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.

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 three days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search)

Start a new discussion

Tasks

The following backlogs require the attention of one or more administrators.
Transwiki to WikiBooks, WikiQuote, and WikiSource.
Requested moves, Vandalism in progress and VfD cleanup.

Template:NoncommercialProvided

This template needs to be updated to reflect the current ban on noncommercial images. [1] Could an admin please update this please? Perhaps a warning like the one on Template:Noncommercial? Thank you. 青い(Aoi) 10:04, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Copy and paste repair (Pro Tour)

Can someone please merge back Pro Tour (Magic: The Gathering) into Magic: The Gathering Pro Tour. Thanks. -- Netoholic @ 04:32, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)

General

Kemal Atatürk

Article apears to be locked. However no lock msg or template present. I don't know, requires some attention though? --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 12:31, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image switching vandals

What is the current policy on blocking vandals who switch images for vulgar versions?

I've just had an incident with User:72.25.94.106 switching the Pic of the day. Is it the usual escalating warnings leading to a block, or should I just go straight for the block.

Its not on the front page, but as its gaining visibility. I guess we will need to look at protecting some of the templates used etc. -- Solipsist 10:32, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Do you mean uploading vulgar images over existing ones, or do you mean switching the wikimarkup for including the image? --Carnildo 17:39, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I guess both, but in this case it was switching the wikimarkup. -- Solipsist 22:45, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sockpuppet accounts

I believe that User:sumal, user:Muralikumar and user:Bidyotp are sockpuppets of user:Sumalsn; created to ballot stuff the Indian Collaboration of the Week. What should be done about these accounts? =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:16, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

The "Enviroknot Dispute"

Was Vandalizing my user page, My user page, once again vandalized and A message for Dab

This entire discussion has been purged into page history as of 03:24, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC). In accordance with the Dispute resolution paragraph at the top of this page, "these pages aren't the place to bring disputes over content, or reports of abusive behaviour". Please feel free to copy the record of the dispute out of the page history and into the appropriate dispute-resolution page if you are so inclined. You may also add a link to that dispute page here but the dispute itself belongs somewhere else. (The affected parties may make their own decision as to the best place.) Rossami (talk) 03:24, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What are we doing wrong here?

Okay, seriously, we are really doing something entirely wrong here. In just a couple of days, three strong contributors (User:Jguk, User:RickK and User:Coolcat) decide to leave the project, potentially forever. Of course they all have their reasons and their controversies attached. But I do think we should seriously analyze our ways here and see what we're doing wrong to cause such WikiStress in people. Are we being too harsh? Too lenient? Too bickerative? Too inconsistent? How can we make the Wiki a better place and keep well-intending people from running off? R adiant _>|< 08:47, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Make it smaller. But that's not an option. Also, make people more patient, but that's an option either. Finally, temper enthusiasm with professional detachment, but... well, you get the idea by now. As Mark Twain said, "nothing needs changing so much as the habits of others." And there's no silver bullet. But maybe I lack vision. JRM · Talk

Having pondered an extended wikibreak over the weekend myself, my interim view is that we (by we I mean the admins and most especially the active ones) are becoming overly legalistic and confrontational and more concerned with process than with product. I think the whole range of admin tools needs to be looked at closely. Specifically, I believe A) that the 3RR rule as currently constituted needs major overhauling to encourage discussion and common sense and discourage calls for banning as the court of first appeal. B) that all substantive discussion of major issues and presentation of "evidence" must happen on Wikipedia and not on IRC and the mailing list. Many of us do not use these fora at all. C) All of us (and I am specifically including myself) need to become much more reflective and much less given to the knee-jerk reaction when dealing with what we see as attacks, either on ourselves or on the project; fighting fire with fire will just burn the whole house down. Filiocht | Blarneyman 09:10, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Also: ForestFire, FlameWar, VestedContributor, CommunityMayNotScale and just about everything else on MeatballWiki (which should be mandatory reading material for admins, but that's another matter.) JRM · Talk 09:25, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)

From meatball:VestedContributor:

Prevention is the best way to address the problem. Make it clear up front that volunteering to work on behalf of the community is just that -- volunteering. Reward volunteers through recognition alone, e.g. BarnStars. Watch out for double standards, and don't allow unplanned hierarchies to develop within the community. Make equality among participants and members a core value. If there are administrative roles that incorporate special priviledges, e.g. BuildingJanitor, set term limits and rotate the roles among members.

(Emphasis mine.) Can you imagine something like that happening on Wikipedia? No, I thought so. JRM · Talk 09:58, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)

see also WP:RFAr/RFC. We'll need tighter policies at some point. WP just doesn't scale indefinitely. dab (ᛏ) 10:12, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

One problem is that admins are increasingly being targeted for attack by various trolls, vandals, and fellow-travellers; that inevitably makes admins more defensive, and that leads to more confrontations. The attacks are usually petty and made in transparently bad faith, but there are enough editors who enjoy piling into such matters (on both sides) that the result drags on, and becomes more and more Byzantine and acrimonious. I've no idea how to deal with that; making it more difficult to criticise admins is clearly not the way to god, but is another layer of bureacracy in the form of some sort of panel that assesses criticisms any better? Perhaps. I've recently been the target of a a number of apparently unconnected attacks, in which I've been accused (vaguely, and with no evidence or even details) of abusing my admin powers. It would be nice to to be able to say: "Go to such-and-such a page, and complain there; they'll decide whether I've any case to answer". At the moment, the only such place is this, and this is just a free for all, which often serves merely to muddy the water as I described above.

Another problem is that Wikipedia is seeing a gradual increase in the number of editors with personal agendas and very narrow interests; that affects us all, admins and non-admins alike, and it can be intensely wearing, but it's even less clear what can be done about that (or even whether anything should be done about it). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:11, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

you want to chnage the 3RR system. Sure just show that you have a consensus for whatever changes you make.Geni 12:17, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In fact I hadn't thought of changing 3RR; what did you have in mind? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:24, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I can think of two solutions to Mel's problem... first, sockchecking. Some new accounts are obviously role accounts, which is ok except if they're abusive. As generally agreed on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet/Proposal, if an account is permablocked it may be worthwhile to check if it happens to be a sock, and if so, to censure the ~~foot~~ owner. The main problem here is that David Gerard and Tim Starling have better things to do.
Second, new users are generally good, but sometimes trouble (e.g. trolling, deliberate vandalism, petty revenge role accounts, etc). While we should be very careful about blocking valuable editors, it may be worthwhile to create some policy that makes it easier and not controversial to permablock a new user, within certain specific limits. I'll think on the entire issue some more though. R adiant _>|< 12:23, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
yes, we need access to the IPs. No editor in good faith has reason to hide his IP, and many in bad faith positively refuse to hide their IP. That's absurd. As it is stated on Template:blocked proxy, If you have such a severe personal situation that editing Wikipedia with the level of anonymity provided by an IP number is dangerous to you, then we recommend that you refrain from editing Wikipedia. There. I have no opinion if all editor should be able to view IPs, or only admins. But I insist that your IP is not part of your privacy. You give away your IP to every site you visit, and the site maintainers are under no obligation not to publish their logs (many sites have them public). I think this sockpuppetry circus consumes just too much energy, and we are positively encouraging it by this exaggerated secrecy about contributers' IPs. dab (ᛏ) 12:40, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

IP cheacking is not a cure all. what if their IP is AOL? Or if they match but come from a uni IP (I know other people have edited from my uni IP). IP cheacks are not some magic sword of truth but even if they are it would be trivial to beat them and we will just see socks get more sophisticated.Geni 12:49, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

- Sockchecking is more complicated than IP checking. Presently, a small subsection of admins can do sockchecks. It may be worthwhile to increase that subsection from two users to about five. Giving all admins sockchecking rights is probably more trouble than it's worth. The whole point is - presently it's too easy to create a sock. If we add some levels of security, we will likely have a couple of socks that fall through anyway (as Geni claims). However, it will result in far fewer socks. Radiant_>|< 13:00, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
  - None of this has much to do with why the three people you originally cited left, though, right? Pcb21| Pete 13:21, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC) (via edit conflict)
    - Okay, good point, I got sidetracked. Very well, then what would you suggest doing to improve the WikiAtmosphere? R adiant _>|< 13:24, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
    - yes. I don't think it is a cure-all. I think it is a way to take away some stress, we are at the moment needlessly creating for ourselves. People will leave for overall wikistress, not because of one particular issue. Sockchecks are impossible without the IPs. Yes, you need to include the editing pattern, and the browser string. But that's all information we get. The IP. The browser string. The time. The edit itself. All "sockchecks" will be based on this. But ok, the problem may lie deeper. It's all about making life harder for bad faith editors, easier for good faith editors, without creating bureaucracy or benevolent dictators. dab (ᛏ) 13:29, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The original post here was to do with what we are doing that is driving away good editors. If you check on the 3 names mentioned, none of them cited socks as a reason, as far as I can see. So why are we suddenly talking about socks? The question is "What are we doing wrong?" "We're not. It's them." is the wrong answer. Maybe we should do away with user names and have everybody identified by their IP, then we could talk about other things. Filiocht | Blarneyman 13:16, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

