Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome – post issues of interest to administrators.

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

• If you cannot edit this page, it may be protected. Please leave a message here instead.

Piotrus incident: policy corrections needed either way

I am seeking comment on an incident that is nothing but an extraordinary outcome from the inconsistent application of policies and administrative philosophy.

• At 18:34 GMT, March 12, User:Piotrus was reported for violation of WP:3RR at WP:AN3.[1]
• User:TigerShark blocked User:Piotrus at 23:05 GMT, March 12, 2008 (see block log) and reported the block at WP:AN3 at 23:07 GMT.[2]
• At 04:20 GMT, March 13, having served little more than 5 of the 24 hours, User:Piotrus' friend User:Zscout370 unblocked User:Piotrus with the following rationale: "I looked at the diffs, both parties are guilty and he was also dealing with IP edits and possible vandalism. Just work it out". No unblocking message with the unblocking rationale was posted and there were no reference to a rationale being an outcome of a discussion that took place elsewhere (we still old-fashionedly assume that whatever takes place at IRC, the wiki-actions need to be justified onwiki, save exceptional (OTRS, RFCU) cases.

After the unblock, the user who filed an original complaint, politely contacted the unblocking admin for clarification. From the discussions that took place later, Request of clarification, IRC unblock and 3RR comments (I am giving permanent links above and below, but please check the current versions for later updates), we can figure out the following course of events:

• Piotrus, himself an administrator, engaged in rabid edit-warring against two different editors and an IP account. He also abused his rollback privilege to revert disputed content edits and typo corrections (permalink)
• After a 3RR report ( permalink, please check for discussion updates) User:Piotrus was blocked for 24 hours by Tigershark
• User:Piotrus courted for an unblocking on the #admins IRC. ("asked in a general channel to all admins, then those willing to take on the case were sent PM's".[3]) and User:Zscout370 agreed to review it. He claimed that [by IRCPM] he strongly warned and cautioned User:Piotrus to just sit down and start discussing.[4]
• Sometime later, according to User:TigerShark, User:Piotrus contacted User:TigerShark on the IRC and said[5] "that he was too experienced for the 3RR rules to apply to him and that he had managed to convince an admin to unblock him at IRC" and then "lectured" User:TigerShark "on the risk of being de-admined", and that User:TigerShark "was lucky he [Piotrus] had woken up in good mood".
• Piotrus, then makes an outrageous allegation at RFCU that two of his long time content opponents resorted to sockpuppetry after their many years of WP contributions

Besides the specific instance of edit warring and rollback abuse, largely obsolete since stopped and already processed at 3RR, we still have issues that require clarification or the policies correction (disregarding, since this is an ethics issue on which opinions vary, Piotrus' usual resorting to behind the scenes action)

1. problematic unblocking, even if good faithed. It may well be regarded as OK for an admin to undo another admin's action (unblock), and often the agreement of the blocking admin is not sought (often for a reason), but this is usually done only after some discussion has taken place, especially if the admin is unblocking a wiki-friend. The latter condition rather excludes the possibility for a unilateral unblock taken without onwiki discussion (except for undoing an obvious abuse) which could potentially cause a lot of bad faith. Similarly a history of animosity is supposed to exclude unilateral blocking, save blatant editing abuse. Perhaps our policies are not clear enough and require elaboration.
2. lack of posted rationale Even in cases where unilateral unblock is appropriate, the complete rationale is needed. The unblock rationale was flatly lacking here. Neither the explanation for the unblock, nor the warning, nor the reference took place on wiki. Remember, you're not supposed to "refer" to the off-wiki discussion, exceptional cases aside, and if such discussion took place the explanation of the action should be fully given onwiki. Several policies mention the need of on-wiki rationale for wiki actions. Should we make it more conspicuous?
3. spurious unblock summary that says "both parties are guilty and he was also dealing with IP edits and possible vandalism." This was clearly a content dispute and there were no instances of anything even in the same universe as vandalism. This can be verified by anyone who cares to check the diffs The only thing to suggest vandalism was User:Piotrus's use of rollback during his reverts (you will notice that among the content changes Piotrus rolled back were English and typo corrections, e.g. the rollback restored electional for electoral, vicinage for vicinity and Enlightment for Enlightenment.) As for "both parties" ... as User"TigerShark commented ... how is this exonerating? Anyway, WP:BLOCK does not say anything about the unblocking summaries. Perhaps because many think that common sense is enough. Is it?
4. Further, Piotrus' attacking TigerShark, boasting being unblocked, threatening and claiming one's being above policies . This is clearly a problem. Credit must be given to User:TigerShark for keeping his cool about this.
5. Frivolously insisting on checkusering. This is more serious than AGF. This is also a privacy issue. While it is important that everyone is able to request checkuser without repercussions, should there be sanctions for clearly frivolous requests? We cannot rely on checkusers' simply rejecting them. This is an abuse of their time and, largely because they lack time already, they may not be able to investigate the validity of every request to see its merit. Again, this is just common sense and perhaps follows under general disruption but it happens. Someone requested a checkuser on me for being a sock of someone who I took to arbcom. So, it happens now and then and seems like common sense is not enough.

