkuser on the above parties and the two known puppetmasters. - Jehochman ^Talk 15:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's almost certain that Pebblesmaster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Barney Rubbleton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are sockpuppets of each other [11] . A CheckUser to see which sockpuppeteer this is might be in order. — Save_Us_229 16:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would you like to file the request? You may copy a portion of the material above as your evidence. Add the third account as well. By going through with WP:RFCU, the Checkuser may discover additional, unknown accounts operated by the same party, thus helping prevent future disruption and confusion. - Jehochman ^Talk 16:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'm skeptical about whether a checkuser would accept it, but it's worth a try. Although it's fairly obvious that the sockpuppeteer is User:ECW500. What is the name of the other puppeteer on wrestling articles that was mentioned above? — Save_Us_229 16:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:JB196 spryde | talk 16:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aye. - Caribbean~H.Q. 16:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've worked with JB196 several times now and his modus operandi is usually removing large amounts of text (falsey) citing WP:BLP and adding a reference tag at the top. This user appears to be doing the opposite by adding the material.

Also I'm considering the contributions of User:ECW500 which include edits to WrestleCrap and RD Reynolds (same location as the suspect users' edits) and the article Fruity Pebbles (i.e. User:Pebblesmaster and User:Barney Rubbleton) — Save_Us_229 16:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I recall correctly JB had a stage where he would actually create false promotions and championships just to mock how long it took for someone to figure it out. - Caribbean~H.Q. 16:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'll file the CheckUser to check for sleeper accounts, but JB196 seems like a non-factor here. — Save_Us_229 16:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know it seems unlikely but it may as well be him trying to spread misinformation again, I'm just saying we shouldn't discard him until a CU proves otherwise. - Caribbean~H.Q. 16:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CheckUser has been started at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/ECW500. Feel free to comment and add on at your own discretion. — Save_Us_229 17:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Intuitionz (aka: User:68.111.191.29)

Can I get some other opinions on what to do with this user/users? This diff connects the two accounts. The whole account seems to only used for trollish activity on the talk pages and their edits to add similar nonsense (that they'll try to argue on the talk pages) like that the Thirteen Colonies declared themselves provinces and not states (here) and here or that Canada should be refer to as The American State of Canada (diff) and another example. He also claimed to have some personal knowledge that disputes birth records in the Hitler article here. This editor has been accused or troll activity before here and was warned to stop adding nonsense here. What should we do? The whole account seems to be set up to troll and make sneaky/nonsense vandalism. Can we just block both the ip and the user account indefinitely? —MJCdetroit (talk) 16:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, a block would not be appropriate. The editor has received a final warning, and has not transgressed since then. Blocks are not punishment, but are intended to be preventative, and hopefully this editor will "get it" and not continue with the disruptive actions. If he does, however, he just might "see the Jolly Roger on Regina's mighty shores" (if this doesn't make sense to you, don't worry, Intuitionz will understand). AKRadecki^Speaketh 05:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If he was a constructive full time editor that would be fine, but look at both contribs you'll see that the contributions are sporadic with sometimes months in between edits and none of the edits in the past have been constructive. Hence, my point that the whole account appears to be set up for trollish/disruptive activity and it maybe better to just block the user now than have to deal with the same stuff again in the future. — MJCdetroit (talk) 13:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SKS Copyvios

After coming from the recent shooting article, I found a copyvio tag on this article. After a little investigating, some portions of the article were direct word-for-word copy & pasted from the website http://www.gunnersden.com/index.htm.sks.html. I had to cull much of the article and I believe that I got most of it, but someone else should really take a second look.

Second point here, how in the world did we not pick this up before? The entire article on that website was incorporated into our article! This is copyvio at it's worst! Some of it was incorporated in the middle of a legitimate looking paragraph. This is quite alarming, given the copyright paranoia we have around here.

Anyways, the SKS article is now in need of a ton of TLC, so someone with much more knowledge than I have about weapons and guns (which is nill) needs to make this their top priority. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 17:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How long has the copyvio been in the article? Is it possible that gunnersden.com could have copied it from the Wikipedia article? Corvus cornix_talk 17:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, now that you mention it, that's a real possibility here. From what I can see, our page dates back over a year with some of that information. Hmm. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 17:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've requested help at WT:GUNS SQL ^{Query me!} 18:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked into this a little more, and it appears that they are the ones infringing on our copyright (the GFDL). I compared our article on the M14 rifle which theirs. Some sentences are the same again word-for-word, but I think the chances of us having directly copied two articles from them is slim (these are the only two similar ones I've found so far. Maybe looking way back in history's will revel more though?). I'm tempted to just restore the SKS article right now, but I'd like a second opinion before I go ahead. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 18:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

archive.org shows that gunnersden.com only recently added the text to that page. Definitely sounds like a reverse copyvio, though I haven't looked through the history to see exactly when they may have copied our article. Someone may want to examine any existing links to gunnersden.com to see if they are being used as references. --- RockMFR 20:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We are being talked about

We are being talked about: today's Technology Guardian. (To be sure, they're not mentioning any names, but there are links to diffs and stuff.) 131.111.8.102 (talk) 18:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And what administrator action is required here? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:34, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While perhaps - like sausages- it's better not to see the product being made, any familiarity with how Wikipedia operates should give rise to enormous scepticism about its alleged example of harmonious collective action. I find that to be a very accurate description of Wikipedia. Let's face it, it gets ugly behind the scenes. If people really thought that it was all peace, harmony, and cooperation happening here then I'd ask them what fantasy they're living in. If people can't accept that we're not perfect, then that's just pathetic. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 18:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's mainly slagging against Jimbo, and has to be taken with a grain of salt (or maybe a full shaker). But the statement that Jimbo is skillful in "knowing how to sell a dysfunctional community effectively" hits uncomfortably close to home. Raymond Arritt (talk) 19:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, he is. We're here, after all, and this place is damn dysfunctional, when you think about it. We just sort of manage to rise above it most of the time. ♠PMC♠ 06:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:AN pages are the worst of all for exposure to the dysfunctional elements of Wikipedia. If you spend a lot of time here, you may be getting an unbalanced perspective. Vast areas of Wikipedia are very close to harmonious a great deal of all the time. Try editing articles on plants, for example, or invertebrates, or weather or shipwrecks or heritage places or postage stamps or any other subject that people generally don't get hot under the collar about, and in general you'll find the place quite genteel. Hesperian 06:53, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I tend to hang out in rough neighborhoods. The global warming related and pseudoscience articles see some of the worst that Wikipedia has to offer, though it's not as bad as certain ethnic and national rivalries. Raymond Arritt (talk) 07:09, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposing unblock of User:RS1900

I am asking the community to consider allowing RS1900 (FKA Devraj5000) to edit again. He was banned for leaving a harassing message on my talk page. He has since apologized, and I accept his apology. I do not believe any other users were harassed. He has had a number of sockpuppets, which were used in two AfD discussions[12], and was also uncivil with me on a few occasions. I am unaware of any other misbehavior. I know him to be a generally constructive and prolific editor who has made positive contributions to articles in many areas, particularly physics.[13] [14] He has also added many valuable citations to the List of atheists article, on which we cooperated in the past. I understand that I am not the only one affected by his behavior, but I believe his pledge to no longer engage in such behavior is sincere, and that he will prove to be a constructive editor again. Nick Graves (talk) 18:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, unblock an editor with a record of harassment and abusive sockpuppetry because he promises to be a nice boy. Sure, why not. Raymond Arritt (talk) 19:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I appreciate your expression of goodwill toward this editor - and your word goes a long way in this - it simply has not been long enough to make me feel comfortable, given the level of harassment in which this user engaged. I, personally, will not unblock this user. Other admins may, of course, have other opinions. As of now, I think this user deserves a good long break. It speaks highly of you to request this, however. - Philippe | Talk 19:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I note Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/RS1900 and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive304#RS1900 personal attacks and threats as prior related discussion. GRBerry 19:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Has he pledged to stick to one account, and will he accept mentorship? If the only target of the harassment is willing to let bygones be bygones, then I'd support a trial if the banned editor agrees to reasonable steps. The ban can be imposed if problems resume, and maybe the gesture of reconciliation will turn things around. Durova^Charge! 21:59, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He has not made such a pledge yet, though that would be a natural prerequisite for unblocking, and mentoring is a good idea too, along with the "good long break" advised by Philippe above. He has not responded to my latest message, and may have left Wikipedia for good. I will leave him a link to this thread once it is archived, to give him an idea of what would likely be expected of him before he could return to editing, if he happens to check the latest messages there. Nick Graves (talk) 11:11, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I declined his unblock request the other day but now that he has clearly acknowledged the inappropriateness of his comment and you have accepted his apology and are advocating for his unblock, I would be willing to unblock him after he has sat out a fair period of time on the understanding that any return of such behaviour or use of sockpuppets outside policy will result in the block being reinstated immediately. Sarah 12:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I need help

Hello. An admin must contact me on my talk page. I have serious problems and I'd be pleased if an admin would listen to my problems. I need to contact an admin privately with an e-mail. HelpMe114 (talk) 20:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jacob Richler

Since I nominated this article for deletion, information on the notability of the subject has come to light that I think makes the grounds for my nomination inappropriate. I would like to withdraw my nomination and have said as much in the AfD discussion. Would someone mind closing the debate without prejudice - as seems to usually be the case with withdrawn nominations. [[Guest9999 (talk) 21:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)]][reply]

I've closed it as withdrawn. The discussion, after Bearcat's additions to the article, seemed to be moving toward keep as well. Leebo ^T/C 21:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From past experience (see this) it is never a good idea to close a AfD as "withdrawn" if there are any delete votes. In theory, the deletion discussion should stand, and the nominator shouldn't have "veto" power over everyone else just because they change their mind.-Andrew c ^[talk] 02:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Baderimre passed away

Dr. Imre Báder passed away some time ago, his funeral was on December 3. Besides being a professor of the University of Miskolc he was also an editor of the Hungarian, English and German Wikipedia and a contributor of Wikimedia Commons. His user name here is User:Baderimre (hu:User:Bader in his "home wiki"). May he rest in peace.