if we want to remain "the encyclopedia anyone can edit", we'll have to put up with people as they come. I.e. there will be jerks, hatemonger, and simply immature, whiny, aggressive, arrogant and reckless editors. As we grow, they become more. Ergo, we cannot afford to put each of them through months of evidence collecting, rfc'ing, arbitrating, appealing, injunctioning and, babysitting them all. We need clear guidelines on how to deal with people who cannot behave, without scaring away people who do, and without draconian measures against perfectly good users who maybe say "you are an idiot" sometimes when they disagree with you. dab (ᛏ) 13:35, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Volunteer wikipedians are facing a reality that professional journalists have faced for a long time - it's unpleasant to hear loud criticism from strangers about your work - except that it's exaggerated by wiki-editing. This is where wikipedia will either fizzle, because the stress will fatally harm participation, or bloom, because it will develop new ways to cope that were never developed by people who can take solace in a paycheck. The only ideas I have, alas, are to make us more of a traditional, hierarchical, top-down information-processing organization, but I don't think that's the right approach. I hopefully await magical concepts bubbling up from below. - DavidWBrooks 13:38, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I like to think that WP is a hivemind, and individual users don't matter. If you're used up, WP tosses you away. You will think that the system is flawed, but WP in reality has sucked your energy into itself, and continues to thrive. I don't know if this is really a consolation, and it assumes that there is an endless supply of fresh drones. dab (ᛏ) 13:45, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I like dab's explanation the best. Kaldari 05:23, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Maybe we should take comfort from the thought that many more bad editors leave than good. I don't know if that's true, but we could still take comfort in it... Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:24, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't know if this is a solution or anything, but I think we should keep in mind what this project is supposed to be. We're supposed to be a free encyclopedia, providing information for people who wish to learn about stuff. The last few days, I've been reading more than editing, and it's giving me some insight as a user rather than a Wikipedian. Jguk's case, for example, involved the dates changed from BC/AD and BC/BCE. Will the user prefer BC/AD over BC/BCE? Is the primary function of Wikipedia to educate in a responsible manner, or to not offend anyone? We need balance, and we certainly need to be correct, but I don't think we need to carry this to extremes such that we detract from the value of the encyclopedia as a whole. For example, technical communicators try to write documentation as they feel the end-user will want to read it (they usually focus on task-based documentation), not as the engineers or product developers want to write it (they usually focus on feature-based documentaion). I guess what I'm trying to say is that we should focus on what the end-user would want to see in an encyclopedia. --Death phoenix 14:56, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hence the need for editors to go on wikibreaks. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:03, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well put. Rossami (talk) 16:06, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Vide "professional detachment". While sound advice, it doesn't really work as advice, because problems arise exactly when people forget this. They sink not just their pride but their whole ego into the encyclopedia, and whatever is done unto their edits is done unto them. When a group of such people disagree, that's when the trouble really starts. Wiki's open nature is ideal for perfectly mirroring arguments: you edit "me", I edit "you" right back. Now mix in administrators: when I'm an administrator, this also means my judgement is better than yours because the community said so, so you will automatically lose the argument if I keep it up long enough. Unless the community stabs me in the back by disagreeing with me, of course—but that's what we have friends for... Etcetera. Now apply some external heat in the form of a rapidly growing user base and a rapidly improving article base (leaving that much more room for behavior that actually hurts), let it simmer, and behold Wikipedia as it is today. Who's to blame? No-one and everyone. JRM · Talk 16:22, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)

I agree entirely with Deathphoenix. The biggest problem I have with Wikipedia is the large number of people who have lost sight of (or were completely unaware to begin with of) the fact that we are here above all else to write an encyclopaedia. Anything that stops us doing this or makes Wikipedia a worse encyclopaedia is inherently bad. We've become both increasingly bureaucratic and increasingly politically correct, and neither of these helps us to be a better encyclopaedia — bureaucracy means that the editors with the most experience and available time spend their time here writing and enforcing rules and debating policy rather than writing articles; and political correctness is not our job to enforce, as we're not here to decide on whether things are offensive or not, merely to reflect common usage (the BC/AD/BCE/CE debate is a prime example of us doing precisely the wrong thing in this regard, with editors openly saying that they want to ignore common usage to promote something they find preferable). I sympathise completely with jguk, and I wish I could plead with him to come back, but I can't. All the faults he points out are true, and he has been so unfairly treated as to justify completely his departure from the project. We don't deserve to have him here. I wish I could tell him it will get better, but it just seems to be getting worse, and unless something serious happens to change the way we do things, all I can see in the future is the departure of yet more dedicated editors who can no longer cope with what Wikipedia has become. Proteus (Talk) 16:34, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Fair points, all, but I must set one thing straight: I knew that my judgement was better than other people's long before I became an admin... Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:34, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That's alright. It's the ability to suffer fools that admins with impeccable judgement must hone. JRM · Talk 16:46, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)

"...we are here above all else to write an encyclopaedia." Is that why I've been quitely adding, verifying and correcting data about railroad history as well as participating in the WP:FAC process all this time? We had a discussion on the FAC talk page a while back about editors taking ownership (or at least trying to) of articles that they create and submit for FA status. The consensus there was that we need to further encourage collaboration (and everything that that involves) and not solitary writing. The various Collaboration of the week subprojects work wonders in this manner; for example, Indian Railways was nowhere near the quality that it is now than before it was the Indian COTW. slambo 17:26, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

What are we doing wrong (continued)

section break added to facilitate editing

To be honest, I'm not here first and foremost to write an encyclopedia. I'm here first and foremost because I'm a Wikipediholic. I actually started out as just a reader, so I suppose that's why I'm trying to keep the reader in mind. There are some excellent points above. It's okay for people to take pride in their work, but I try to ignore my own contributions and focus on whether someone adds value to an article. I've seem some people change my edits with insulting (or insulted) edit summaries questioning the quality of the article (whether it's my own edits or not). I don't take such things personally because I see my work edited and disparaged all the time. I'm not saying we should just lie down and give in to anyone that comes and changes our work. I'm just saying that we should look at people's edits and see if it adds value to the article from the end-user's point of view. Will the end-user reading both versions of the article think that the current version is better? Can I edit the current version so the end-user will think that the newest version is even better? If I can, I do it. If not, it's time for a revert. --Death phoenix 18:43, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Filiocht that we're becoming too legalistic and too focused on process rather than the end result. That leads to a number of problems, the most painful one is the constant bickering. What people don't reallize is there are ways to diffuse disagreements instead of escalating them. It's easier to escalate them so people do. Focusing on the end result, and what is in the best interests of the project tends to limit the bad feelings, and we need a rebirth of that. The legalistic issue arises because we are a growing (in popularity, traffic, content, etc.) and increasingly high quality site that allows anyone to edit. That is going to attract people who want to do good, and people who don't. So increasingly, in order to be fair, we follow policy down to the wire to make sure we do the right thing in sanctioning users. That's great and we should always do our best, but it also leads to ever increasing policy requirements to try to plug all the loopholes. We are witnessing a legal system growing organically. Maybe we should simplify the ban policy to "if a consensus of administrators thinks you are not editing in good faith you may be banned for a period of time or indefinitely."

For various reasons, people will leave the project, but I'm not sure it's something we should lament too much. Don't get me wrong, we'd of course rather keep every good user, and from a personal standpoint I'd rather they stay, but that's not ever realistic. There will always be editors that for various reasons will move on to other things, and we'll still have the good contributions they made. They can of course always come back, and many do.

So in the end, what are we doing wrong? Lots of things, every day. But as long as we do our best, and keep trying to further the aims of Wikipedia, we'll be ok, and we'll probably end up somewhere remarkable. In the end, that's more important than any one of us, so we should worry as much about the small things now. - Taxman ^Talk 19:50, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Two comments on the subject: 1) Wikipedia should be content-centered, not people centered. If you look at the contribution history of the people who get "burnt-out" and leave, their own attitude is often a big part of the problem. They take things too seriously, and get involved into huge personal disputes and discussions instead of staying cool and focusing on content. It's always sad to lose an excellent contributor, but as Taxman said, the project comes first. This is not about the people, or else we would all get credit at the end of each article; it's about the grand project of making knowledge available to all. Like in any projects, some people can't take the pressure and the criticism; people come, go, come back again, and leave again; that flow isn't necessarily bad, because wikibreaks allow contributors to lay back and think about how they relate to the project, and work even better when they come back. 2) Clique behavior, and side-channel discussions (IRC, etc...) do a great deal to undermine the community (which could be a great 'side effect' of Wikipedia) and the working behavior. This is why I am in favor of rotating privileged positions, while still maintaining authoritative bodies like ArbCom for non-content disputes only. These bodies are the only way to avoid clique-driven lynch mobs, and large groups of users cracking down on single users for sometimes harmless mistakes. Phils 20:03, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Responding to Radiant's comment way at the top, I have to wonder: do we, as individuals, hand out enough compliments to each other for their work here? I only ask this because I know I don't do this nearly enough. Maybe doing something simple like this can avoid the "hivemind" which devours Wikipedians in dab's comment above; I, for one, don;t want to be involved in something that reeks of Blake's "dark, Satanic mills". I remember from troubleshooting computers, it's always best to begin with the simple & inexpensive solutions & work the way up to more complex ones. -- llywrch 00:45, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Destroy cliques by rotating adminship among editors with 1000+ edits. Give rollback to all editors with 1000+ edits. Rotate members of a deletion panel and get rid of VfD. Discourage "sockhunting". It doesn't matter who is who's sockpuppet: it's what they do that counts. Ignore trolls. Revert vandals. Encourage real welcomes for newcomers, even if they are going wrong. Make the 3RR a 1RR, and tighten up the definition so that abusers cannot say "that wasn't a revert". Make arbcom proceedings less formal, less legalistic and keep them out of content altogether. Make it absolutely clear to admins that they can block for vandalism and breaking the 1RR but not for any other reason that does not have arbcom sanction. Make a personal attack parole a condition of anonymity. Encourage editors to edit, create content, instead of politicking. Grace Note 04:11, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Rotating adminship is a novel idea that will probably not overcome the social inertia, but I like it. It's an attractive solution. Alternatively, since MediaWiki 1.5 will allow assigning user rights more discriminatorily than just "here's the mop, the bucket, and the double-barreled shotgun", we can make everyone with 1000+ edits an admin. Just like that. Whoever is found to abuse any specific administrative power gets it stripped.