Please see (permalinks may need updating) Zscout's talk [6] [7] and 3RR thread for the fuller context.

If all or some of the events listed are acceptable, the community should authorize them and change those policy wordings which now either suggest to the contrary or are silent (which is not good enough in view of above). If it is not acceptable, the community has to do something and cover some of these things, such as use of IRC, RFCU, BLOCKing and unblocking in the policy. Thank you for your time. --Irpen 20:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

While a checkuser was asked, it wasn't asked in a frivolous manner. I have seen at least 5 checkusers asked for a day, and that is only when I am on. Pretty much, when I looked at the unblock policy, they listed email and other admin review to check as acceptable means. So discussion doesn't have to occur on wiki to say yay or nay for blocks and unblocks. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 20:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment Thanks for this Irpen. I did notice these events, and made a brief comment (as you probably saw) on WP:AN3RR. You are certainly correct that these procedures need clarified, esp. for guys like me who are new admins. I think many would find the way this was conducted quite outrageous, esp. those concerned with the potentially subversive role of the IRC not to mention TigerShark who, as far as the evidence is concerned, was overruled without being consulted for no apparently good reason. I do agree the unblock rationale was weak to say the least.

Certainly you're correct that no vandalism was involved, and Piotrus was besides the only one to violate 3RR. Sure other users there were reverting, but the 3-revert rule is there for a reason ... it is an absolute maximum. If 3RR is only to be apllied when only one user is reverting, you might as well get rid of it. In Reality-land (as opposed to Shouldbe-land) content disputes happen, and 3RR is good way for reducing its inevitable impact. I really think more admins ought to read Wikipedia:Three_revert_rule_enforcement, and linked pages thereof, to get an idea of how and why this rule came into existence.

So I share your concern about the procedure, esp. if Zscout and Piotrus are known friends (which I couldn't say).

As for Piotrus' use of rollback, I'm sure this must have been a one-off mistake. Mis-hit the button? The alleged intimitation of TigerShark by Piotrus would be concerning, but I can't believe for a moment that Piotrus would do this. Maybe miscommunication?

But to return to the main point, indeed, clarification of policy concerning this kind of thing is indeed needed. I strongly hope this will be forthcoming. I'd also like either 1) Zscout comment on his interpretation of Wikipedia:Unblock#Unblocking and explanation of how he used it in this situation or 2) the latter be changed to sanction these events. We certainly can't have a situtation where such a strongly worded policy is routinely ignored by admins, esp. in order to unblock their friends via IRC. We have to remember that wikipedia operates on trust and mutual respect between users, the fair application of policy, particularly in regard to administrator actions. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:53, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I stand by what I have said about anonymous editor (whom I reverted, and the reverts were counted towards 3RR) being disruptive and trolling on several related articles. I have raised this on admin IRC, several admins commented, the consensus apparently was to unblock me and block the anonymous editor.