I'm not sure about the exact procedure in situations like these (protecting and blocking his userpage etc.), so please help me with that. The discussion in huwiki about him is (mostly) here, though in Hungarian. See also: request on Admin Noticeboard in Commons ([15]) Thank you! --Hu:Totya (talk!) 22:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note left on user and talk pages, and both pages protected. BLACKKITE 00:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked the account indefinitely as well to prevent any possibility of the account resurrecting itself with someone who shouldn't have access to it. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 00:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dying is not a reason to be blocked. This was removed from the blocking policy over a year ago. I feel user talk pages should be left open so people can leave memorial-type messages there as they did for Caroline Thompson. (It would be good to stop the bots adding things like "orphaned fair use image" warnings to such pages though.) See also Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians. Angela . 00:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I ditto that; block if there is some future abuse of the account, but not preemptively. There's always a chance of erroneous reports in such matters (Saint Francis and Mark Twain both come to mind). -- Kendrick7^talk 00:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We have 3 different sources (collague, social networking site and an obituary notice), so I'm afraid it's not erroneous report. Still, I respect your decision and the policy. And thanks for the note and protection on his user page. --Hu:Totya (talk!) 00:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I asked about this last time someone died and was pointed to the fact that everyone in that category is blocked as the precedent. Also, if you were to unprotect the talk page, you could add {{nobots}} to stop the bots. John Reaves 01:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We have proof that someone died. Do we have proof that that person is Baderimre? According to Angela and Kendrick7, this person should be unblocked. Congolese (talk) 03:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure it is a good idea to prevent bots from leaving messages on a deceased wikipedian talk page. If somebody monitors the talk page they would fix the fair used images, etc. Otherwise the images would be slowly get deleted and I guess it is not the deceased would want Alex Bakharev (talk) 04:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The dead don't monitor their talk pages, and no one else will be doing it for them. If images are being deleted when the person who uploaded them disappears, then something is seriously dysfunctional about the image deletion process. - Nunh-huh 04:46, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone e-mail me or post to my talk page a translation of the relevant info at [16] so I can add him to Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians?--Alabamaboy (talk) 17:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User redirecting Talk page to User page

I have encountered a User who keeps redirecting his User Talk Page to his User Page. I tried to explain to him that he needs a Talk page for others to communicate with him, but he wants me to point to a policy that requires this. Is there one? Corvus cornix_talk 22:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't find anything specifically saying that a user must have a talk page. However, it is clearly a necessary tool for maintaining other policies. Without a talk page, it is difficult to notify a user of violations of policy, or request their participation in resolving a content dispute on a page they have edited (that is, working toward consensus). I think anyone who must notify this user for these legitimate purposes would be justified in creating or editing their talk page, and persistent reversions of such edits would constitute incivility. I would also favor rewriting policy to explicitly bar deletions of an active user's talk page. Nick Graves (talk) 23:34, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming the user is active, that's pretty disruptive (though I'm not sure what could be done other than full protecting the page if he won't listen). John Reaves 01:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any talk page is present to facilitate communication. Barring unusual circumstances, deliberately preventing other users from communicating with oneself strikes me as pretty blatantly disruptive. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a problem unless the user objects to people posting their messages on his user page. Well... come to think of it, it is a problem if it confuses the bots. Hesperian 01:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If a bot isn't programmed to follow the redirect, the bot would most likely tack any notices after the redirect text, and the user should get the new-message orange bar. Human editors will probably end up at the redirect target and put talk comments on the userpage. Is this really a problem? Gimmetrow 01:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would you say the same for article talk? "Oh, they can just post on the article." There's a user talk namespace for a reason, this redirect seems more confusing than anything. But, if the user clearly indicates that messages should go someplace, and is responsive to whatever messages they receive, I suppose it's not as important. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:55, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article and talk space have clear uses. A fair number of editors have no use for userspace. If such editors choose to use it for talk, are responsive, and don't claim they don't see warnings, I might suggest they do it the other way around (redirect userpage to usertalk), but it just doesn't seem a big deal. Gimmetrow 03:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many scripts and bots are counting on that user talk page being present, though. I'm not sure how a newcomer might react -- would they be confused and turned off? I would strongly prefer a redirect in the other direction. Perhaps I'm reacting more strongly than I should be, because in the past when I've seen users do this, it's almost always been in a move to try and avoid getting any messages at all. I feel it needs to be clear, to anyone wandering past, where messages go; the user talk page is certainly the standard, but if we have a redirect to the userpage, I'd at least insist on some indication messages can and should be left there. – Luna Santin (talk) 10:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) The problem is that he can claim he didn't see a message (being it a warning or request), something he would not be able to if he had allowed others to contact him through his talk page. I have seen some vandals redirecting their talk page to another page, making all vandal bots write warnings to the wrong page. I would question the user why he wants to redirect that to his user page, instead of explaining why he should not. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 01:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of people do the opposite (redirect the user page to the user talk page), which I also don't understand, but at least that doesn't cut off communication. *Dan T.* (talk) 02:11, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Corvus: I would suggest pointing the user here and telling them that they're being disruptive. John Reaves 02:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I hadn't thought of the orange bar situation. Yes, this is a problem. Hesperian 02:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What we should do is to politely tell this user that his talk page is necessary for communication, and thus, collaboration between him and fellow Wikipedians. However, if there is any good reason to redirect his user talk page, then by all means he should be permitted to do so. Maser ^(Talk!) 04:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Point out to the user that it is more acceptable to redirect his user page to his talk page? -- SEWilco (talk) 07:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even though there isn't specific mention, pages in user space still do belong to the community (Wikipedia:User_page#Ownership_and_editing_of_pages_in_the_user_space). I'd think any form of consensus/vote by the community on this situation would result keeping the talk page accessable to facilitate communication--Hu12 (talk) 07:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to the question of is it a problem if users post messages/earnings on the userpage instead of the talk page, I do see that as a problem. That will not trigger the orange bar, and unless the user has watchlisted the userpage s/he will not notice the communications. With that being the case, should any action need to be taken as a result of nopt heeding warnings, the user can say "but I didn't see them". For that reason alone, I think the redirect should be stopped. Jeffpw (talk) 09:16, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is all very speculative. If the user is not directly disruptive, there is no problem. If the user reacts to posts on his user page, there is no problem. If he is disruptive, an "I didn't see the warning" is not going to protect him from the consequences. That said, I think it might be a good idea to point him to this discussion and also point out the advantage of the talk page (i.e. automatic notification about new messages). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

can we not cut this off at the pass in future by adding a line to the relevent policy page, saying that while you are under no obligation to respond, talkpages should not be redirected (userpage to talkpage does not seem to be a problem) because the channel needs to exist. --Fredrick day (talk) 11:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I never thought I'd see the day where we have to add to our policy "you must have a Talk page". Which leads to the question: which policy page would this best fit under? Wikipedia:Username? (Probably best to discuss this over at the Wikipedia:Village Pump.) -- llywrch (talk) 20:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Admin Gadgets

Now that Gadgets have been enabled, I've started a thread at MediaWiki_talk:Gadgets-definition#Admin_Gadgets regarding including admin-specific gadgets in the list. Comments there would be welcome. Thank you, — xaosflux ^Talk 04:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Streamlining "Did You Know?"

I’ve noticed lately that DYK updates are a little slow coming at times, and some of the DYK regulars are rather vocal about seeing it updated often. The process in place right now is a pretty lousy one. The process could be improved and updates always made on time by borrowing Raul’s process for Today's Featured Article. I bring this proposal here since administrators are the ones tasked with seeing this updated every six hours.

Instead of constantly updating {{Did You Know}}, we should create individual pages for each set of hooks to be put on the mainpage, like so:

and so on. The pages will update each day at the 0th, 6th, 12th, and 18th hour UTC. The actual update will happen without direct admin intervention automagically. We’ll replace the {{Did you know}} code on the main page with {{Wikipedia:Did you know/{{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTDAY}}, {{CURRENTYEAR}}/{{#expr: {{CURRENTHOUR}} – ({{CURRENTHOUR}} mod 6)}}}}. Of course, to keep the would-be Main Page vandals at bay, the titles for the pages would need to be protected in advance, either at Protected Titles or by IARbot. We'd also have to create a page with updating instructions.

There are some immediate benefits to this approach:

It allows admins to work ahead on DYK. In one sitting, an admin could queue up the hooks for a couple day’s worth of DYKs. In the meantime, other admins can add new sets of hooks for later on.
Any editor who spots an improvement to the already created hook pages can post an {{editprotected}} request directly to that talkpage, often before it even goes to the mainpage.
It would be easy to make a warning template using the #ifexist parser function to say "Hey you! Admins! The next set of DKY hooks is not made yet. The next update is at 18:00 UTC. Chop chop!" We can make it big and red and threatening, and include it at the top of WP:AN and WP:ANI. No bots needed. The template would only show if the next page to be included had not been created yet.
I keep a lookout for typos and other errors on Today's Featured Article at User:HiDrNick/TFA blurbs. It would be easy to create a similar page for the upcoming DKYs, both so that admins see at a glance how far ahead the updating is done, and to keep as many eyes on the upcoming hooks as possible.