Making the 3RR a 1RR, now that I really don't know about. I abide by the 1RR voluntarily, but is it going to help making it a formal rule? Especially if you're going the route of "tighten up the definition". Forget it. The tighter the definition, the easier it is to game it. But the looser it is, the less appropriate shooting people for two reverts becomes. The current 3RR implementation is a circus, but a workable one. We can't force anyone to act sensibly and discuss instead of reverting; the 3RR is just there to prevent them from continuing the state of war indefinitely, which is harmful to the article(s) involved.

Keeping the ArbCom out of content? Some problems really will fester forever if you do that. Some things never resolve through discussion. If admins can't block for persistent POV pushing and being an all-round jerk, and the ArbCom can no longer pass judgement on content, what's the recourse? Accept that Wikipedia is screwed where a particular article is concerned?

Encourage editors to edit, create content, instead of politicking. Yes, this is the heart of the matter, isn't it? It's when people start to disagree over what content should be created how that the politicking starts. You can try to minimize politicking, but it will never go away, because being bold cannot solve everything. At least not within our lifetimes. JRM · Talk 04:23, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)

By tighten up the definition, I simply mean to define more things as reverts, rather than fewer as you have inferred. We all know what one is and yet the rules lawyer will say "that first one wasn't a revert because I didn't click on a previous version and save it" or some such. I think the notion that it's okay to revert up to a point is what's problematic in that particular area. A concept that was something like "have your say but don't keep pushing the point" might be better.

The ArbCom are quite happy to decide who the jerks are and at least they have a process. I'm not so keen on someone who five people okayed three years ago deciding for themselves who ought to be banned. If adminship were rotated, so that there were no permanent powerholders, I think it would be much more reasonable for them to have broader powers, or as you suggest, if all 1000+ editors were made admins and deadminning became less of a big deal. Most blocking of dickheads isn't all that controversial anyway -- it tends to be cases where those involved are all working on the same article that cause heatedness.

The ArbCom should definitely not decide issues of content. That's what the wiki is for. It's behaviour that is generally the problem. Where they have involved themselves in content, they've tended to be partisan, and that's caused more ill-feeling than it's prevented.Grace Note 04:21, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't use my admin abilities much, but I would be seriously irked if I couldn't delete redirects to move articles anymore, just because this will somehow "destroy cliques." The problem of cliques has nothing do with whether people are admins or not. john k 18:46, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Let me add that I think many of the problems of wikipedia revolve around it being too lax with problem users, not over-bureaucratization (although I think the latter is a problem as well). Any solution which deals with the latter problem in a way that makes the former problem much worse seems like a bad idea to me. john k 18:48, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If we are more strict on problem users then we will be more prone to scaring away new users (who only looked like trolls). If people didn't take things so seriously then we wouldn't need stricter rules. People don't seem to have any perspective. If an article has one small error at the bottom of the page for 2 hours it isn't the end of the world. Instead of edit warring leave the comment and discuss it. In the end you can only be driven away if you take things very seriously and let thing get to you. This link is Broken 11:46, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

While your observation is correct, I'm afraid it's not a very practical remedy to state that there wouldn't be any problem if people didn't take things so seriously. Fact is that people do take things (far too) seriously here, and we should work on a solution from that premise. People aren't going to change their behavior en masse. Radiant_>|< 11:57, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
- So your solution to some people's needing to chill out a bit is to indulge them and encourage them not to chill out? Grace Note 04:21, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why do I contribute to Wikipedia? Because I have information that I want others to see. Why else would I write about a topic like Btrieve or Common Unix Printing System? Because I wanted others to know about these topics, from a source that is as neutral and as factual as possible. This site gives me the chance to inform others. I have a friend, for instance, who found the CUPS article very useful. This is what drives me on: that someone, somewhere, will find the information in Wikipedia useful and give them an understanding of a topic I know something about! Why do you think I keep asking for sources in articles like Zoroastrianism? It's because I want the quality of the article to improve, to address any potential issues with neutrality and factuality and to improve the comprehensiveness of the article. Many see me as trying to push a POV: I see myself asking for better information so that people gain greater understanding of a topic. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:24, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It appears to me that the general level of user-to-user interaction is becoming increasingly confrontational. This goes hand-in-hand with a growing suspicion of new users and a willingness to ignore the "Don't bite the newbie" principle. This may well stem from bitter experience of encountering disruptive newbies, but also seems to contain at least an element of possessibeness on the part of more established users like myself. I have no idea what to do about this, other than remind ourselves of Wikilove as often as possible, and to be sure to take deep breaths before hitting the keyboard. Filiocht | Talk 11:40, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

I think the main point being made here is that we've gotten away from the content–we're building an encyclopedia. We aren't here as a vehicle for social change or advocacy. We aren't here as an experiment in web-democracy, web-anarchy, or even web-aristocracy (sadly). We aren't here to win final victory for someone's pet political persuasion. We're here to build a encyclopedia written in the English language for the benefit of humankind. Our first principle should be this: the content comes first. Our second? Anyone who works against the first principle stands in opposition to the encyclopedia and its aims.

There's a lot of rules-lawyering on this encyclopedia, centered around the points I mentioned above. It's sheer waste. If pages of talk are generated without solving the content problem, then the problem has grown worse. If the problem wasn't content-centric in the first place, then someone is wasting our time and needs to get his or her crap together. Anyone who has to be brought before the Arbitration Committee, after at least one RFC, because of behavioral problems, is taking up the valuable time and energy of dozens of contributors.

The problem, as I see it, is that there exists no simple mechanism for defusing these content debates and allowing editors to get back to work. This shouldn't be a serious problem. When writing for a Neutral Point of View, it should be taken for granted that the view point you write is not your own. Given that, the most important thing for Wikipedia is to establish what the Neutral Point of View is on a given issue so that editors know what that POV is and can write accordingly. This happens hundreds of times everyday, and usually without incident. Those times don't concern us. The problems tend to occur where multiple editors representing divergent points of view collide. The serious problem of Gdansk comes to mind. It took months (arguably a year) to settle the matter, and caused much acrimony on all sides. This is not a viable model.

I have a suggestion, however. I confess that it involves more bureaucracy, but the goal is to ultimately reduce the amount of time spent edit-warring. We already have an Arbitration Committee, but its bailiwick specifically excludes content-disputes. I would propose the creation of an Content Committee, or some such, staffed by Wikipedians known for the following traits: educational depth, scrupulous honesty, and commitment to a neutral point of view. If something like Gdansk, or the BC/BCE dispute arose, it could be brought before this committee. Evidence backing each POV would be presented, and an opinion rendered. Barring the development of new information, this opinion would stand. Editors who violated the ruling repeatedly would be warned and then blocked.

This seems harsh, but the alternative, I think, is to wage a losing battle against POV-pushers and revert-warriors. I've watched disputes go back and forth for months, with nothing new being said. These battles are tiring for all involved, and ought to be unnecessary. Once a difficult issue is settled, it should be settled, and settled quickly. That way, we can all get back to writing the encyclopedia. We shouldn't have to waste hours upon hours with people who won't abide by our standards and work with us towards the common goals of the project. Mackensen (talk) 00:04, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The "neutral point of view"? I suggest you read the policy, which much more clearly understands there to be no such thing. You are suggesting there should be a committee to decide which POV should win! But the NPOV policy, which is fundamental to Wikipedia, says that all POVs must be presented fairly. None ought to win.Grace Note 04:21, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I started reading the above, but there is an awful lot of it; could someone please summarize what points have been raised about what we might be doing wrong and might want to change? Then, maybe, we can continue the discussion on each separate topic, instead of on something so amorphous. -- Jmabel | Talk June 28, 2005 04:50 (UTC)

Inappropriate use of User: namespace?

User:John-1107 did a chained move of his user and talk pages to elsewhere in the User: namespace, leaving a trail of redirects in his wake. The places he moved his pages to do not "belong" to any user (the User contributions link is not active). Should they be moved back? --cesarb 20:08, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That or ask the user to register the other username so that nobody else will register and find somebody else's user page there. Joe D (t) 20:19, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

He has moved it back to a subpage of his, I will nuke the redirects. --cesarb 20:45, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

User:Windupremisonwheels

Judging from his user page, worth keeping an eye on. Dan100 (Talk) 22:50, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

PS guys, do some archiving on this page! It's massive! Dan100 (Talk) 22:52, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Why not simply block him? I mean, can't it be more obvious that he's waiting so he can move pages around again? --Conti|✉ 23:01, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it's Willy: I suspect it's the same user as User:Largeremis (and 131.111.8.103 et al). Don't be surprised if the usual "rv vandalism" vandalism to Pope Benedict XVI starts showing up shortly, along with a spate of userpage vandalism. Antandrus (talk) 23:05, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Whoever it is, either block him for being Willy of for impersonating him. He can choose a more neutral username if he wishes to contribute to this project. --Conti|✉ 23:17, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

This isn't Willy on Wheels; Willy isn't interested in any sort of editing beyond bot-assisted page moves. It's rather someone who is under the impression Wikipedia is desperately in need of people who crack jokes in the article namespace. JRM · Talk 23:20, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)

Recording tough calls

Most blocks don't need more than a one-line comment. We can all read about it at the block log.

Tough calls should be recorded at Wikipedia:Policy enforcement so everyone can see that it was a tough call. I created it as a protected page, to discourage debates, "gaming the system" and other delaying tactics.