I am disappointed by TigerShark's behavior; he was rather incivil in his email replies to me, and apparently both misinterpreted my emails and quoted parts of them out of context. That said, I consider his behavior (and judgment) 'water under the bridge' - I don't know TigerShark well enough and everybody is allowed to err now and often. There is however another editor whose behavior is more problematic:

User:Irpen has been found in the recent arbcom to have often been in conflict with me; and to have acted uncivil on numerous occasions (do note that the arbcom has not found anything wrong with my behavior). The ArbCom has even discussed a restriction on Irpen preventing him from interacting with me. This incident represents an unfortunately common pattern (discussed in the linked arbcom): Irpen following my edits, commenting on discussions unrelated to him (but related to me) and fanning the flames in discussions involving me. I find Irpen's report here and criticism of me to be highly unjustified, and if anything merits attention, it's not how I was reverting disruptive edits of an anon and a likely sock, but his stalking of my person.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:54, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Sysops do not have any special privileges regarding unblocks over any other editor. If you want to contest a block then I suggest the use of the {{unblock|''your reason here''}} option, rather than canvassing #admins for an unblock. I would comment that I believe using #admins an abuse of process, in that there is not the transparency apparent in using the unblock template - and that those admins on IRC unwilling to unblock are not represented. If I found that an admin I had blocked, in good faith, had got themselves unblocked by using such a method I would immediately re-instate the block and review the actions of the unblocking sysop, too.

I realise that people can make mistakes, but that should not be compounded by acting outside of process - if there were good reasons to contest the block it should have been made at the time using the unblock facility. You condescending attitude toward a fellow admin, Tigershark, is noted.

Whatever your feelings toward Irpen, this is a proper bringing of a concern to the Admins Noticeboard. Commenting on the history between you and this (other) admin does not begin to address your apparent disdain for practice and procedure in the manner by which you went off site to have yourself unblocked. Nothing you have said justifies your actions here.

I shall notify Zscout370 of this discussion, and invite their views on this matter. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I already posted above, so I am aware of this. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 21:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

So you have. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:30, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