Thoughts? ➪HiDrNick! 06:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That strikes me, for one, as a supremely fine idea. Joe 06:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't this something that is best discussed at Wikipedia talk:Did you know? --Edward Morgan Blake (talk) 08:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like a good idea, anyway: For instance, a day or two ago, we were working on 6-day old tags still (which we're not supposed to do) - but the second update of the day came about 5 hours late. [I'd have fixed it myself, but I was at University]. Adam Cuerden ^talk 08:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a note over there directing interested parties to here. I checked out Template talk:Did you know before posting here, and it looked like clearly the wrong place to post. I didn't realize that there was a WT:DYK. ➪HiDrNick! 09:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like this idea. It effectively shuts out non-admins from most of the updating process. I've just started working in this area and I've found it's something I enjoy, if it's going to be left entirely up to admins, with me having to post an "editprotected" request every time I want to experiment with even a minor tweak, then there is no longer any incentive for me to participate.

Also, in regards to the "big warning template" to post on AN/I, I'm certainly in favour of that, but then if we are going to have regular warnings on AN/I, I think the problem is largely solved in any case, because my guess is that there are generally plenty of non-admin interested parties hanging around who would be more than happy to post a "big warning template" whenever the update is 15 minutes overdue :) Gatoclass (talk) 09:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like the idea of automating the process to ensure regularity of updating and easing the process of making Main Page changes. When DYK is delayed, it reduces the number of opportunities for new articles to make it to the main page, which is frustrating for those waiting to get on. (Also, as a new admin with a few DYKs under my belt, I'd be happy to lend a hand but at present am a little nervous about stuffing up!) However, I take Gatoclass's point about involving non-admins in selection. Why not, as now, allow non-admins to add suggestions to the update until it has been completed and is ready for the main page, and only then give it full protection? Excluding non-admins from selecting suggestions from the list of candidates and adding them to the update will in fact increase the load on admins rather than reduce it. Bencherlite ^Talk 09:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One thing that might be more useful is to have some way of automating the crediting. Distributing 10-30 templates throughout the project - talk pages, article pages, etc - and having to manually prepare the contents of each template is annoying. Surely it could be at least partially automated. Adam Cuerden ^talk 10:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good idea too. Crazy that something like that isn't automated IMO. Gatoclass (talk) 10:19, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[Edit conflict]: Excluding non-admins from selecting suggestions from the list of candidates and adding them to the update will in fact increase the load on admins rather than reduce it. - Bencherlite

I think you are correct on the last point. I almost singlehandedly did two updates yesterday because no-one else seemed to be around, if I hadn't done so someone else - probably an admin - would have had to do the job instead.

As to "why not allow non-admins to add suggestions until it has been completed, and then protect" - might I suggest that the page be protected automatically at a certain point in the process? Let's say, the page is protected one hour before it is due to be posted. If it's not finished at that stage, an individual or bot can post the "big red warning" at ANI.

Having an auto-protect feature would not only obviate the need for manual protection, it would also let all users know exactly how long before the page was to be protected, so they could keep working to improve the update up to that point.

If there's to be an auto-protect though, might I suggest that the auto-protect also generates an auto-warning on AN/I for some admin to go and validate that the page is actually in a fit state to be posted and that it hasn't been vandalized. In that case you could dispense with the "big red warning" altogether because there would be a reminder on AN/I to check the update every six hours anyway. Gatoclass (talk) 10:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to take the idea a little further, you could have some sort of admin validation process to stop the update posting if no-one had checked the contents. In other words, it goes like this: an hour before the update is due, the update is auto-protected and a message generated on AN/I for someone to go and check it's okay. The admin checking that it's okay then has some sort of admin-only button he can use to inform the software the update has been checked and is good to post. If no admin hits the button by the time the update is due, the software does not post the update but instead sends another message to AN/I saying it's still waiting for confirmation. Gatoclass (talk) 10:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know this might be a dumb idea, but is there a way to have certain users given Admin powers, but restricted to DYK duties only? That way, we won't have the lags in updating and whatnot because we can have a healthy pool of admins to update as needed. --293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 11:25, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to be the knee-jerk opposition to change here, but non-admins do so much of the next update template that I'm not sure if this is a very good idea. Also, in my experience, the DYK regulars don't complain much about the next update being late. I think the regulars are used to it. Newcomers to the project often complain, but it's worth bearing in mind that "6 hours" and "5-days-old" are just arbitrary goals to keep the pressure on. Ninety percent of the time it's not a problem to have a 6-day-old hook and a template that's updated every 8 hours. Why would it be? The purpose is not rules for the sake of rules. The purpose is to get recognition and incentive for people who start good new articles instead of stubby ones. Unless the project is overlooking lots of good hooks (and this very rarely happens) then I don't think we should rejigger the mechanism. --JayHenry (talk) 15:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like a good idea in principle to me, but it needs to be unprotected. What if we got rid of the automation, but did have the pages for each update? Whoever is updating simply looks at the page history and can evaluate the edits of anyone they didn't recognize to make sure they were constructive (and make sure it was updated at all--the possibility of that mistake seems as likely as intentional vandalism). As it is, the next update template is unprotected, and is often filled by non-admins (like Gatoclass) which greatly helps the admins (and gives them valuable experience too, if they're interested in an RFA). I do like the idea of being able to plan the updates in advance, though. That seems like it might go smoother. Rigadoun (talk) 15:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. Technically, it is impossible. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 20:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This wouldn't have to exclude non-admins from the process at all; in fact, the idea is to take away a lot of the load already borne here by admins. All editors would still prepare sets of hooks to go on the mainpage, they would just post completed sets to a new (unprotected) holding page where they could be reviewed by other editors until an admin comes along, verifies that the content is appropriate for the mainpage and has not been vandalized, and posts them to the end of the existing queue. Since an admin could post a few sets of these at a time, DYK would be updated like clockwork with less admin work and little change in the actual selection process used now. Basically, instead of working on the set of hooks to be posted in a few hours, you might be working on a set of hooks that would be posted in 54 hours or so. ➪HiDrNick! 18:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's fine, but it doesn't address the problem of the updates being chronically late, which is the subject of this thread. I think I'd be satisfied at this stage with auto-alerts to AN/I every six hours. If the update turns out to be not ready, then the clock can be reset from the time when the next update is posted. Gatoclass (talk) 20:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't strike me as a particularly good idea. DYK, unlike the other sections of the main page, has a requirement that an article needs to be created recently. That doesn't really allow to effectively use a subpage model, as the pages can only be worked on for a few days before the deadline. Additionally, having more pages requires having more pages in one's watchlist, which then allows for errors and mistakes to be harder to find. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 20:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I and a few others are working on a few ideas to get the whole process streamlined and a bot or two involved to help with the checking of articles and such. WT:DYK is a much better place for this whole conversation. spryde | talk 21:25, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, how about something like this:

Create a set of 28 pages, 4 for each day of the week like

Template:Did you know/Monday/0

Template:Did you know/Monday/6

Template:Did you know/Monday/12

Template:Did you know/Monday/18

Replace the current {{Did you know}} on the main page with {{Did you know/{{CURRENTDAYNAME}}/{{#expr:{{CURRENTHOUR}}-({{CURRENTHOUR}} mod 6)}}}}

Which for Saturday at 00:41, returns Template:Did you know/Saturday/0. This means that the pages would only be protected when they are on the main page (through the cascading protection) and would otherwise be open to add new hooks.

To prevent people from disrupting them immediately before they get on the main page, another cascade protected page, Wikipedia:Did you know/Next hooks could be created with

{{Did you know/{{#ifexpr:{{CURRENTHOUR}}>18|{{#time:l|+ 1 day}}/0|{{CURRENTDAYNAME}}/{{#expr:{{CURRENTHOUR}}-({{CURRENTHOUR}} mod 6)+6}}}}}}

. The #time: function is so that it will transclude the next day's "0" hour hook if it is after 18:00. For Saturday at 00:41, it returns Template:Did you know/Saturday/6.

This set-up allows any user (or the templates can all be semi-protected) to make the updates and gives a six hour window before they are on the main page where they are full protected for admin review. It allows updates to be made well in advance, without creating 4 new templates every day, the old ones are simply overwritten. Except for the initial set-up and fixing any possible issues with the next update, this would not require admins at all and as the pages cycle, there is no reason to constantly create new pages and DYK people can have all 28 on their watchlist. Mr.Z-man 21:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've created an example of what the system could look like in my userspace. See all the pages here. I created example pages for today and tomorrow (UTC), using the current hooks and the archive. Mr.Z-man 03:05, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In principle I'm not against giving a system like this a try, but again I come back to the fact that this thread was started out of concerns regarding the chronic lateness of the updates, not the best way to organize their creation. I don't see how this proposal is going to have much impact on the former.