If the person is clearly subverting Wikipedia policy - like NPOV or civility, suspend them first and discuss it later. If you're wrong, you (or another admin) can always undo the suspension - and you can apologize! But if you're right, we'll all breathe a little easier and can go on with our work. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 02:28, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

All further discussion of this page has been moved to Wikipedia talk:Policy enforcement#Other threads

Fox News

There has been an anon editing that page and a large amount of wrinkles/reverts appearing. There has been a proposal on the Talk page to move back to the 24 Jun 13:23 UTC edit and protect the page until this can be sorted out. I'd like to do it, but would like to consult with some other admins before acting single-handedly. If you can, please comment on the Talk Page of said article. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 04:11, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It is not appropriate for you to make an agreement to revert the article to a specific version and then protect it. This is a clear violation of the Wikipedia:Protection policy. Cross-posted on Talk:FOX News. Rhobite June 28, 2005 05:09 (UTC)

Personal attacks

The recent discussions here and at AN/I got me thinking about personal attacks. If people sometimes leave our project, then the overall atmosphere is a plausible reason for their departure, and the most obvious poisoning of the atmosphere is childish namecalling and the like. On a related note, we have a huge backlog on WP:VIP. It seems most admins prefer not to work at there. And a plausible reason for that would be retaliation if they block a vandal - again in the form of personal attacks9 e.g. Marmots immature reaction to Linuxbeak on AN/I). This leads to the age-old question, why do we tolerate personal attacks in the first place?.

I believe the answer to that is, simply, because we haven't seen a suitable wording of such a policy yet, that would not lead to abuse (such as calling a mere disagreement an attack, and blocking concurrently). However, it would be in our best benefit to create such. First, I don't believe that any right-thinking person would want personal attacks here. Second, the sheer fact that people get away with it encourages other people to behave similarly. On the contrary, if we had a policy that allowed blocking in such a way that it rarely occured, then still the threat of that policy would discourage people from making personal attacks. Psychology works.

Thus, I'd like to have some people join me in brainstorming on Wikipedia:Blocking policy/Personal attacks. The first thing that comes to mind would be some sort of warning template that can be sent to the attacker but not by the victim, and if a person has received a number of those for separate occasions and by separate people within a week or so, he can be blocked.

As usual, thoughts welcome. R adiant _>|< 17:32, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

All further discussion of this page has been moved to Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy/Personal attacks#From Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Removal of NPOV tags

User:Peter Grey persists in removing an NPOV tag from Monarchist League of Canada. AndyL 03:40, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia Inc. — trademark infringement?

Want to work for "Wikipedia Inc."? User:Lotsofissues pointed this out on Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous). It's a Japanese company, apparently established in February of this year. It looks to me to be blatant trademark infringement; I'm not sure whom to mention this to so I'm crossposting it here and on Jimbo's talk page. — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:07, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wow. Words fail me. Either they suddenly came up with the word Wikipedia (coincidentally, even though they do no wiki wiki development) as the name of their company, or... never mind. I'm sure something will be done. --Death phoenix 04:29, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

CSD #1

That would be "very short articles with little or no context". A proposal for modifying the criteria for speedy deletion (in an attempt to streamline VFD by speedying types of articles that appear often and always get a strong consensus to delete) is being discussed here. As part of the discussion, people suggested that the (overly vague) criterion #1 should be deprecated in favor of a couple more strictly worded criteria. Thus, I'd like to ask for examples, what do people delete under criterion #1. R adiant _>|< 12:16, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

(please comment here rather than on this page)

Minor change to "selected anniversaries"

I don't know if anyone actively monitors Wikipedia talk:Selected anniversaries/June 26 (that would be a lot of pageson someone's watchlist...), however one of the links on the frontdoor is pointing to the wrong antipope. Though, I can't imagine anyone else noticing... Where is the right place to put notes like this for future reference? Here? Just leave it on the talk there? JRP 14:18, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The talk page, probably (and arguably, the talk page of either or both antipopes). This particular page has a rather high mailflow, so your notice would disappear in the mists of history. R adiant _>|< 19:33, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

Helicoid

Could admins check Helicoid (talk · contribs)'s behaviour at Talk:Aetherometry? He is unable to post a comment without a scatter of insults, and to my mind his behaviour is going beyond simple aggravation. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:33, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

page move rollback

takes 2 clicks and leaves a redirect behind which will need to be deleted. Still looks good.Geni 01:16, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Minor problem

I've noticed a problem in the new system, or whatever it's called, in that sometimes I don't get a rollback option on an edit and I have to go into the page history and revert vandalism the old fashioned way. (Although I can still rollback if I go to the user contributions log.) Anybody else having this problem? I can't figure out if it's related to what Geni mentions above or not. Everyking 28 June 2005 08:54 (UTC)

I have yet to see a single rollback - for the 20+ pages I checked on my watchlist recently I didn't have a single rollback option. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 28 June 2005 19:53 (UTC)

My rollbacks seem to be working fine. Could it be that you're getting logged out without noticing? (A few other people have complained of that issue since the upgrade, though I don't know if it's related.) — Dan | Talk 28 June 2005 19:57 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Minoredit

A full stop appears to have appeared at the end of the minor edit tickbox, apparently during the upgrade. Not a major thing I know, but it does look a bit odd. sjorford →•← 28 June 2005 09:08 (UTC)

Heya all

I'm finally an admin - right in time for a brand new, shiny Wikipedia! I promise to leave Dalek alone. :-) Ta bu shi da yu 28 June 2005 09:10 (UTC)

And broke the record for most supporting votes, I see. Congrats! R adiant _>|< June 28, 2005 09:22 (UTC)
You promise not to block me for a week now? Everyking 28 June 2005 10:00 (UTC)
- Sure. You promise to play nicely on the Ashlee Simpson article? - Ta bu shi da yu 29 June 2005 02:50 (UTC)

Blocking

Special:Blockip includes this text now, "Please keep blocks in these ranges to 15 minutes or less (notice: since the upgrade, you won't be able to block for less than 2 hours)". Since this is self-contradictory, how should we fix this? R adiant _>|< June 28, 2005 11:49 (UTC)

I really dislike that it's necessary to choose the expire time from a list. It often made sense to block for 6 or 12 hours and that now seems to be impossible. In fact, there's only one choice (2 hours) that's less than 24 hours. I'd highly recommend allowing admins to specify any expire time, as in the previous version. Carbonite | Talk 28 June 2005 12:04 (UTC)

The block length examples are also incorrect: "e.g. "1 hour", "2 days", "next Wednesday", "1 January 2017". "Indefinite" or "infinite" also worked." The only one of those choices that's still available is "infinite". I'm hoping that the previous functionality will return shortly. Carbonite | Talk 28 June 2005 12:09 (UTC)

I quite agree with Carbonite on this one. The length of a block should not be fixed by what can be selected in a menu. Many times I think it is appropriate to block for something between 2 and 24 hours. Radiant is also correct that the possibility for short blocks to AOL should be reinstated. Sjakkalle (Check!) 28 June 2005 12:10 (UTC)

I also agree. There needs to be much more flexibility, especially for shorter blocks. Filiocht | Talk June 28, 2005 12:12 (UTC)

I also agree, the drop-down list is a complete misfeature. I just had to do a 2 hours range block while half an hour would likely have been sufficient. Who designed this regression into the software? Please revert to the old interface ASAP. jni 28 June 2005 12:14 (UTC)

Yikes, that's horrible! If I need to block someone for more than two hours, I have to block them for a whole day. That's very wrong. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 28 June 2005 12:21 (UTC)

I kinda figure if you're gonna block somebody, you either do it or don't. Anytime I do a vandal block I just set it at 24 hours. Blocking somebody is a pretty serious insult; I don't think of it in increments. The very fact of the block is serious enough and should be restricted to extreme cases. I think if somebody hasn't done something bad enough to warrant 24 hours, they probably don't deserve to be blocked at all. I mean you have special short blocks to accommodate range IPs and that kind of thing, but there's no sense in 3 hour blocks, 5 hours, 9, 13, 18... Everyking 28 June 2005 12:45 (UTC)

I often used less than 24 hours when blocking school IPs in the hope of limiting damage to innocent users. Also the AOL IPs should not be blocked for long periods of time at all. But otherwise I agree that 24 hours is the default for someone vandalizing from a private IP at a home computer. Anyway, keep up the good work at RC Patrol! Sjakkalle (Check!) 28 June 2005 12:55 (UTC)

What about dynamic IPs? What if someone with a dynamic IP does something serious enough, but you don't want to block every from AOL or a university for an entire day? The point is that the tools should serve the admins, not restrict them. Carbonite | Talk 28 June 2005 12:55 (UTC)

Well, I was thinking that in those cases you wouldn't want to block for more than an hour anyway...most likely the kid will have long since given up by the time the hour's over. Besides, they have classes and things to do, I don't think they can just sit around vandalizing on a school IP for very long. It's not that I can't conceive of cases where there'd be exceptions, it's just that I don't know if it's a big deal and I also figure maybe there was a good reason for making it that way. Everyking 28 June 2005 13:04 (UTC)

Special:Listadmins

Another special page that was broken in software update. Now how do I easily get the current list of users that have elevated permissions? jni 28 June 2005 12:20 (UTC)

Try this. --W(t) June 28, 2005 14:43 (UTC)

Thanks, I overlooked the combo of group names completely. It seems the displayed list is not exhaustive but one has to manually edit the URL to search for "checkuser", "developer" and "boardvote" (are there other groups?) but I can live with that. jni 28 June 2005 15:32 (UTC)

Not only that, but try searching on sysops, then click on the 500 link. You get 500 users - I know that !!!!Linuxbeakisafag (or whatever the account name is) is not an admin. Incidently, why can't we delete those accounts? - Ta bu shi da yu 29 June 2005 02:49 (UTC)

If we deleted those accounts, someone could re-create them. As is, they're blocked forever. --Carnildo 29 June 2005 05:38 (UTC)

Fair enough. Have submitted bug 2625 about the issue I found. - Ta bu shi da yu 30 June 2005 03:18 (UTC)

Edit conflicts

Be careful, since edit conflicts seem to be saving the edits instead of just showing the diff. See Wikipedia:MediaWiki 1.5 bugs#Edit conflicts not working anymore, and section edit broken; see also Template:expect edit conflicts. --cesarb 28 June 2005 15:37 (UTC)