And, as I pointed out on my talk page, I been asked to clarify a few hours after the unblock but didn't get to it until I woke up the next morning. A lot of what you want me to say here I have already said to MK and Irpen on my talk page. Yes, off-wiki discussion happens a lot about block making or block reducing. I remember being at #wikipedia and kicking users out for asking for unblocks. Later on, I was asked not to do that anymore, so it became a place to unofficially (at least on wiki) to ask for unblocks. It's like trying to email a user, except you get more faster responses. I personally think with these articles on Eastern Europe (which I also edit), there is a lot of gaming by IP addresses and arbcom cases abound. I personally felt that it was strange for an IP address to make one or two changes, then a new account comes in and takes over. I have seen this before and other admins choose not to block in this manner. As for not talking to TigerShark, there has been a lot of decisions involving me that pretty much occurring without my knowledge. It is SOP for admins not to speak to each other with regards to blocks, or anything else for that manner, unless it is mandated by ArbCom decision (such as with BLP's). I have said all I wish to say for right now here, but I can address specific concerns at my talk page where I can focus on yall one by one. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 21:37, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I have just reviewed Wikipedia:Appealing a block. I note the allowed use of the unblock option on the talkpage, contacting the blocking admin by email, and referring the block to ArbCom. While it is noted that Piotrus did contact Tigershark on IRC, it appears that it was after the block was lifted and the discussion reported did not seem to be one of seeking clarification. If there has been the practice of not contacting the blocking admin then I missed that memo, and the policy page seems similarly uninformed. I note that #admins is an appropriate venue to discuss blocks one wishes to place or have placed, but not as a place to have ones own overturned. This is not looking great from where I am standing. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:54, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Zscout, I can only speak for myself here, but I don't find your explanation acceptable atm. Could you please comment on Wikipedia:Unblock#Unblocking. This is policy, and it contradicts your last assertions. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I have said all I want to say on the unblock itself and the unblocking policy. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 22:29, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• Blocking admins for technical infringements is not usually a very productive way of handling a dispute, even someone with opinions as strong as Piotrus' can usually be stopped from making an ass of themselves by some less extreme means, such as emailing them and reminding them not to make themselves look silly. So I don't have a problem with Zscout's unblock, honestly it was no big deal and was evidently done in good faith. Piotrus' retaliatory accusations and IRC comments, though, are a bit more of an issue. Guy (Help!) 22:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• Admins are not exempt from 3RR. Reverting blocks issued to admins because they are admins (which isn't what anyone claims has happened) for 3RR violations undermines the preventative value of the 3RR and of course creates an impression of unfairness. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• Nobody is. But any long-standing contributor who steps over the 3RR line and then indicates that they won't do it again, should be unblocked. Blocks are preventive, not punitive. Thise of us with more than a few months' editing (and discounting the seasoned edit warriors) will normally calm down and realise we've been daft; serving out a block for a technical offence is not really required in such cases unless we genuinely think that letting the block stand will serve to prevent further disruption. Guy (Help!) 00:02, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• I am less concerned with Zscout370's unblock - although a comprehensive unblock rationale would have been nice - than the way that the unblock was requested. If it was an obviously poor block, and I have no opinion on that although I AGF of Tigershark reasons, then it could be clearly stated in the unblock request on the blockees talkpage. I get tired of telling people that sysops have no more editing rights than other users, only for a sysop go and do something that gives admin bashers more ammunition. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:23, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• Looking at it myself my problem with the unblock is the assertion that it is SOP for admins not to talk with each other about blocks. I was asked about this on my RFA last year and I am sure if I had not said that I would discuss unblocking with the blocking admin as per policy the RFA would have failed very easily. Davewild (talk) 22:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Admins must be help to a higher standard level than editors for the simple reason that admins have been entrusted by the community. If an admin edit wars and violates 3RR then they must serve the entire length of the block. Bstone (talk) 23:00, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Per Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Unblocking, "[a]dministrators should not unblock users blocked in good faith by other administrators without first attempting to contact the blocking administrator and discuss the matter with them. It may not necessarily be obvious what the problem necessitating blocking was, and it is a matter of courtesy and common sense to consult the blocking administrator. If the blocking administrator is not available, or if the administrators cannot come to an agreement, then a discussion at the administrators' noticeboard is recommended." Neither of these appears to have taken place here. Secondly, Piotrus was blocked as an editor. Regardless of whether the block was right or wrong, his adminship is irrelevant, because he wasn't blocked as an admin. Aecis^Brievenbus 23:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• So s/admin/longstanding editor/ and the point stands. Did anyone try to remind Piotrus before he hit the third revert, that it was time to take a deep breath? Guy (Help!) 00:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

PS to my post above - there is one thing I forgot to add, and perhaps this point is the most relevant to those who are new to admin powers and 3RR. The 3RR rule is not meant as a punishment; it is a preventative tool. It is supposed to be used to stop an editor who shows no signs of stopping in a revert war. Now, it should be relatively clear from my contribs/page that I know when to stop - it is not that the 'experienced contributors are 3RR immune', it is that 'they usually know better'. Whether one agrees I was reverting an anon vandal or disagree, the right thing to do in such a case is to (semi)protect the page and drop me a warning I may be going to far. The wrong thing to do is to prevent me from creating content, which I do on a daily basis (right after my unblock, which thankfully happened a few minutes after I realized it, I went on the to write another DYK). I used IRC because it was the fastest way to ensure I would be able to create content, I had checked out materials (a book and journal articles) in front of me, time to write a new article right there and than and did not want to waste it waiting for an email or wikispace reply. Do note that after my unblock I did not edit war on that page again but I went to create content (which as anyone who would review my contribs would note is my standard editing pattern). The bottom line is that we are here to build an encyclopedia - and not to create bureaucratic empire and wikilawyer over intricacies of a policy; the block was not helpful - since I would not have reverted on that page again anyway (I thought I was at, not over my 3RR limit there) - but it would be preventing me from creating content. Yes, TigerShark acted according to the letter of the law, but I believe that the spirit of the law is much more important here (per WP:IAR, WP:BURO and so on). Once the letter of the law takes over, I am afraid the Wikipedia project will collapse in the mess of wikilawyering and bureaucracy. I am glad to see it is not yet the case, and I intend to create much more content before (if ever) that happens. Now, I think I have said all I indent to here; no disrespect to any who posted here or will, but I am off to create more content :)--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 03:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Analysis