In regards to the proposal itself, it seems unnecessarily complex to me. If you think an update queue is a good idea, what's wrong with just allowing the next two or three updates to be listed on the same page as the current next update page? It might be worthwhile at least trying that to see if queueing is of any benefit before we start thinking of more elaborate queueing schemes. Gatoclass (talk) 10:26, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, from what I understand, the problem is that you need an admin to move the update from the update page to the protected template. With what I proposed, you really don't need an admin at all. Instead of the non-admins putting the update on a next update page and then going to ANI when no admin moves them, they put them on a page that will be transcluded onto the main page automatically at the correct time and you remove the extra step of moving them to the protected template. The only reason to go to ANI then would be if something needs to be corrected on the page that's currently on the main page or the next one. I really fail to see how automatically complaining to ANI is going to do anything more than annoy and fill up the page with DYK update requests. Mr.Z-man 15:49, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As with Gatoclass, in principle I'm not against giving this system a try. (We should note, of course, that it's quite the opposite of streamlining.) For one thing, I don't think "Having the update done well in advance" is a goal we necessarily want to pursue. We already get complaints, sometimes pretty savage and disheartening, every time a hook doesn't get properly screened. If we reduce the amount of time on the suggestions page, we reduce the amount of screening. Having some flexibility is good. For example, there's not a lot of people around from 4-12 UCT on a Saturday. Americans are going to sleep, the Brits are just waking up, the Australians are out partying and sometimes the template doesn't get updated. With this system of locking templates, if a non-admin doesn't do it, then you have a sort of race against the clock scenario to find an admin who's willing to update the template and walk him through it before a blank DYK page goes up. Will there be an easy way to tell what hours are ready and what aren't? Other than adding 28 pages to the watchlist? I guess I still have a lot of unresolved concerns about why we're making this change. (And actually, I don't understand why we're having the discussion here instead of with the people who actually update DYK). --JayHenry (talk) 15:46, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the current method requires an admin to do the update within a very short timeframe. The system I proposed only requires an admin if no one has prepared an update within 6 hours of it getting on the main page (and the timing for autoprotection of the next update could be adjusted as well if 6 hours is too long). Unless you get an adminbot to do the updates, there's no technical way to ensure that updates are done in a timely manner using only 1 template. The TFA, "On this day," and the POTD all use a date based template system. ITN doesn't because it is updated on an irregular basis. Mr.Z-man 16:00, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a second, do I understand correctly that people have been starting ANI threads when the update is 1 or 2 hours late? If so, we can add a notice on various places explaining that this is not necessary and should not be done. Rigid six-hour updating, in my opinion at least, is not one of DYK's purposes. The purpose is to encourage the creation of good new articles (instead of forgotten stubs) through a system of recognition and eyeballs to an interesting element of the new article. Right now we're not back-logged at all, and so if the weekend updates are a little slower it actually gives hooks a little more time to be reviewed at the suggestions page. --JayHenry (talk) 17:17, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless, I think there is some justification for creating multiple updates ahead of time. I could have done two or three myself in the last few hours, but I didn't because there is no place to put them. I guess I could have queued them on the "Next Update" page itself, but since I don't know the mechanics of updating, I'm not sure if that's practical.

As for people complaining about DYK being only a couple of hours late, I agree that an hour or two isn't much of a problem but only today it was more than six hours late again. A few days ago IIRC it was more than ten hours late. Gatoclass (talk) 17:56, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coped from Wikipedia talk:Did you know:

I really think it'd speed up updating if we could come up with some way to use a bot and templates to clear the credits section, flagging up anything it can't deal with somewhere where it can be done by hand.

Here's how my ideal bot would work:

An admin reviews the prepared next update, then pushes a button. This button will only work if an admin presses it. The bot copies the prepared section to the front page template and the archive. It then goes through the credits sections, and handles all of them that are properly templated, then sets up the page ready for the nextt update, keeping only crediting work it was unable to deal with. The admin does any remaining notifications by hand, checks the next update is good, and is done. Should no admin press the button within an hour of the time it should have been, a message appears at the top of WP:ANI. How close we can get to my ideal, I do not know. But that's how I would work it in an ideal world.

In an even more ideal world, the bot could also be given a list of trusted non- admins eligible to press the button. Adam Cuerden talk 19:54, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Rex Germanus

I'm getting quite fed up with User:Rex Germanus. Since I'm definitely not neutral on this (involved gradually in different editing disputes with him), I am bringing this here for general consideration (since the CSN board is closed down), to see what (if anything) should be done.

Since his return from a month long block on November 13, Rex has continued his disruptive behaviour, but is now supported by a number of IP adresses, including 145.93.125.93, 145.93.123.60, 145.93.126.83 and 145.93.124.84, all coming from Fontys Hogescholen. I have no idea if this is a sock- or meatpuppet, but it makes the situation even worse.

Problems are: asking for references without ever providing some themselves (e.g. on Dutchland [17], West Flemish [18], or Van Beethoven family [19]). Instead of replacing German with Dutch, his new topic is replacing Flemish with Dutch, even when it is incorrect, as in Jean Bart [20]. He moved Dunkirkers to Dunkirk Raiders, and was unwilling to consider that he was wrong even when presented with references, and (again) without presenting any counterreferences himself, only his assertions (see User Talk:Rex Germanus#Dunkirkers). In these and other discussions, his (and the IP's) discussion and edit summaries where very often uncivil and personal, and very rarely constructive. Talk:West Flemish#Y vs. IJ is a good illustration of this.

Finally, edits like this one[21] are to me unacceptable.

This is a complicated situation in which I am a party, but I seriously doubt if Rex has changed a bit since his last block, and if he is beneficial to Wikipedia. I have not issued any formal warnings, since (coming from me) they would probably only inflame the situation, instead of helping. Fram (talk) 10:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since he's been warned off editing German topics, Rex certainly seems to have acquired a bee in his bonnet about all things Flemish. The disruption is at a much lower intensity than before, but it's still there. --Folantin (talk) 10:16, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All edits made displayed here where either because I had (better) sources or because others lacked them. I stand by all of them.

'Disrupted Topic' according to Fram:

Jean Bart: Being Dutch-born, ethnic sense, (Dunkirk being almost completely etnically Dutch at the time of his birth) doesn't say anything about nationality; the source of your confusion as noted in your edits.

Dunkirkers: Explained at my talkpage, point of concern? 'Dunkirkers' also refers to people from Dunkirk in general. Simple as that.

Van Beethoven Family: In the Beethoven question, which I've dropped as announced on the talk page) I proved my point that Flemish meant Dutch in beethovens time (and his ancestors times). Fran/Folentin demanded something more specific (what could cover my point more I ask myself). If that's 'not ever providing sources' then I don't know what that is.

For example Another false accusation to add to my list. I do use sources, more than any of the people mentioned above. This report to me is just a clear example of how these people try to push their changes on wikipedia without referencing. A small step from unfounded opinions, to personal attacks and allegations and now ... and attempt to block or similar. Sad, if you think you're right, go to library and find out for sure.Rex (talk) 15:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I deny all accusations made by Erik Warmelink who accuses me of using sock/meatpuppets. I have never used them and never will. Just because an IP (I assume it is the same person) disagrees with you and supports me doesn't make it a sock, it just makes 2 vs 1.Rex (talk) 15:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well then, quote the starting 10 words of the entry on "beethof" on http://www.etymologie.nl/ (I get: Lemma niet gevonden! Dit deel van het Etymologisch Woordenboek van …, crude translation: Lemma not found! This part of the etymological glossary of …), give a reliable source that links "van Beethoven" with Beets or the Betuwe, give a source that "van Beethoven" was ever used as a familyname in the Netherlands, give a reliable source that "proves" that Flemish meant Dutch in Beethovens time. Just because several IPs agree with you, doesn't make them socks; if all they do is agreeing with you (even repeating your accusation that I would lie) and reverting to your versions (without interwiki's that were added and with spelling errors that were corrected), appearances are against you. Also explain this edit summary. Erik Warmelink (talk) 16:43, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I invite everyone to look at the edits linked, and compare them with the actual statements by Rex Germanus. E.g. the Van Beethoven family edit I linked has nothing to do with the Flemish vs. Dutch dispute, and Rex Germanus ignores the other, more recent pages listed (e.g. Dutchland is a very nice example, and West Flemish, where Rex Germanus makes even this evening clearly invalid statements on the talk page[22]). Perhaps Rex uses sources, but he certainly doesn't provide them. Fram (talk) 21:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do not confuse yourself with me. I do provide sources. Look at Dutch people, over 110 references, nearly all added by me, I know how to reference.Rex (talk) 10:02, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have not provided sources for any of the disputes mentioned here: I'm glad that you know how to do it, but that doesn't excuse your behaviour in the last month. Why do you say here that "some people love fights" while going from a more to a less correct page?[23]. Why do you make such clearly invalid statements like this one?[24] Why did you change from one unsourced spelling to another unsourced one[25], but then accuse me of OR when I provide an independent but unreliable source (which of course is not OR at all), while not providing any source at all to support your version?[26] And why are you so uncivil in nearly all your edits and edit summaries (when you use them)? Fram (talk) 13:37, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's less correct Fram? Explain that to me. That note on West Flemish is really a cry for help for your behavior. Your 'arguments' were/are completely discredited on talk and still you revert to your version. Also you did not, hence no links, in the entire West Flemish discussion provide any reference. So don't make it seem you did.Rex (talk) 14:39, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good grief, are we still dealing with this guy? How many kilobytes of AN and ANI discussion have been devoted to his antics? When is enough provocation enough? Raymond Arritt (talk) 16:47, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep your good griefs to yourself and focus on what's presented, not how many times a name comes up on a page you happen to watch.Rex (talk) 00:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bahnstormer

Bahnstormer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Recently this user left a message on my talk page accusing me of using a doppelganger account for editing. He left the following message on my talk page:

They should be marked with the doppelganger or doppelganger-other tag, or simply redirected to one's own userpage. Such accounts should not be used for editing.

I did re-create the account to prevent impersonation, but it has no edits at all, and is now blocked indefinitely.