WP:VIP

Just a heads up: WP:VIP has been drastically improved. If we can get users to start using WP:VIP again, this could prove very useful indeed. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk June 28, 2005 23:10 (UTC)

Problems

The new system seems to be riddled with problems. RC patrol is nearly impossible and the vandals are winning. I suggest we lock things down again until all the bugs get fixed. Everyking 28 June 2005 23:56 (UTC)

Although I'm not at the stage yet where I'd confirm that the vandals are winning, I'm tempted to agree with Everyking. There are a lot of bugs in the system and it is making admining quite difficult. -- Francs2000 | Talk File:Uk flag large.png 28 June 2005 23:58 (UTC)
- Well, for me at least, they're winning in the sense that it's gotten so difficult to fight them that it's become stressful and almost more trouble than it's worth. Everyking 29 June 2005 00:17 (UTC)

I'm going to use this opportunity to shamelessly advertise the new and improved Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress. You will find that using it will come in handy in watching persistant vandals. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk June 29, 2005 00:19 (UTC)

For God's sake, it doesn't even give me a "new message" notice anymore! I have to go find my talk page in my watchlist. Does it do that to anyone else? Everyking 1 July 2005 04:45 (UTC)

Yes. It's annoying... Until it's fixed I just watchlist my talk page and check once in a while. Antandrus (talk) 1 July 2005 04:50 (UTC)

Crikey, it's only been a few days, give the devs some time! Or would you rather they don't improve the software, and the site grind to a halt? Give them a chance! Dan100 (Talk) July 2, 2005 17:03 (UTC)

Yes, to their credit things have improved greatly as of today. Personally I don't believe we should have left things editable when the system was so buggy. It was too hard to fight vandalism, it was going unchecked for frequently long times, and if any of the vandals had got together and made up their minds to attack us during that period they could have really hurt us. Fortunately they tend to not be very bright. Everyking 2 July 2005 18:18 (UTC)

AllyUnion's bots

This is a notice to everyone that my bots are not in operation. Due to the changes in the encoding and the software upgrade, it seems that I might have to rewrite a majority of my bots over. For this, I must ask people to update and maintain the pages that were maintained by my bots until I have a chance to finish rewriting all my bot code. --AllyUnion (talk) 29 June 2005 00:07 (UTC)

Given the problems that Wikipedia is experiencing, particularly with edit conflicts, would it be helpful for all bots to be turned off until things are fixed? --Carnildo 29 June 2005 00:16 (UTC)

Any non-janitorial bot, yes, I'd would agree with that assessment. --AllyUnion (talk) 29 June 2005 11:00 (UTC)

What a shame. Those bots were so nice. Do tell us when they become operational again. This link is Broken 29 June 2005 15:13 (UTC)

IP Block options survey

Since the list of block lenghts in the drop down list on Special:Blockip are now customizable, I copied them from the defaults, added the very useful 15 minutes option, and started a survey to find out which other block lenghts are commonly used and should be in that list. Add only the block lenghts you use often, not the ones you think might be useful. --cesarb 29 June 2005 01:09 (UTC)

I have now changed the list of block lenghts based on the input from that survey. I hope you will all agree the new values are much more useful ☺. --cesarb 30 June 2005 22:44 (UTC)

Toronto Airport

Could someone please move Toronto/Lester B. Pearson International Airport to Toronto Pearson International Airport - everyone seems to be in favor, and the request is already 7 days old. Gwk 29 June 2005 03:24 (UTC)

Done. -- Infrogmation June 29, 2005 04:10 (UTC)

JFK Assassination

Could someone try to please move John F. Kennedy assassination to Assassination of John F. Kennedy. The request is already been given to the administrators and it hasn't been done yet. SNIyer1 30 Jun 2005 01:56 (UTC)

Controversial Vfd

This is not an immediate issue, I just request some input on past/future Vfd's on GNAA. I know this is/was a touchy subject, please see my recent post on Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion/Gay Nigger Association of America. Thank you. <>Who ?¿? 29 June 2005 06:20 (UTC)

Would advise not resubmitting this to VfD again. Three times are more than enough. - Ta bu shi da yu 30 June 2005 02:59 (UTC)

I thought it had been submitted four times. --Carnildo 30 June 2005 03:06 (UTC)

Could have been. I lost track of it after a while. The GNAA will love it if we submit it to VfD again. Think about it: just by existing they cause controversy! - Ta bu shi da yu 30 June 2005 03:20 (UTC)

(via edit conflict) Actualy i think it's more like 4 or 5 (maybe?). But yes. I don't think anyone wants to do this again. At some point you just have to give up. This link is Broken 30 June 2005 03:07 (UTC)

Can't figure out your system

This anon (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=80.58.4.42 contribs) used bad language, etc. in a slow motion edit war POV pushing battle. I don't know the correct name of the "policy" this violates, but I don't see any signs on his part of wanted to make an accurate and neutral article. -- Uncle Ed (talk) June 29, 2005 20:26 (UTC)

Ah, that would be Wikipedia:Avoid personal attacks. I do believe that "Ed, you fucking moron, this terrorist is now laughing his ass off that he has found a stupid admin to support his position. Moron, just take a quick look at the history logs. You fucking idiot." is a personal attack. I'm going to block him now. Ta. - Ta bu shi da yu 30 June 2005 07:10 (UTC)
- No need to. See the block log: 06:47, 30 June 2005 Mikkalai blocked "User:80.58.4.42" with an expiry time of 3 days (persistent reverting and foul mouth recently). - Ta bu shi da yu 30 June 2005 07:11 (UTC)

New page started - compare against the EB!

Please forgive me for posting this to the admin page - creators rights! :P - but I have started a new page, Wikipedia:Articles that are more comprehensive than on Encyclopedia Britannica (yes, a mouthful I know). I really would like to know which articles are more comprehensive than the EB! - Ta bu shi da yu 30 June 2005 12:35 (UTC)

I wish people would stop idolizing EB. Wikipedia is a valuable encyclopedia, and I don't care about EB any more. Superm401 | Talk July 6, 2005 01:32 (UTC)

Arbitration case - Jguk

A decision has been reached in the arbitration case: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jguk. All involved users are warned strongly to abide by our policies. Please see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jguk#Final decision for further details and the full decision. -- sannse (talk) 30 June 2005 15:39 (UTC)

And in more happy news, Jguk is back! And this time, it's personal! Oh, wait, wrong quote :) maybe I should parodize some backstreet boys song instead (everyboooody, write your wiki right...) Whatever. Welcome back, anyway. R adiant _>|< June 30, 2005 17:46 (UTC)
Yeah, I believe it took a gathering storm of community outrage to save Jguk from being sentenced to wiki-death. Everyking 1 July 2005 04:49 (UTC)
- My impression from speaking to arbitrators is that it didn't take community outrage so much as for more than one or two arbitrators to get around to looking at the case. Snowspinner July 6, 2005 01:34 (UTC)
- So, what you're basically saying is that the ArbCom listens to community consensus? That would be a good thing, no? Radiant_>|< July 1, 2005 07:33 (UTC)
  - That is a good thing. However, it also means that the ArbCom has a set path of punishing people harshly regardless of the situation which it only deviated from in this case because people got worked up about it. My view is that ArbCom decisions should be subject to a kind of community review on a standard basis. Penalties should, if challenged, be required to get a majority vote in approval from the community to be valid. Otherwise people will continue to be routinely mistreated and only occasionally will enough outrage be generated to abort the penalties in advance. Everyking 1 July 2005 08:48 (UTC)
    - Isn't that precisely what the old Quickpolls mechanism did? As a side point, ArbCom members are elected by community for a set period of time, and can (and have) fail to be re-elected. Could you please provide evidence of a set path of punishing people harshly and people being routinely mistreated? R adiant _>|< July 1, 2005 09:03 (UTC)
- I see no evidence whatsoever for your assertion; if anything, the concerns expressed by ArbCom members themselves were greater than any expressed by the user community. Jayjg ^(talk) 1 July 2005 07:36 (UTC)

Can someone please check something?

Can another admin (or anyone) just check something for me? Chrissie Watts - is this page protected or not? I had a problem protecting pages on Tuesday and was told it was something I was doing wrong. I'm sure this page was protected yet someone has still managed to edit it, apparently while it's still protected. Is it me or is there a bug? -- Francs2000 | Talk File:Uk flag large.png 30 June 2005 16:06 (UTC)

User:Thorpe unprotected it, as it shows in the history. [2] func(talk) 30 June 2005 16:59 (UTC)

Er...Thorpe isn't listed as an admin? func(talk) 30 June 2005 17:07 (UTC)

Go to protect it. It says it's already protected. Yet Thorpe and an anon have edited it. -- Francs2000 | Talk File:Uk flag large.png 30 June 2005 17:08 (UTC)

Possibly it's protected from page moves only - if you unprotect and protect again, it should work. — Dan | Talk 30 June 2005 17:18 (UTC)

OK, perhaps that was the case after all. My protection test worked the way it should have done... -- Francs2000 | Talk File:Uk flag large.png 30 June 2005 17:33 (UTC)

I had the same problem with the article on the current Pope recently, the article appears to be protected but isn't--nixie 1 July 2005 01:46 (UTC)

Likewise with the featured article templates. There's now a note at MediaWiki:Confirmprotecttext (the text that displays when you protect a page) warning admins that they don't need to check a box when protecting anymore – the checkbox is for protection from page moves only. — Dan | Talk 1 July 2005 15:30 (UTC)

Permaban vandals?