I have looked into this case carefully. Summary and thoughts follow.

Facts of the edit war

This was an edit war via reversion, between Halibutt (talk · contribs) and Piotrus (talk · contribs) on one side, and M.K (talk · contribs) and 62.212.208.65 (talk · contribs) on the other. It took place between 9 - 14 March at Republic of Central Lithuania, and the initial focus was the unannounced attempt to change "Vilnius" to "Vilna" by Halibutt, and its reversion by MK, followed by a 3 day revert war between the two gorups of two. A few other edits were done, also "part of the general revert war". Both sides claimed the other was a "distortion". None of the four seem to be sockpuppets; and none of the four acted well. All edit warred.

Piotrus, an administrator, was reported to WP:AN/3RR by MK, an opposing editor who had not breached 3RR but had edit warred (as they all had).

The report was valid and Piotrus was blocked by TigerShark, an administrator since 2006, for 3RR, but TigerShark did not go beyond the obvious to see if anyone else was at fault for edit warring, probably since nobody else had been reported at 3RR. Other administrators Dmcdevit and Stifle blocked 62.212.208.65 and Halibutt respectively, for edit warring too. (MK was not blocked, although equally involved.) During the edit war, users on each side had each called each others edits "distortion" and on one occasion each, "OR" and "vandalism". Piotrus also called his and halibutt's the "preferred version" although in fact the version he called "preferred" was not the stable version at all for this article, but the new version created by Halibutt that triggered the edit war. The article had been stable from 9 March, back to 24 December (with only about 4 edits in that time), up to the point Halibutt first edited"Vilius" to "Vilna".

IRC

I have reviewed the channel logs on IRC and can therefore comment on the next step. The logs themselves are private obviously.

Roughly speaking, Piotrus states he has been blocked and that the block was placed by someone criticized for blocks at arbcom and suspected on an RFCU of IP puppetry on the article in question. He states that being blocked for reverting vandals is not good and claims that as an "experienced admin" he should be warned and does not deserve blocking. He describes the incident as possible sock IP(s) making disruptive edits and states the two users are "pov trolls" who have been parties at Arbcom, and that he knows they are sockpuppets and he is mostly sure he knows who of. Two admins mostly respond to help him, Zscout370 and another. The other mildly reproaches Piotrus for reverting spelling and non-proper-word fixes by another user during the edit war, which is unhelpful, and states the reversions were fairly poor quality edits even if there was an edit war going on. (ZScout370 states he will help fix them on-wiki). Zscout370 - likely in good faith - also decides to unblock Piotrus. In his unblock Zscout370 states "both parties are guilty and he was also dealing with IP edits and possible vandalism".