I have let the user know on his talk page. The user's only contributions appear to be to my talk page, the BMW E34 talk page, and his userpage.

I assume he must have seen old posts I signed with my previous username, SunStar Net, before I changed username.

How can I educate this user better?? I don't want to assume he's a sockpuppet or SPA, as that would violate WP:AGF, but his first contributios appears to be a bit odd.

I'm not sure what to do about the situation, it's not a major incident, but at the same time, I don't want to assume bad faith about the user either. Thanks, --Solumeiras ^talk 11:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that a note at the talk page is the right first response. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. It's just I was worried about harassment as I didn't expect a user to just post at someone's talk page for their first edit. --Solumeiras ^talk 13:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting User Talk pages

I was on break for 6 months, so I may have missed a policy change here. But I'm noticing an increasing phenomena of usertalk pages being deleted citing "right to vanish". Now in some case of harassment this may well be necessary, and in the cases of accounts that have contributed little it may be harmless. But I think it can be very harmful where the talkpage contains a long record of community discussion. Unlike userpages, usertalk pages don't belong to one user - and their deletion, as opposed to blanking, may well prejudice others users who have posted there by removing the context for undeleted posts elsewhere.

I note the meta right to vanish page states: "Your user and talk pages, and their subpages, and other non-article pages that no others have substantively contributed to and whose existence does not impact the project, may be courtesy blanked or deleted." But, with users who have been substantial contributors that doesn't seem to apply as 1) others HAVE substantially contributed 2) it may well have impact on the project. There is certainly no WP:CSD authorising administrators to delete on a RTV demand. These deletions breaching standing policy.

I'd like one of the following to happen, either:

Cease the practice, unless there is WP:OFFICE or WP:OTRS testimony that, in a particular case, the existence of the pages is thought to cause a real issue for privacy, harassment, or other abuse. Not just user request, unless the pages contain no substantial discussion.
Or develop a clear policy and amend the WP:CSD. I've read the meta page carefully, and I see no foundation mandate here that overrides this community's right to decide.

--Doc^g 12:16, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's not really an English Wikipedia issue (m:Right to vanish), which states that it is a "long standing right of any user on any Wikimedia project". x42bn6 Talk Mess 13:36, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Read that page - it clearly states that the scope for the deletion of user talk pages under this "right" is very limited. There is no foundation policy that mandates this. See my direct quote above. I'm quoting from m:Right to vanish: "Your user and talk pages, and their subpages, and other non-article pages that no others have substantively contributed to and whose existence does not impact the project, may be courtesy blanked or deleted.", and note "may be" and "blanked" - there is no right to have talkpages deleted on request here..--Doc^g 13:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. *strikes previous post* x42bn6 Talk Mess 13:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I noticed this recently, when I denied a db-usereq on a talk page but courtesy blanked it instead (which to me seems fair enough). A minute or so later, someone came along and deleted it anyway, citing Right to Vanish. It wasn't worth wheeling over, but I was pretty sure I had policy on my side. I'll second either of Doc's potential solutions. ➔ REDVEЯS likes kittens... and you 13:55, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe courtesy blanking should be enough. What would be the advantages of deleting rather than a simple courtesy blank? Mahalo. --Ali'i 14:16, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, in my opinion long standing user's user talk pages shouldn't be deleted if there is no privacy concern. -- lucasbfr ^talk 14:16, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also think that we shouldn't delete user talk pages, however the user could have personal information on there (not necessarily stuff for oversight, but things like real name, approximate location etc.) they might not want that available. I think that blanking would be enough but that's a concern that some people might have. James086^{Talk | Email} 14:21, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone with such material can ask for the appropriate revisions to be deleted (or oversighted) and that can be done. But total deletion, removing all discussions, for the sake of a revision or two, is overkill. ➔ REDVEЯS likes kittens... and you 14:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also find deleting talk pages to be problematic, and have declined many CSD tags on talk pages. The db-userreq even says "User talk pages are generally not speedy-deletable per this guideline". Natalie (talk) 16:19, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think Doc makes good sense here -- blank, don't delete. One problem in deleting Talk pages of departed users is that we might inadvertently remove important chunks of conversations that helped to determine consensus. This is very important the further back one goes, when the rules were very loose. And remember that although an Admin can undelete a page, this is entirely at the developer's whim. Some day the developers might decide that they need drive space on the server &, without warning, purge all deleted pages that had been deleted more than 30 days before! -- llywrch (talk) 20:19, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with Doc, because I think that calls for unnecessary bureaucracy. If someone is actually leaving Wikipedia, and says they want to delete their own user talk page to protect their privacy, I would rather just do it than make them jump through hoops they may not ever hear about. Blanking a talk page doesn't remove things from the history from being visible to anyone who wants to look for them. That said, I have noticed some cases where such users then came back to Wikipedia, and I would like to see the user talk pages either restored in such cases, or be given a good reason why they need to remain deleted. 20:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mangojuice (talk • contribs)

I'm not sure how many people actually claim that they want to delete their page for privacy reasons. Most people seem to just tag everything, usertalk included, and never mention privacy. Natalie (talk) 21:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think they need to explicitly invoke "right to vanish" or specifically say they have privacy concerns. I'd rather assume they want the page deleted, not blanked, because that's what they asked for and if they're leaving I see no reason not to simply respect the request and comply with it. All of these editors know how to blank the page themselves, but that's not what they're doing. Mango juice^talk 16:54, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree with Doc. While privacy reasons would be a good reason for deleting somebody's talk page, such concerns are quite rare. It seems much more common for a user to, in effect, storm off in a huff, and want his stuff to be removed. I have seen several of such pages turn up on MFD and/or DRV and end up restored; in general, I believe that as long as they contain community discussion, they should be restored. >Radiant< 22:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have to say that the majority of the requests that I see, especially through OTRS aren't privacy concerns. In fact, usually its "I did something silly or said something I'm not proud of now and I want to make it go away". We can always oversight any particular privacy concerns; this doesn't require deleting an entire talk page. Shell ^babelfish 03:14, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have a compelling reason to keep embarrassing stuff around about a user when they want to leave? Deletion is no big deal. Mango juice^talk 16:55, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Mangojuice here. Sometimes we take ourselves a bit too seriously. That cute kid in the charity ad isn't going to die because we deleted a userpage squabble about a Pokemon character. There's not going to be a geopolitical crisis because we deleted a flamefest over the proper capitalization of a word in some obscure article. But real people can be embarrassed, or even actively harmed, by stuff left on their talk page. The default should be that we respect people's wishes on this point unless there's a compelling reason to do otherwise. Raymond Arritt (talk) 17:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also share this view. I have deleted a small handful of user talk pages under the right to vanish (more accurately under Ignore All Rules), and in each case the user had picked a username too close to their life, and due to experiences here or elsewhere they had come to regret it. I don't see the need to require extra bureaucracy and sworn 'testimony of real issues' sent to the Foundation Office from a verifiable email address. I would delete the pages again if I was asked again, using common sense and an amount of human decency (BLP?). As long as we remember that we are talking about pages which "contain a long record of community discussion", and this is no outright prohibition. Remember there has never been a CSD for user talk pages, and there is always Deletion Review for deletions which are out of process. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:57, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We have links to user talk pages and diffs on them all over, and it's extremely annoying when they stop working. Nothing should ever be deleted without a good reason. "I did something stupid that I want to hide" isn't a good reason. Zocky | picture popups 20:30, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am absolutely fine with them being deleted where there is a real life issue for someone. But I'm not fine with a general rule that we do it on demand. The danger here is that if admins do this lightly people will start contesting them on DRV - and since there is no basis in policy for the deletion, unless the admin details the reason, they'll get undeleted. Now, in those genuine privacy cases, the last thing the subject wants is a high profile DRV demanding reasons and lots of people snooping about. Sooooo pleeeeease only delete talk pages where you are pretty sure there's a bloody good reason - and use a useful deletion summary like "privacy concerns - e-mail me if you need details". That way we can keep the few genuine privacy deletions intact - but we can only do this if routine deletions stop now. The next deletion citing only "rtv" as a reason will be sent to DRV, since rtv DOES NOT ALLOW FOR the deletion of usertalk pages on demand (see the reasons above).--Doc^g 20:38, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CSD backlog nav templates broken?

crossposted from VPT, discussion should take place there. This is just so people know there are backlogs

Is there something wrong with these templates? They're all showing up as empty (except the replaceable fair use one, which is a separate template) when there are plenty of files in the actual backlog categories. I tried to add parameters to let you manually specify a backlog that's "fallen off the back of the list", but then I realized there's no reason the one I was looking at shouldn't have been showing up.—Random832 16:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. There has been a software change, and basically, those templates no longer function because they were making too many server requests, and there is now a cap on those. See User talk:Gracenotes#Template-affecting software change?. If we want to keep track of the backlog, we'll have to do it in a clumsier way, or get someone to write a bot to help out. Mango juice^talk 20:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I screwed up

Resolved

– No harm, no foul --barneca (talk) 21:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

I submitted an edit to the Isuzu Bighorn topic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isuzu_Bighorn and I hate to admit it but I submitted faulty information. I don't see my changes and am hoping that I made some sort of mistake in the editing process. But I'm concerned that my changes are somewhere in the works and will eventually be included in that page. This would not be good.