User:Lolwtf vandalized several pages in a short period of time; he also vandalized at lease one image, the Flag of Canada. Since vandalizing an image requires an account, and since the first edits on this account were vandalism, is there anything wrong in slapping an indefinite ban on it? --Golbez July 1, 2005 21:16 (UTC)

Isn't this AN/I material? --cesarb 1 July 2005 21:19 (UTC)

I figured it was more a policy question than an incident question. And I've never used the Admin's noticeboard before, you expect me to know how it works? ;) --Golbez July 2, 2005 00:38 (UTC)

If the account has done nothing but vandalize, go ahead and permaban it. No one will complain. Isomorphic 2 July 2005 02:36 (UTC)

Should definetly be permabanned. This guy is the rogue who replaced the FA image off the main page with Mr. Cock suck. Hedley 5 July 2005 21:43 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conflict

I've written up a new policy proposal, with assistance from Ed Poor, to set out some guidelines and basic principles for dealing with naming conflicts of the Gdanzig type. It's at Wikipedia:Naming conflict - comments welcomed. -- ChrisO 2 July 2005 00:37 (UTC)

In the news box and Live 8

If there's any admins about, it would be great if the front page In the news box could be updated to mention the Live 8 concerts taking place now. Dan100 (Talk) July 2, 2005 15:40 (UTC)

see Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page/Candidates This link is Broken 2 July 2005 15:43 (UTC)

I did that, thanks though. I was trying to get someone to actually make the change! So thanks to Violetriga. Dan100 (Talk) July 2, 2005 16:28 (UTC)

Help request

I put over 100 articles up as a group for deletion under VfD (at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Karlscherer3), the result of the VfD was a 90% majority to delete all of them. Obviously, this is quite a lot of articles to delete, and I think it would help if it wasn't just the VfD-closing-admin who had to delete them, as it is probably going to take ages.