Other comments

This was the end of the actual dispute visible to me. Discussion on Zscout370's talk page and ANI took place, in which Irpen commented. Further statements made (summed up) were:

• Piotrus to TigerShark (according to TigerShark) - "Piotrus contacted me and told me that he was too experienced for the 3RR rules to apply to him and that he had managed to convince an admin to unblock him at IRC, and then lectured me on the risk of being de-admined and told me that I was lucky he had woken up in good mood. I do note that the admin who unblocked him still felt that he had violated 3RR, but felt that other parties had too (not really a reason to unblock)." [8]

• Zscout370 - "3RR is always discretionary, so what one admin thinks violates 3RR another might not think. Piotrus discussed with me the problem and asked if I or other admins can look at it. I did look at it and I personally feel that an IP address started all of this, then got a new account so it could avoid 3RR. So that was my justification for the unblock. As for who the IP address belongs do, I do not have the ability to check that" [9]. "If I can be frank, this is an issue that happens a lot on Eastern European articles (I work on Belarusian articles) so I know the possible gaming tactics. He asked in a general channel to all admins, then those willing to take on the case were sent PM's" [10]

Analysis

Nobody really acted well here. The four users all edit warred, and especially, Piotrus joined the existing edit war rather than (as an administrator) acting in an admin capacity, to calm it, or help it finish. TigerShark correctly acted in blocking Piotrus (in my view) but could probably have thought to check if others were edit warring (not just WP:3RR) so it wasn't just one sided; warn all four of them to cease the edit war (in fact they did at that time anyway), and perhaps drop Piotrus a note to help him think about how as an admin he could have helped better.

A weakness here was that everyone just thought in terms of WP:3RR. Wikipedia:Edit war is policy too, and clear edit warring (which this very obviously was) is not okay even if it is under 4 reverts a day.

Piotrus I feel did act improperly, but this should have been caught. Visiting IRC to ask for an unblock is fine, as would emailing unblock-l be. But his descriptions of why are grossly inaccurate, his statement that he should have different treatment from the norm when in fact he has breached a more demanding standard as an admin is slightly shocking, and his description of his opponents is questionable, and in fact has now been looked at by two checkusers who feel it is not by any means evident. (It should be noted that I am AGFing a bit here by assuming Piotrus genuinely did have this belief.) He also described a new version as "the preferred version" when in fact it was only his preferred version. In fact a more factual analysis of his claims are that these were not "vandalism" by any definition in WP:VANDAL; there is no 3RR exemption for reverting edit warriors (although there is for obvious vandalism); there is no slacker standard for "experienced admins" compared to any other user (indeed they should know better not worse).... almost everything stated was inaccurate. (A further observation is an apparent over-certainty, which comes over in the way he tells an anon editor "dear anon, please consider registering and not participating in edit wars", declares the new version "the preferred version" for this article, and so on.)

Zscout370 does not check this carefully, and states that 3RR is "discretionary" and that an "IP editor" started it and that the IP then got a new account to avoid 3RR. This is fairly good corroborative evidence that he probably relied upon Piotrus, since a look at the page history shows clearly that in fact Zscout was wrong on almost every particular, and his errors followed Piotrus' description on IRC. In fact Halibutt (not an IP) started the edit war, and prior to the edit war there had been only 4 edits in the 2.5 months from Dec 24 - Mar 9... only one of those was by an IP, and that IP made one edit that was not at issue in the edit war. Also the IP that was warring, joined the edit war after its co-warrior MK, so it didn't "get a new account". Further, whilst anything can be IAR'ed, the disregard for edit warring is not really okay, and one doesn't unblock a user because some other user wasn't blocked too. Edit warring bad. That said if Zscout370 honestly did believe Piotrus then he would have been right to unblock; the problem was he essentially overturned another admins block on the say-so of the blockee, who for whatever reason did not describe it accurately... and he never checked. In any practical sense, Irpen was right to comment he was duped, but that would never have been a problem if he had done his job properly and checked (or at least, consulted).

Summary

What do I think should happen? Its a week now since the incident, and the matter is stale, the edit war over. I think those involved -- the 3 non-admin edit warriors and Piotrus -- should reflect hard on their actions, and if similar matters come up again consider that their actions may gain more scrutiny since they were not okay this time. Zscout370 who acted in good faith but poor judgement and didn't check for himself... also learn from it. I don't propose to take any action. I don't see the need right now, and we don't do "punitive" here. But there are lessons, for sure.