Sorry to be a problem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LongOfTooth (talk • contribs) 21:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your contributions don't show an edit to Isuzu Bighorn, and there have not been any IP edits to the article for a month (and it was only renamed yesterday), so it looks like whatever you did wasn't saved. I'll leave some more info on your talk page. --barneca (talk) 21:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leaked tv episode

So a TV episode of a show has been leaked early. What is worse, is that both the date, and the title were not confirmed by the network. If I wanted to protect these pages for a certain amount of time, would it be OK if I made a sub page, cascading protected it on a time limit to prevent the articles from being created? If not, what should I do? Just delete whenever it is created? The Placebo Effect (talk) 02:14, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We, Wikipedians, don't work for TV. If we know information and can locate reliable sources, then revealing the plot before the TV show is broadcast is fair game. It is OK to "spill the beans". It is bad to restrict information just because it hasn't been shown on TV. Congolese (talk) 02:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you are saying if I can point a link where it has been leaked online, it should have an article and a summary? Cause that doen't make sense. In a case like that i would just IAR and remove the info. The Placebo Effect (talk) 02:31, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I may have misunderstood. WP doesn't care if it is secret information. If there is a reliable source, you can cite it. If you work for TV and know of a plot, you shouldn't do original research and write about it. If this is a case where you know the plot, title, and date of a TV show, WP prefers that you cite references to back it up. Nearly all articles have statements that lack citations, but not having citations should not be encouraged.Congolese (talk) 02:41, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IAR is not an excuse to have your way when you don't like the rules. IAR is to streamline procedures to improve WP. Not having an article is not improving WP unless the article is a BLP or attack article. Congolese (talk) 02:43, 8 December 2007 (UTC) Discussion between PlaceboEffect and me continued on user talk pages. Situation clarified between us. Good luck! Congolese (talk) 03:04, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A salted user talk page?

User:BobTheTomato's user page and talk page are both currently salted through User:East718/NaCl. However, East718 appears to have left the project, while BobTheTomato is active. This doesn't seem quite kosher; can someone do something about it? Merging East718's personal salted-pages list into the main list at Wikipedia:Protected titles seems like the rational approach, but (1) I'm not an admin, so I can't do it myself, and (2) I figure this is an unusual enough situation as to merit bringing it up here. Zetawoof_(ζ) 02:26, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unless someone can testify that these were necessary deletions of talk pages, I'm thinking of undeleting them. See the thread two above for the reasons. No reason has been given for deleting these talk pages at all. Now, if there's a pressing privacy reason - fine. I don't even have to know it. But can someone tell me that there is one.--Doc^g 03:03, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BobTheTomato edits actively under a new account name, they're using this one only to participate in the ArbCom elections. The old account name was easily connectable to their real-world identity and location, and he/she had a stalker that was using information gleaned from Wikipedia against them. Please contact Dmcdevit or Secretlondon for more information. 68.193.198.41 (talk) 12:47, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's absolutely fine. But, if talk pages are deleted in such extraordinary circumstances can we please not use "rtv" as the deletion reason. As is shown above rtv, does NOT justify deletion of usertalk pages on request. Usertalk should only be deleted in exceptional circumstances - and I encourage admins deleting under such circumstances to use a deletion summary like "special circumstances - e-mail me if you need details". That way we don't give the impression of deletion on demand, but neither do we end up with someone sending the deletion to DRV in cases that there are exceptionally good reasons for deletion.--Doc^g 17:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BobTheTomato had a former name under which he wa sbeing harassed, and changed names then registered a new account. Why do we need these back? Guy (Help!) 19:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletions - one way to help reduce stress

Hi, I'm sure many readers here will be aware that there is sometimes a certain amount of heat generated by deletions. I've just learnt that we have something like 1400 active admins. Might I ask that some of you consider adding yourselves to the 58 admins who will provide copies of deleted artices? These admins provide a valuable service, enabling users to rescue articles which have been deleted, but which, with work in userspace, can assume a form more fitting to the Wikipedia. This can help reduce the stress and argy-bargy which sometimes comes from deletions - and which takes up too much of so many people's time. Thanks for your time, DuncanHill (talk) 03:16, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While there are around 1400 total admins, just under 1000 of them are "active", depending on how you count. — Carl (CBM · talk) 05:00, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was told 1400 active. But 4% ->5% ain't a huge difference. DuncanHill (talk) 05:05, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The bot that updates Wikipedia:List_of_administrators gives one count of active admins: 982 today. (Also, 1400 and 1000 differ by 40 percent.) — Carl (CBM · talk) 05:23, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, obviously my fault for believing what another admin told me. Stupid of me I know, especially to then think anyone might be interested in helping out. DuncanHill (talk) 05:26, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um what? I don't get it. Anyway, I added myself to the category. James086^{Talk | Email} 05:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - I was mainly trying to give a link to where an answer could be found, not claiming nobody told you wrong, but I see my comment could be misread. I have been a member of the deleted articles category for some time. — Carl (CBM · talk) 05:49, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. And thanks James too, it's up to 60 out of 982 now, that's a whopping 6.1%! DuncanHill (talk) 05:52, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

61 :)--Kubigula (talk) 05:57, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this category generally seen as important? I've never regarded it as a big deal. Anyone can list an article through Deletion review#Temporary_review and, barring copyvio, BLP, or frequent recreation problems, it will usually be provided to the requester as soon as someone notices it. Chick Bowen 06:02, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think many users - especially new users - would find it much less intimidating to directly ask someone to help rather than trying to edit a bloody great page like Deletion review where the instructions are (as with so many similar pages) somewhat less than clear. The category helps editors find someone who has upfront stated a willingness to help, and this I believe, helps reduce tensions in the community. DuncanHill (talk) 06:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. looking at deletion review now there is a comment from an editor who says he "doesn't have time to understand all the complicated instructions". I can't provide a diff, as the page history doesn't seem to show them properly. Easiest way to see it is to click on the "edit" at the top of current discussions - because of the way the page is formatted, his comment doesn't appear where one would expect it to. DuncanHill (talk) 06:17, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have managed to find the diff [27] DuncanHill (talk) 06:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the category itself states "Requests should be made at Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Temporary_review". So even if these people do put their names on the list, anyone who wants the history put on their user space needs to go through the DRV section. Metros (talk) 06:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt many new editors who have had articles speedied will want the history - just the article text to work on. Also, I think one can safely assume that admins in the category may be helpful to editors who, like myself, find the instructions and structure of the page at deletion review very user-unfriendly. I must say that I am disappointed, tho' not surprized, by the apparent negativity of some of the reactions here. All I am trying to do is suggest one possible way for admins to help stop deletions turning into battlegrounds. If you don't wish to be in the category - fine, there are many tasks for admins to do, and each admin will have their own priorities, skills and interests. But don't knock a resource just because it's not for you. DuncanHill (talk) 06:30, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Except just giving them the article text would violate the GFDL. We have to give them the full history. Metros (talk) 06:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been given texts of speedied articles before (not my own creation either). DuncanHill (talk) 07:01, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Metros, why don't you just propose deletion of the category? Or is it because it's me asking for recruits that you are being so negative? DuncanHill (talk) 07:03, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Rae Article

Before I get myself into trouble for violating WP:3RR can an admin please confirm if this violates WP:BLP? Thanks. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 03:39, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is a violation of WP:BLP, as the edits come from different IPs I have semiprotected the article Alex Bakharev (talk) 04:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 04:18, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question Concerning WP:RIP

Resolved

I have a question concerning the Deceased Wikipedians article. Technically, doesn't it goes against the policy of Wikipedia not being a memorial ? The page itself states that its a memorial, and the people listed aren't notable beyond being former editors. I'm interested to hear everyone else's thoughts about this page. I didn't want to bring this up at WP:AFD because of fear of being labelled as insensitive to others (the recent deaths of User:Coveritus and User:Baderimre). If I'm entirely wrong, please be Nice! Thanks, Icestorm815 (talk) 03:54, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT#MEMORIAL is to deter people from creating mainspace articles for their non-Wikipedian friends and family who have died. WP:RIP is a Wikipedia namespace page for Wikipedians who have died. Apples and oranges. Besides, WP:RIP isn't hurting anyone and is a good place to employ WP:IAR even if a rule can be found. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:01, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It does no harm, and can help those grieving their colleagues. DuncanHill (talk) 04:03, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It's for Wikipedians only and exists outside mainspace - Alison ^❤ 04:04, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks. I guess that makes sense to me. Thank you for the explanations. Icestorm815 (talk) 04:11, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heavy backlog at AfD

Can a few people drop into AfD and help clear out the backlog? Some discussions have been waiting six days for closure, and almost 200 discussions need attention. Thanks Caknuck (talk) 06:08, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism report

Resolved

<Report removed to clear name from archives. Original report by John Nevard (talk) 07:05, 8 December 2007 (UTC)>[reply]

Image deleted, vandal warned. Please use WP:AIV for such reports in the future. Thank you, Kusma (talk) 07:11, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just what you didn't need: another sockpuppet report from Durova