The full list of articles should be in Category:Alleged spam by Karl Scherer (this is mentioned on the VfD, just in case you are tempted assume it is only the articles listed in the includes (but not limited to) list on the VfD that were VfD'd. It is also verifiable on the relevant article histories that the VfD tag was added and correctly linked - given the nature of the VfD it was a bespoke tag I created).

~~~~ 2 July 2005 20:41 (UTC)

Categorize protected category

Could an admin please add {{Vprotected}} or Category:Protected against vandalism to Category:Pelican shit so it stops showing up on orphaned category lists? Thanks. --Tabor 3 July 2005 00:17 (UTC)

Done. --cesarb 3 July 2005 01:06 (UTC)

Highly inactive admins

I just made a list of admins by edit count, and noticed a couple anomalies

User:Shallot (0 edits) is an unused version of User:Joy, and both are admins.
User:Timshell (0 edits) and User:Tim Shell (58 edits 3 years ago) are unused versions of User:TimShell, who is apparently not a sysop, though listed at Wikipedia:List of administrators.

I suggest User:Shallot and User:Timshell should be de-sysopped. Additionally, perhaps adminship should be transferred from User:Tim Shell to User:TimShell. dbenbenn | talk 3 July 2005 03:24 (UTC)

Seems like a good idea. Everyking 3 July 2005 03:37 (UTC)

User:TimShell is not a frequent editor - let's desysop and put him on WP:RfA to sort this out. r3m0t ^talk July 3, 2005 11:43 (UTC)

He may not be a frequent editor on en, but since Tim is on the Wikimedia Board of Trustees, it might be nice if you asked him what he would like. Dragons flight July 3, 2005 11:53 (UTC)

I didn't notice. Since the Board has total and final power (I think) over WM projects, we can leave him as admin - assuming he was not later removed. r3m0t ^talk July 3, 2005 14:04 (UTC)

I like the idea of transferring the adminship to the active account. It just makes no sense for him to have three accounts and the only one he actually uses is the one that isn't sysopped. Everyking 3 July 2005 14:33 (UTC)

It would be better to ask first. He could have a legitimate reason for wanting his main account to not have admin priviledges (much like I sometimes use a secondary account which doesn't have them). --cesarb 3 July 2005 20:14 (UTC)

New VfD tool

wpvfdhide hides VfD discussions which are already closed on demand. This is useful both for finding unclosed entries in the logs and for finding things which weren't speedied in the current VfD day pages. The latest link to it is always at User:R3m0t and it requires Firefox and Greasemonkey. r3m0t ^talk July 3, 2005 14:04 (UTC)

CopyVio on Korea/Tsushima Strait?

Hi! Don't know the ropes yet on CopyVio, but a new map was loaded into two articles this week, that clearly looks like a work over of scanned copyrighted materials, and I suspect the editor to be on the young side. MgM Says Post CopyVio Concern here. One link cites the other, and a 'Merge' vote is also in progress where experienced guidance would be welcome. SeeTsushima Strait and Korea Strait. The merge discussion/vote is on the talk for 'TS'. Thanks. User:Fabartus || Talkto_FrankB 3 July 2005 14:57 (UTC)

40 mm grenade move

40mm grenade should have been moved to 40 mm grenade, but apparently that didn't work. According to Talk:40mm grenade, the "move" tab barfed saying that 40 mm grenade and 40mm grenade (note space) were "the same article". So the content was copied to the destination, leaving the revision history on what has now become a redirect page. Does anyone know of a bug that could affect us like that and/or how we can move the page history to the new location? Rl 3 July 2005 18:09 (UTC)

I tried it again and it worked fine. — Dan | Talk 3 July 2005 19:16 (UTC)

Since the upgrade there's an extra reason field. You probably put the destination in the wrong field when you tried to move. - Mgm|^(talk) July 4, 2005 11:05 (UTC)

TonyTony

TonyTony (talk · contribs)

I came across this user when I was doing new page patrol. His only article contribution was to create Mayko Nguyen with the text "Hot Canadian chick who shows her tits in some movie." I have tagged this for speedy deletion. Looking at his other contributions, he has uploaded 10 photographs, all purportedly of female celebrities, with a certain exposure theme. These images don't appear to have been used in any articles. I'm posting this here because I'm not sure what further action to take. If a user is uploading photos without linking them into articles, is Wikipedia being used as a free webhost? Would Wikipedia benefit even if these images were linked to? Should they be deleted? Bovlb 2005-07-04 06:17:02 (UTC)

Just delete. They don't serve anything but a shock purpose. That, and they're copyrighted with a fair use claim that's dubious at best. - Mgm|^(talk) July 4, 2005 11:08 (UTC)
- I have listed them all on WP:IFD. Bovlb 2005-07-04 17:39:47 (UTC)
- Would suggest that they are immediately deleted. I'd do it, but I'm at work and do not want to open the images. - Ta bu shi da yu 5 July 2005 03:48 (UTC)
  - I deleted the porno screenshots, the rest can go through ifd.--nixie 5 July 2005 03:58 (UTC)

Abuse of templates

I feel that Template:TOCright is an abuse of templates. Templates are not there to change the default look of the website - which this is being used for! I feel like removing it, but have added it to WP:TFD. However, I'm putting it out here that the template should be speedied. What do other admins think? Speedy or keep on TfD? Incidently, check out Intelligent Design and an old verion of W. Mark Felt with this template. I know I wouldn't want it on Exploding whale or Windows 2000~~!!!~~ - Ta bu shi da yu 4 July 2005 08:16 (UTC)

Chill, dude. I don't think such a trifle calls for words like "abuse" or that many exclamation marks. Rl 4 July 2005 08:28 (UTC)

Hey :-) long day, what can I say. However, abuse of templates is quite a common phrase, used by many long term Wikipedians. I do believe I saw Jiang use it ages ago. - Ta bu shi da yu 4 July 2005 09:30 (UTC)

Won't be speedying it. On thinking it through, it's definitely not in the speedy criteria. - Ta bu shi da yu 5 July 2005 03:46 (UTC)

Suspected harassment

I am having difficulty with an editor whom I believe to be harassing another in an insidious way by making continuing accusations of misbehaviour at an old RFC. To my mind the accusations appear overstated and these in conjunction with weeks of critical editing of the "target" editor's contributions leave me uncomfortable. Please could others cast their eyes across Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Nick Boulevard and associated edits. Any suggestions or comments would be appreciated.—Theo (Talk) 4 July 2005 17:50 (UTC)

semi-active admins

I've created a section of WP:LA currently titled "Semi-active" (between "Active" and "Inactive") and have moved administrators with approximately 10 edits per month or less from the "Active" section to this new section (not quite finished with this, but I will be soon). There has been some discussion of this at Wikipedia talk:List of administrators. The point of this notice is to let everyone know, and to suggest that if you change your editing habits (in either direction) you might want to move your entry on this page from one section to another (I'm hoping someone will automate this, I actually may myself). If you have comments about this, please add them to WP:LA's talk page. -- Rick Block (talk) July 4, 2005 19:30 (UTC)

I have a script at User talk:Dbenbenn/List of administrators by edit count that could easily be modified to identify "semi-active" admins. I'll be happy to update the list of semi-active admins at WP:LA on August 3. dbenbenn | talk 5 July 2005 15:48 (UTC)

The issue of bootlegs on Wikipedia

Copied my comment from the Jack Johnson (musician) talk page:

Just a query - is it really ethical to discuss bootlegs of Johnson's music, and to have separate articles on them too? Is there a law, or Wikipedia guideline, against promoting illegal goods? Harro5 July 5, 2005 12:03 (UTC)

Is it proper to have stuff about bootlegged albums on a musician's article? Is it OK to have articles on these (see J.O.A.T. and T.R.I.P.1 in this case)? Thanks. Harro5 July 5, 2005 12:06 (UTC)

I think it crosses the line only if we talk about how to obtain these bootlegs, or if we actively encourage people to get/copy/trade them. Describing their existence as fact is perfectly legitimate. --khaosworks July 5, 2005 14:07 (UTC)

I'd agree with that. Several bootlegs are collectors items, which would make them notable. We have articles on a number of illegal activities (Burglary, Arson, you name it). Of course, setting up your own bootleg marketplace in your userspace would be crossing the line, but I doubt you were suggesting that :) Radiant_>|< July 5, 2005 21:36 (UTC)
- Thanks for the clarification guys. Just wanted to make sure I wasn't waltzing through some back-alley operation in that article :). As for the idea of setting up a bootlegging shop, we've still got eBay haven't we? Harro5 July 6, 2005 05:30 (UTC)

Add a forced line break to {{PD}}

Could an admin please add the following comment to the first line of the protected template {{PD}}?

This is needed because the text box bleeds into another text box. Please compare the first line of the PD template with the first line of {{GFDL}}. Thanks. --Death phoenix 5 July 2005 21:38 (UTC)

Done. Hedley 5 July 2005 21:41 (UTC)
- Thanks. It didn't seem to fix the problem, though (see this for a page with the bleeding problem). I've looked further into it, and I found out that I had to add "margin: 0 auto". Could you (or someone else) replace the PD template with the code in my userspace (here)? In case you're wondering what I changed, take a look here. Thanks again. --Death phoenix 6 July 2005 13:51 (UTC)

Dispute at Genseiryu

I would appreciate another admin (with more experience than I have) taking a look at the dispute that is raging over this page. Mario Roering (talk · contribs) and Peter Lee (talk · contribs) appear to have bought a pre-existing argument from outside wikipedia and are now going at each others throats over this article. The talk pages for these two users are astonishing (make sure to look through the histories too as both authors have deleted material from these talk pages). I have had a go at moderating, even resorting to blocking Peter Lee earlier today, however I feel that both authors may be equally in the wrong (and therefore also equally in the right), it looks like this argument is old enough and engrained enough that there is little or no chance of compromise. Thanks, JeremyA 6 July 2005 02:00 (UTC)

Fixing the category on Template:Split

The category link in Template:Split has gotten mistakenly set to the wrong category, and the template is protected to stop an fomratting edit war. Could an admin fix the category (it should be [[Category:Articles to be split]]). Thanks! JesseW 6 July 2005 08:31 (UTC)

I've fixed the category for you. Thryduulf 6 July 2005 11:24 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Gay Nigger Association of America attempt 6

The GNAA article has been added to VfD again, not because I want it deleted but because I want to see if voted on properly so we can lay the whole VfD thing to rest. There are some conditions: no votes are to counted for editors with less than 100 edits (add them to discounted votes please), no personal attacks will be allowed (delete on sight!) and the vote must not be closed before the end of 7 days. As I am the administering admin, I will do the closing. I'm not doing this for any personal power, I am merely doing it so that I know everything is all above board.

I'm sorry that this article has cropped up again, however I see no way around the controversy by any way other than resubmitting it and conducting it in a transparent manner with well-defined rules to all participants. - Ta bu shi da yu 8 July 2005 03:21 (UTC)

I recommend making it a minimum of 100 edits as of the start of the vote. This will discourage sockpuppets from making tons of edits over the next week in order to become eligible. Carbonite | Talk 8 July 2005 03:53 (UTC)

No, if they make legitimate edits in that time frame, then I believe their vote should be counted. It would mean that they are a legitimate part of Wikipedia and are doing their part to make our project a success. - Ta bu shi da yu 8 July 2005 04:19 (UTC)

Well, I have to disagree. If we count edits made after the start of the VfD, we'll be in the position of having to decide what "legitimate" edits are. It's not hard for sockpuppets to make 100 edits in 7 days by making minor changes. Limiting the vote to users with 100 edits as of the start will greatly help with the sockpupper issue and will affect very few legitimiate editors. Carbonite | Talk 8 July 2005 04:25 (UTC)

OK, have given this some thought and I'll accept this. So long as it's above board, I don't mind. - Ta bu shi da yu 8 July 2005 04:39 (UTC)

OK, sorry to keep flipping between decisions here, but how are we going to know this? Kate's tool only gives current votes. I think that it should be counted from when they submitted their vote, and check straight away. - Ta bu shi da yu 8 July 2005 04:41 (UTC)

Go to user contributions, set it to display in groups of 100, then click the new "Earliest" button. It will display the first 100 edits someone has made (assumming they have that many), and you only have to read off the date of the top one on the list to know on which day they made their 100th edit. Dragons flight July 8, 2005 06:30 (UTC)

I'm going to keep it the way it is. It's still fair, and if we change the criteria much more it may invalidate some votes or cause people to yell "unfair!". I want to avoid this at all costs. On this note, this weekend I am not going to be able to monitor this vote due to lack of a computer. Any admin will do, however, as I have laid out the basic groundwork. I will be back on Monday to continue monitoring what is going on. Dragons flight, you are an impartial and fair admin. Are you able to keep an eye on this vote? - Ta bu shi da yu 8 July 2005 07:15 (UTC)

I appreciate the compliment, but I am not an admin. Dragons flight July 8, 2005 07:29 (UTC)

This WILL affect legitimate editors, merely leaving the page where it is would be 'laying the whole vfd thing to rest', the vfd process has been followed 5 times previously, this seems alot like double standards for articles you find offensive. Adamn 8 July 2005 08:46 (UTC)

Libertarianism and User:Alfrem

I am not sure whether this should go here or to the incidents page. However, Alfrem continues reverting, but does it very slowly so as to evade the 3RR. I have asked for a temporary injunction against his editing of Libertarianism, but no ArbCom members have replied as yet. On the off chance that they will see this on the noticeboard, I am asking them to respond as soon as possible. - Ta bu shi da yu 8 July 2005 04:23 (UTC)

User:Vorash and friends

I am having serious difficulty with User:Vorash and various mostly anon associates who keep trying to remove important, documented, and referenced information from LimeWire. Limewire is a well-known spyware application that has infected countless thousands of computers around the world. It is claimed that the latest version is now spyware-free (which may well be true), nevertheless, it is a product with a documented track record for doing harm to computer users, and which is best known for its harmful activity. This, in other words, is not a dispute about how one describes a particular computer program, it is a matter that goes right to the heart of Wikipedia's responsibility to its readers - i.e., we cannot allow links to or publicty for known viruses or spyware or other harmful products without clearly warning the reader first.

By the way, my qualifications may be relevant: I have worked with computers for more than 25 years, and for the last 14 years have been in charge of a computer repair workshop. We have met this particularly nasty program many times, and have had much practice at removing it, using the standard spyware detection and removal tools. But don't take my word for it: hit Google and see for yourself.

(PS: as a matter of detail, I have no commercial barrow to push here: the more people get infected with spyware, the more money I make removing it. But it is a responsibility we should all take seriously.)

Tannin 8 July 2005 16:21 (UTC)

This appears to be a content dispute and a bunch of reverts. I don't see a whole lot of strong evidence(I haven't read everything on the issue in detail), but most of them seem to say the program stopped installing Limeshop in 2004. Pointing us to a google search doesn't help us because we don't know what of those are reliable. I would suggest gathering the highest quality evidence you can that supports the software still being spyware or adware. If it is not, then putting it in the spyware category as if it still is is incorrect. That's all besides the point though because I don't see the major conflict here, nor any reason for admin action. This page is not for content disputes. - Taxman ^Talk July 8, 2005 16:47 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Searchsize

Hi,

Kate was kind enough to create MediaWiki:Searchsize. I am unable to edit that page. I would like to change '$1KB ($2 words)' to '$1 kB ($2 words)'.

It would then

match the Wikipedia guidance to put a space before the unit symbol
match the case sensitive SI prefix by using 'k' rather than 'K'.

Would anyone be able to make the change for me? Bobblewik (talk) 8 July 2005 18:51 (UTC)

I did. r3m0t ^talk 21:40, July 9, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Bobblewik (talk) 10:07, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Newbies

Do administrators have the power of "deleting" a user account? User:Newbies is not an active account (as stated in the talk page), and its creator, User:Fvw, seems to have left Wikipedia (last edit in April). The account of User:Newbies is preventing anyone from viewing both Special:Contributions/Newbies and Special:Contributions/newbies, which used to show contributions of newly registered users. This is quite odd, because the special contributions of newly registered people was working fine approximately a month ago, and now whenever I click on it, it takes me to the contributions of User:Newbies. Thank you for taking a look at this issue! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 9 July 2005 16:16 (UTC)

Administrators cannot delete user accounts- they can only block them. Although a developer should be able to, Wikipedia:Account deletion says that "It is not possible for your edits to be removed entirely." It is also against policy to do so. I'd say it's much easier to just fix the bug than delete the account. Is there anything to stop somebody from creating the account again? -Frazzydee|✍ 9 July 2005 16:40 (UTC)

Oh, thanks for the info! I really don't mind the account being there, but the Special contributions for newbies used to be a great tool for leaving welcome messages to new users. Is there any way I can still access that? Thanks! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 9 July 2005 16:56 (UTC)

P.S. What if the user page of User:Newbies and the anon IP page that he edited was deleted? Those are his only edits (2 to his user page, one to an anon IP page). Would admins be able to remove the account, or would the link to Special:Contributions/newbies return to the "right" one?

I deleted both, and no dice. It does not seem the "cascade through" to do a real listing of newbies' contributions. We may have to report this bug to developers. Fuzheado | Talk 21:59, 9 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 01:39, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Trouble with the English "Contact Us"

The English "Contact Us" seems to have a bug of sorts. For some reason, apparently random snippets seem to pop up in the Improving articles portion of the page. I've tried to remove the "static" and rewrite the section a little, but it has reverted to buggy version.

Could someone have a look at this?

It looks to me like you've fixed it just fine - thanks for doing that! If you were seeing the old bad version showing up even after your edits, perhaps it was an issue with your browser cache or something? But it certainly looks good now. —Stormie 03:41, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

Is wikipedia going to be as "fair and objective" as Zionist-controlled Western Media?

This discussion has been purged into the page history (see diff). As it clearly says at the top of this page, this page is not for content disputes. If someone wants to recover the dispute from the page history and move it to the appropriate discussion page, it is allowable to provde a link to the discussion here. Rossami (talk) 16:14, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal

There is a proposal (by SimonP) to move templates such as "AID" and "Expansion" to talk pages instead of articles. This is discussed at Template talk:Expansion. SimonP is currently unilaterally moving the templates on random articles. ~~~~ 12:24, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See also: Wikipedia:Template locations. --cesarb 15:46, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Requests for rollback

Hiya, I'd be grateful if admins could take a look at Wikipedia:Requests for rollback and offer some feedback. The proposal is basically a toned-down version of RfA, granting just the rollback feature to people who request it and receive 5 support votes. Talrias (t | e | c) 17:00, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Viewing an article's deletion history

When an article has been deleted, the admin can look at the full history showing all edits, deletions and restores by following the "undelete" button. When an article has been deleted and re-created, I can still click on the "view or restore X deleted edits" link and see the same thing. When an article has been deleted and restored, however, the pagehistory only shows the edits. The deletions and restores (and accompanying edit summaries) are not visible. Is there a way to see the same deletion log when the article has been deleted and restored? Rossami (talk) 17:34, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Log/delete. --cesarb 17:45, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Question about genocidal death threats

A user using the IP 24.203.49.123 keeps adding sections calling for genocide in the "Arab" article [3]. He has done this twice so far. I'm wondering if this guy can be blocked because the stuff he's saying is far beyond NPOV and is basically a genocidal death threat.Heraclius 21:39, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So far, the anon has made exactly two edits, both to the same section of that article and both immediately reverted. The two edits were made 4 days apart. You and Func both left comments on the Talk page - one for each time. The IP address traces back to a Quebec-based ISP. (I can't tell yet whether this IP is assigned statically or dynamically.) Blocking of anonymous IPs is usually time-limited and intended only to break a cycle of rapid vandalism. It doesn't look like that would be effective in this case. The block would expire before the vandal returns. I don't think there is nearly a strong enough pattern to justify a perma-block yet. I think you've done the right thing by keeping the article on your watchlist and warning the user on the anon talk page. Rossami (talk) 22:27, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Do image uploads show up on user contributions lists?

In answer to my own question it would appear not. See image:Zscout370_ribbar.png] and JacksonBrown's contribution list. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 14:35, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Edits to the image description page show on Special:Contributions; edits to the image itself (uploads and reverts) show on the upload log. --cesarb 16:28, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

More surprisingly, if someone uploads another image on top of yours, it won't show up in your watch list unless they also modify the image description page. I've also noticed that now you can fill out a reasonably complete description in the Summary box of the upload page, you are quite likely to avoid making an edit that would put the image description page on your watchlist (at least on Commons, I haven't uploaded to En for a while). There is a good chance that many new images aren't being watched by anyone. - Solipsist 17:19, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is bad, A vandal could probably do quite a bit of damage by only changing images. We need to be alert and check the logs as well as the user contributions of anyone we catch in the act. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 22:04, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Archive time

I'm not sure who usually does this or what the criteria are for what gets put on the archive and what gets thrown out, but both this page and AN/I could use some snipping of outdated threads. R adiant _>|< 21:47, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

I would ask TBSDY. I have a hunch he knows how to do it. --cesarb 23:46, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've done it a couple of time I just cut and paste the lot.Geni 01:41, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I used to do all the archiving, but I recently hit the wall and found myself unable to force myself to do it any more. It was using up so much time I didn't have time to work on articles, and I really wanted to be able to do that. I've just posted a request on the Talk: page for someone else to take over. Noel (talk) 02:17, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Need help dealing with copyvio removal request

I have been trying to handle a request for immidate removal posted by a certain Tex Rexin. I have contacted him and have removed another section of the shoe size article per his request. He has stated that he is "considering legal action" and that is is angry over this. I replied that Wikipedia does not welcome posting of copyrighted material. I suggested that he contact Jimbo Wales. He also wants to know who posted the material.

I fear I have gotten a tad out of my depth. Any assistance is welcome. Gwk 19:21, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I can see nothing but the posting on Wikipedia:Request for immediate removal of copyright violation and the reply, and the removal itself, and it looks fine. The only edits by the anon were to that page and the article itself. Was the discussion via email? --cesarb 19:34, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it was. I can send it to you, if you like. Gwk 19:37, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think then it would be better take the issue to the mailing lists or even to the board. I think it has gone beyone normal administrator responsabilities. --cesarb 19:46, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

edit conflict - adding the comment anyway
Other than the assertion placed in the article and the complaint left on Wikipedia:Request for immediate removal of copyright violation, both by an anonymous editor, what evidence do you have that this is, in fact, a copyright violation? Looking at the version added to the article on 6 May 2005 and the external site named by the anon, I see quite a few differences in content, format, layout, etc. Many of those changes are quite minor but some seem significant. This was clearly not a simple cut-and-paste addition of copyrighted material into Wikipedia.

The information itself is a compilation of material in the public domain. I find the anon's assertion that "The chart and other materials is the result of extensive and difficult research" to be of low credibility. I can look in any number of publicly available places for shoe sizes and how they match up to alternative measures. A google search for 'shoe size conversion' returned many hits, almost all relevant and very few derivative of his website. From our copyright article, "Compilations of facts or data may also be copyrighted, but such a copyright is thin; it only applies to the particular selection and arrangement of the facts, not to the particular facts themselves."

I'm not a copyright lawyer but it doesn't look like this guy has a very strong claim. I'd recommend reversing the edit and tell him to contact Wikipedia's designated agent. If Jimbo or his team find that a real copyvio was committed, they can pull it and also clean up the article history. Rossami (talk) 20:01, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jayjg - Tshilo12

User Jayjg removed a link to the HKT organisation on the HKT disambiguation page, only because his friend HKT is using a similar nickname on Wiki... (is it vandalism?)--Witkacy 22:37, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please take also a look on Tshilo12 reverts.--Witkacy 23:38, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason you added it to the article in the first place was to harrass User:HKT; you even discussed it publicly beforehand. It's a dubious usage; the group may have been nicknamed "The Hakata Society", but "HKT" doesn't appear to have been used. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:42, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and here's where they first hatched their "amusing" little plot against User:HKT: [4]. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:48, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The short name of that organisation is HKT/H-K-T, members were called "HKTisten (in German)/HKTists

"...The HKT, or Hakata, were German chauvinists, organized in 1894 for the purpose of eradicating the Polish elements in Poznan province. The leaders of the group were Hahnemann, Kennemann, and Tiedemann..."

See http://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1909/national-question/ch02.htm

Ethnic conflicts in western Poland "...Children became the peculiarly favored butt of the H. K. T. assaults. In schools they were flogged for speaking or praying in Polish..." --Witkacy 00:09, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"German fears of losing Prussian Poland led to the establishment of the "Ostmarkenverein," (Eastern Marches Association) in 1892. Poles called it the H-K-T or "Hakata" (pron.Hahkahtah), because it was headed by three German landowners: Hanneman, Kennemann, and Tiedemann."

http://raven.cc.ku.edu/~eceurope/hist557/lect6.htm (University of Kansas) --Witkacy 00:12, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Witkacy, this is becoming absurd. You have yet to demonstrate that HKT is an acronym that belongs in the ENGLISH Wikipedia. Tomer ^TALK 00:33, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

In case you can't figure out what I'm talking about, review those sources -- they clarify for the non-German-speaker and non-historian what the acronym means. Including HKT here is analogous to including de:usw as USW. Tomer ^TALK 00:52, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Please note that it is a personal crusade against me started by Jayjg and TShilo12 since the Anti-Polonism voting (they are not really interested in the subject)--Witkacy 01:03, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing personal about this from my end (I'll let Jay speak for himself). I am interested only in improving WP. On the other hand, Witkacy has, on numerous occasions, engaged in making personal attacks as well as in making trollish reverts to previous (and inaccurate) versions of articles, is maintaining a page of what he apparently regards as "interesting" things said to, by, or about me elsewhere, meanwhile Jay has become involved because I asked him whether or not my nomination for VfD on Anti-Polonism were as horribly inappropriate as the completely unrelated (to my nomination) comments on that VfD page made it seem. My nomination apparently stirred up a hornets nest, and Witkacy, it appears, is chief hornet. At this point, I see no alternative but to request comment, not only on the activities of Witkacy, but also on User:TheUnforgiven, who has inserted himself (whether at Witkacy's request or otherwise I won't even bother to conjecture) into this ongoing dispute. Tomer ^TALK 01:09, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

On the other hand, Witkacy has, on numerous occasions, engaged in making personal attacks as well as in making trollish reverts to previous (and inaccurate) versions of articles.

I see you are trying to provoke me...:)--Witkacy 01:28, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AGF. Tomer ^TALK 02:42, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Talk:German Eastern Marches Society, User_talk:Witkacy#Be_Aware...However it looks like Jayjg may be calming down because I have not run away scared by his bullying and attempts at censorship from his friends like this here: User_talk:TheUnforgiven#Personal_attacks. If I can help a guy out, why not? TheUnforgiven 01:59, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I'm hoping you've calmed down and are desisting from your wildly inappropriate edits and Talk: comments. However, I'm not seeing much evidence of that. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:08, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - When you stop systematically harrassing random people for editing things related to your watchlist, then I will stop commenting on your rude and uncouth behaviour as described about your buddy User:TShilo12 here: Talk:German Eastern Marches Society. TheUnforgiven 02:11, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - WP:AGF, WP:Civility, WP:NPA. Tomer ^TALK 02:42, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Geography category page

Category:Geography has been locked for over two months due to petty vandalism back then. However, I think it's time it is unlocked because no other main category pages are locked (they don't need to be) and us geography people need to do some work on the page and update it with the new services for geographers and writers. We have been planning to revamp this entry page somewhat and make it more interesting on the discussion page but not admin has come by to unlock it. We hope somebody here can help us! --komencanto 02:01, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Done. It was protected since May 11, so I think the vandalism has ceased. Bratsche^{talk 5 pillars} 02:34, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

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