This time I'm sure I'm right. And I've posted all the evidence in user space. Please block them before they can do any damage. Durova^Charge! 09:05, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Block 'em. Sock 'em. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 09:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a conspiracy, damnit. There's no way you could have gotten the evidence to back that up without access to the secret mailing list! ;) —Dark•Shikari^[T] 09:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Awww. Cuuute, but you missed one :-) - Alison ^❤ 09:39, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any evidence of "good hand/bad hand" behaviour? LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. This one is a conspiracy theorist. Durova^Charge! 16:54, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Object! We are all made of yarn, when it comes down to it, and so we are in no position to judge the arms, when we are all slip covers over the animating force. Geogre (talk) 13:41, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We are all made of yarn? I thought we were ugly bags of mostly water!?! --Kralizec! (talk) 14:36, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are they big enough to see from the black helicopter? *Dan T.* (talk) 14:26, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Good humor! — Rlevse • Talk • 14:41, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have uncovered the first sock... and thereby hangs a yarn! LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:59, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Inserting [28] a 1.4 MB inline image here seems more than bit excessive. Can you please scale it down or thumb it? --Kralizec! (talk) 18:04, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Um... could someone who actually knows how to reduce it - or just make a link - do it?~~ LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:09, 8 December 2007 (UTC) Sorted... but how, I don't see any difference... er.... LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Typical admin attitude, though: when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a thumb. -- Kendrick7^talk 18:18, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a window. When all you have is a torque wrench, everything looks like a redwood tree. I do not mean to be pedantic, but it as easy to get these things right as it is to get them wrong. Raymond Arritt (talk) 18:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I must say: your answer really hits the nail on the head. -- Kendrick7^talk 19:11, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse the ban of everyone involved in this thread. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:04, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fool! I endorse the ban of everyone in this thread other than me! -- Kendrick7^talk 18:09, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fairly convinced Socksnake is a Knee High. --Hu12 (talk) 18:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All of those socks were coerced into confessing! Look at the backgrounds in the images! It's obvious that those socks were ripped off their respective feet, dragged into a dull room, interrogated, and then photographed. Look at the poor socksnake's eyes. They're red and glassy, obviously sleep deprived! I resent the fact that everybody feels socks are bad. Socks are our friends! If we had no socks, our toes would be cold. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 19:05, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do they expect? Why I've heard there are special machines for waterboarding such suspects in nearly every American home. And some are never heard from again! -- Kendrick7^talk 19:16, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks to me like you need to go and buy yourself some decent pairs of socks, Durova. I mean, green — really?! Splash - tk 20:49, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I shop at a snail's pace. Durova^Charge! 20:53, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would red sox or white sox be better? *Dan T.* (talk) 20:59, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neither, unless traded for Dodger blue. Durova^Charge! 21:36, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking for my self only, Red Sox are better then White Sox ;) Anyway.. I fully endorse Durova's investigation.. they're obviously puppets of the Sock Monster. SirFozzie (talk) 21:09, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotect my pages

Hi there. Well, I'm back again. In future, when I decide to leave, I'll enter my breakmessage on my userpage. OK, please unprotect my talk page and leave my userpage protected only for normal users. Admins and I should be able to edit my userpage. D@rk ^talk 12:46, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. NoSeptember 13:02, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Assistance with moving a protected page

Synopsis:

Buffy the Vampire Slayer (TV series) redirects to Buffy the Vampire Slayer.
This goes against naming conventions at Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Primary_topic and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television). I have explained this in detail here (note: this is also the location of the post-protection debate).
This state of affairs came about after a naming debate here which resolved to move the dab page to Buffy the Vampire Slayer (disambiguation) and thus in effect make the TV series the primary topic. However, the closing admin left a redirect rather than moving the TV series into the main slot/primary topic.
The page is move protected.
One vociferous editor (whose agenda is actually to move the dab page back to the main slot) got the page protected, and has refused to agree to my request to restore proper order per the naming conventions. This is despite my offer to immediately reopen discussion on the location of the dab page (less than 3 months after he lost out).
Two other editors, both admins, have stated agreement with my position that the naming guidelines are clear and no valid reason has been presented to override them.

I'm trying to implement naming conventions here, and am more than happy to discuss disambiguation when that's done, but the editor involved won't budge and has got me neutered by having the page protected. Therefore I request some third party admin intervention; preferably moving Buffy the Vampire Slayer (TV series) to Buffy the Vampire Slayer. It might be wise to leave the page protected for now. If this is done, I will open debate on the dab issue and advertise it at WP:RM. --kingboyk (talk) 14:42, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like it noted that the page with "TV series" is the way it was. The last page name debate was about moving it to just "Buffy", and there was "no consensus". King is saying that because "Buffy" redirects to "TV series", we should move the page to "Buffy" and then open a discussion to change the name to "TV series". I disagree on the grounds that the redirection of "Buffy" is irrelevant to the debate that initially lead the page to "TV series". The debate should be about moving "TV series" to just plain "Buffy" (as WP:NCTV says the page should be "TV series"), because the topic at hand is if the television show is the more well known usage (a subjective interpretation, that no one has yet to show evidence of). So, it follows naming conventions. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 14:49, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly what I'm saying. It's also what I've been saying here. Please don't bring the debate here, it won't be appreciated. If any helpful admin wants to help out, they know where to go to read the debate and they know which guidelines to look at. Over and out. --kingboyk (talk) 14:54, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"If this is done, I will open debate" Rather than demanding that the page be moved before you open a discussion, why not go ahead and open the discussion? There is clearly a disagreement here, with both of you thinking guideline/policy supports your position. - auburnpilot talk 21:46, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Virtualology and Stanley L. Klos -- boon to our historical articles or just a bain of spam?

This cluster of editors, articles and websites involves multiple issues and the material added to Wikipedia may (or may not) be useful. Various aspects have been discussed ad hoc at different times but never all in one place. I'm consolidating links to various discussions and editors here in one place for review and consideration as a whole.

Articles

Evisum -- previously proposed for deletion; PROD tag removed
Virtualology
Stanley L. Klos
- Over 400 articles are internally linked to this page. For those search engines (Yahoo?) that ignore our nofollow tags, that sort of internal mega-linking would give this article and anything externally linked to it near-Death Star powers in search engine rankings.

That's up from about 250 a week or so ago. Only a small percentage of the links are added as a side-effect of adding content to the topics; and of those a large percentage are low-quality information expressing divergent views from more well-known resources. Tedickey (talk) 18:46, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Related editors (but not necessarily sockpuppets)

71.42.169.190 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
66.93.248.72 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
24.73.72.214 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
97.97.197.9 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
Cedarkey1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
Pputter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
Damslerset (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)

Discussions

Domains added to Wikipedia

Hundreds? Nobody knows exactly how many and Virtualology apparently own over 7500 domain names. See the 3 WikiProject Spam discussions for some that have been identified so far.

Also see

--A. B. ^(talk) 18:23, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SPAM - They are added indiscriminately, often to Reference sections where they are not a source, or just to the wrong person, like Francis Barber today, who (slightly comically) had this link added today, at the top of the list, natch. Johnbod (talk) 18:49, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In plain English

Tell me if I understand this right: some people have tried to revise a notoriously inaccurate reference source that's over 100 years old (the original contained over 200 fictitious biographies). The main individual involved in this effort has no academic or publishing credentials. Then this group of people have created countless domains to host parts of the "reference work" and cited Wikipedia articles that way, simultaneously sending hundreds of outgoing links to their domans and Wikilinks to the Wikipedia biography of one of this revised edition's principal editors? If that's an accurate summary, then the whole things fails WP:RS and is a massive case of spam. WMF ought to be notified, given the size of this problem. Durova^Charge! 18:57, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, though rather than "tried to revise" I suspect "made sufficient changes to justify (they hope) slapping a copyright notice on" is more like it. Johnbod (talk) 20:23, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Smells like spam to me. I agree with Durova's suggestion. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:16, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If A. B. posted this here to get general consent for a campaign against the entire set of external and internal links, I would support that. This could potentially lead to a combined AfD against all the Klos articles, and could be contentious, but well-justified by policy. Is there any wider review that should be done before such a step is taken? Does anyone see anything of value in the Klos-related material that ought to be preserved? EdJohnston (talk) 20:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ed, I posted it here not so much to get consent as to engender discussion this stuff's value. Since these links show up in references, I don't want to go off on a tear deleting citations and links the community finds useful, even if I don't like the way this stuff got added. --A. B. ^(talk) 20:41, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how this could qualify under the standards Wikipedia normally applies. If the original source had been revised by an established publisher, using actual experts, then that might be a different matter. What we have here is self-published material and a staggering self-promotional campaign. The integrity of scores of important biographies may have been compromised. I want to be certain I understand this right before reaching a final conclusion, but if this really is a correct understanding then I'd not only endorse a combined AFD, I'd support a siteban and spam blacklisting along with a long term vandalism report. This behavior is a direct assault on Wikipedia's credibility: make absolutely certain you're on the mark first, then if everything checks out slash and burn. Durova^Charge! 20:51, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the stuff is not a reliable source, dump it. regardless of the collateral damage. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 21:23, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Modifying that: perhaps these people will be receptive to official contact from WMF and take it down themselves. Durova^Charge! 21:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) (updated info here) The fact that these users edit to a point just short of being blocked & then reincarnate as a new user is a bit troubling. --Versa geek 21:44, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now that CheckUser has confirmed these 4 accounts as "related", can I ask an admin to block them as sockpuppets/meatpuppets:

Cedarkey1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
Pputter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
Damslerset (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
Solknats (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)

Thanks, --A. B. ^(talk) 22:25, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To help in investigating the many domains, I've set up a temporary user subpage listing the domains we know of. I'll be using the {{spamlink}} template links to try to figure out what other domains this person owns and may have spammed. --A. B. ^(talk) 22:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see Virtuality as an honest attempt to do a good project, but based upon an extremely naive understanding of history and scholarship. I think he really does want to revise it--but he unfortunately picked something that should instead be replaced, as being fundamentally too weak for improvement. It hasn't helped that he has an idiosyncratic view of the relationship of the government under the Articles of Confederation with that under the Constitution, but I think has wider goals, which are not dishonourable. Just that he hasnt achieved them, and is not likely to--and the present state of the project is in fact dangerous. The proper use of Appleton's for WP is only as a suggestion of names upon which people might write proper WP articles. The best immediate thing is to remove the internal links as misleading and the external ones as unreliable. The sockpuppetry is simply someone continuing on a hobbyhorse, and willing to disregard our rules to do so--and of course must be blocked, to prevent further damage. DGG (talk) 22:52, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the articles supported by cites from any version of appleton must be reviewed, not deleted altogether, as they can generally be edited to what can be documented elsewhere. Most of them can be expanded greatly if proper sources are used--appleton is not only incorrect but incomplete. If the appleton-based edits are recent, then it will be enough to revert them. This probably needs to be a formal or informal project. 22:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

DGG, thanks for your comments -- you've studied this site more closely than anyone else.

Here's another sockpuppet (based on edits, not checkuser):

Natsnew (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)

Can some admin block it? Thanks.

Also, it looks like this has been spammed crosswiki:

Articles:

--A. B. ^(talk) 23:24, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes! 1173 famousamericans.net links on this Wikipedia plus 200 to 250 more on other projects:

Here's another IP that was heavily used:

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

We've identified another about another 275 related domains, most of them for individual historical figures (abraham-lincoln.org, aaronburr.net, etc.). Based on a small sample, I'd say there are another 200 to 500 links to the domains on that list. --A. B. ^(talk) 00:25, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently an admin previously okayed the addition of these links. See these March 2007 discussions:

--A. B. ^(talk) 00:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted page view request

Resolved

An administrator has agreed to review the draft citation for accuracy. Durova^Charge! 22:06, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For about six weeks now I've been in contact with a Harvard student who's writing a thesis on Wikipedia. With the deadline at hand she needs to double check her citations, but one of the pages she was referencing has recently been deleted. Would someone oblige with a temporary undelete for this academic purpose? Please contact me for details. Durova^Charge! 19:33, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which page is it? Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 19:35, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Brandt's biography. Used to be a redirect, now it's salted. She just needs it for a couple of hours. Durova^Charge! 19:39, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I assume it's the same request that Doc Glasgow recently turned down. [29] That user says he's doing research into Wikipedia and that he's an undergraduate at Harvard. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:41, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a tough one for me, if it was just about any other page, I wouldn't worry too much about it, but this page being undeleted for even a short period of time could have serious consequences. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:44, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you provide material privately to her? She's authorized me to give out her e-mail to an administrator. It's an @harvard.edu and I've been working with her for long enough that I'm confident this is genuine. Durova^Charge! 19:49, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking about this, she really just needs to verify that the citation is correct. So perhaps you could confer with her without actually disclosing more than a few quoted words or something like that. Durova^Charge! 19:50, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why does he need the page to be undeleted exactly? The request didn't make much sense. He says he wants to see one particular diff, but if he already knows what the diff says, why does he need the undeletion? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:52, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, bear in mind that this is (reportedly) for an undergraduate essay, not an academic paper, so there is no pressing academic issue here. I would urge caution unless the requester explains the request in a way that makes more sense, and also provided the material is not in any way controversial. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:54, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Measure twice, cut once. It's a Harvard thesis not a book report. -- Kendrick7^talk 19:55, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's standard practice at this level to double check all citations before turning in the final draft. Just making sure everything is correct. Durova^Charge! 20:00, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Standard practice at which level? This is an undergraduate essay. And which citation needs to be checked exactly? If it's a citation that was in the article, he can get that by looking elsewhere for it, or just asking one of us what it was. That doesn't require undeletion. As I said, on the face of it, the request makes little sense. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:02, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Slim, it's a Harvard thesis. I spent a summer at Harvard; I know what their expectations are. People have gotten expelled from that university for honestly forgetting to include citations. They don't mess around. And it's not about a citation that was in the article. A diff of the article itself is being cited for analytical study of site dynamics. Durova^Charge! 20:09, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Durova, undergraduate work is pretty much the same the world over. If the student wants to use a diff as a citation, it will be useless because the article is deleted. The diff is not available any more. Even if undeleted then deleted again, the link still won't go anywhere. So the request as stated makes no sense. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I think others have been right with their firmness on the policy issue. Deleted is in fact, deleted, and you might help by explaining this to the student. As to what she needs, be it for college or high school, Harvard, or East Podunk, that makes no difference to us. It would be a kindness if you could help her understand the citation difficulties. Perhaps you could suggest sources other than Wikipedia? Jd2718 (talk) 20:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not really deleted like Fahrenheit 451 deleted. It's really more like it is in a private collection; so no harm in asking for access to the resource. Even most of Harvard's libraries aren't open to the general public. -- Kendrick7^talk 20:23, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really think someone should contact this user and clarify things. But be careful, the last admin to post deleted edits to someone got desysopped as I recall. Further, this is information about an identifiable individual who disputes the accuracy of it, and believes it to be a privacy violation. Posting it to someone is very likely to upset him. Now, unless we're going in for the "stuff Brandt we hate him anyway" video-game nonsense - that should give at least pause for thought. Does this student really need this? Why? How is deleted, and thus independently unverifiable material of any academic value - I'd take some convincing.--Doc^g 20:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking as an academic here, I can't imagine any need to cite the actual language of the article. All the student needs to do is indicate in the citation that the page was deleted. Chick Bowen 20:16, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's simple enough for the student to provide the citation and just let someone say yes or no. I suspect we can work this out. -JodyB_talk 20:21, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(de-indent+e/c) I didn't think Harvard allowed people to cite Wikipedia. But if the person wants to cite the source we cited, surely it's not a major problem for us to find the cite and send it to them?

If it is something in the article that they want then I would tend to refer them on to OTRS. I know that after Everyking, there is a chilling effect against admins providing deleted information. Stifle (talk) 20:22, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When the subject of the paper is Wikipedia itself, of course Harvard allows students to cite us. Durova^Charge! 20:31, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS have no more authority here than anyone else. If I were taking the OTRS call, I'd decline it.--Doc^g 20:23, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

She told me it's not life or death, so let's not ruffle our feathers too much. I doubt she needed the entire page or even the entire diff. Probably just wanted to check the url and a couple of words of text. If anyone's willing to do that much, I'll be back in an hour and can put you in touch. Otherwise let's let it go. Thanks for the responses. Durova^Charge! 20:28, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: there's a difference between a request from a college undergraduate and a college professor. If this is truly important and moves forward, maybe the student needs to have his/her professor make the request.

Also, isn't it early in the year to be actually writing up a senior thesis? I thought students did the actual writing in the last frantic month or two of their last semester. --A. B. ^(talk) 20:49, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, Harvard's fall semester ends 23 January.[30] -- Kendrick7^talk 21:35, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh for Christ's sake. A student requests a copy of something, certainly possible and reasonable with Special:Undelete, and it this conversation turns to whether or not Wikipedia is cite-able and whether the "really" needs the information and whether its too early to be writing this paper during the school year. The student simply wants to make sure that the information in his / her paper is correct. Provide the damn thing or don't; put the wiki-politics and speculation in the trash where they belong. There's simply no need for over 1000 words about the issue. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:57, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To respond to a couple of posts, actually she's putting the final touches on it this weekend. That's her deadline. I floated the possibility of whether she could provide further bona fides for this request. She wasn't sure on the spur of the moment how she would do that and she had to head off to the library. The idea of her providing the draft citation to an administrator for factual confirmation seems reasonable. Anyone up for that? Durova^Charge! 21:18, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That seems perfectly fine, and I'd be happy to verify the student's citation for her. Natalie (talk) 21:59, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In response to MZMcBride--the drama in this case has to do with the history of this particular article, and is not surprising. Obviously if it were almost any other it would be an open-and-shut case. Chick Bowen 22:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW I respect the concerns here and would not have submitted the request unless I were very confident it's legitimate. Durova^Charge! 23:26, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AWB Checkpage

Just a notice for admins - the AutoWikiBrowser Checkpage needs to be updated. I see there are requests that are about a day old. Thanks. ╦ﺇ₥₥€Ԋ(^talk/_contribs) 22:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Page moved without talk page

Can an admin move Talk:Barack Obama Muslim rumor to Talk:Media coverage of anti-Obama whisper campaigns and merge the edit histories? The article was moved to the latter, but without its associated talk page and then some templates were added to the talk page of the new location preventing a reuniting of article and talk page. Thanks! --Bobblehead ^(rants) 00:26, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I did the history merge, but I don't think it was really needed, all that was added were talk page headers and they were present on the old page anyway. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:31, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards

Current issues

User talk:Joejoebilly

Alfred-Maurice de Zayas

Controversy tag

Banned user talk pages

Community ban of spammer

User:Coveritus

User:Can't sleep, clown will eat me

Investigation of alleged RD Reynolds revert warring

User:Intuitionz (aka: User:68.111.191.29)

SKS Copyvios

We are being talked about

Proposing unblock of User:RS1900

I need help

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jacob Richler

User:Baderimre passed away

User redirecting Talk page to User page

Admin Gadgets

Streamlining "Did You Know?"

Rex Germanus

User:Bahnstormer

Deleting User Talk pages

CSD backlog nav templates broken?

I screwed up

Leaked tv episode

A salted user talk page?

Deletions - one way to help reduce stress

Kyle Rae Article

Question Concerning WP:RIP

Heavy backlog at AfD

Vandalism report

Just what you didn't need: another sockpuppet report from Durova

Unprotect my pages

Assistance with moving a protected page

Virtualology and Stanley L. Klos -- boon to our historical articles or just a bain of spam?

In plain English

Deleted page view request

AWB Checkpage

Page moved without talk page