As always, if anything here is factually in error or unfair, please let me know and I'll correct myself. It is a complex edit war and perhaps possible that I have missed something.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 09:03, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

About blocking for 3RR violations I've seen several different approaches - there's the traditional block of the violator(s) usually for the traditional 24h if the violator has knowledge of the rule, but there's also been the warning of one party, the warning of both parties, the decision to block none, the blocking of both parties or the protection of the page. All of these can favour or disfavour persons and I'm not going to argue which rule is the better one and if one particular rule to deal with violations should be generally adopted at all. My point is simply that a sysop has pretty much free choice, that much is simply decided by their judgement. Again, I'm not saying that this is necessarily wrong, but in this current situation of having more or less a free hand, I think that this power mustn't be misused under personal favouritism.

It was at least questionable unblocking Piotrus, who had then been behaving quite admin-unlike, reverting content-related changes on eleven different pages as far as 24h prior to the report were concerned, generally not marking content-related reverts (except when misusing the rollback function three times), little or no discussion and overstepping 3RR twice (once self-reverting after the 4th). (Shortly after being unblocked again, Piotrus further reverted twice at History of Lithuania.) The other circumstances pointed out throughout the topic add to it. TigerShark is a regular at the 3RR board and had no previous encounters with Piotrus as far I can see. But Piotrus and Zscout370 have had several (very friendly) ones, including when either was under fire: [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] What has happened here - using a murky one-to-one IRC conversation with someone (or several?) friendly-inclined to get unblocked rather than the standardised neutral and transparent approaches - is plainly wrong. Sciurinæ (talk) 13:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

FT2, your summary of events matches my understanding and is very clear and coherent. Thank you!

Regarding 3RR, I personally am not of the opinion that users involved in content disputes should be terrorized into not reporting 3RR violations. A large chunk of the reports on WP:AN3RR are users reporting their content dispute "opponents". WP:AN3RR is the main instrument by which 3RR violations are monitored, the rule itself enforced and thus the "electric fence" upheld. Do we really want to cut the hand that feeds it, or rather, cut the power to the electric fence?

Frankly, contrary to what some people state, the 3RR blocks are punitive. Their punitive nature acts in practice as a deterrant and thus protects wikipedia. Thus it is not the case that "punitive" and protecting wikipedia are mutually exclusive. They shouldn't be merely punitive of course, but that is not what's [usually] stated.

At some stage in the last year or so someone or a bunch of people have moved on from 3RR as the main way of limiting content disputes to punishments for "edit warring". The discourse community made up of a number of admins has resolved that 1)edit warring to the limit of 3RR is "gaming the system" and 2) that gaming the system is "bad". My own view, human beings will always game any system, and they'll game any new system introduced to prevent "gaming the system" and so on ad infinitum. Our civilization is built on gaming the system! If the 3RR system is not limiting enough, refine the system rather than preach about the old one being "gamed". The new way of dealing with content disputes, leaving interpretations of "edit-warring" and resulting punishments at the "discretion" of admins is the worst possible. The admin community ... and I'm speaking now as a member ... is not competent or trustworthy enough as a corps for this. Such freedom for admins causes more trouble than it's worth, e.g. vandal-zapping admins blocking good content creators for reverting IP troll and vandalism because they didn't put the effort or (frankly) don't have the intellectual skill to detect the nuances of a content dispute.

So in relation to M.K., I cannot have agree that he outght to have received any more than a warning. TigerShark handled the 3RR violation, and blocked for this as the community authorised him to do. The community has never promulgated anything that forced TigerShark to block or warn other editors for edit warring, and even the highlyu preachy Wikipedia:Edit war does not in any way suggest M.K. or Halibutt must have been punished too. He doesn't or shouldn't have been expected to do any more than that. TigerShark did right in keeping up the electric fence, and MK in powering it. At the very least we could wait until TigerShark gives some input before criticizing him for not proactively punishing other editors. All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:24, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• Um, sorry, but that gets a TL:DR here. Guy (Help!) 18:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with most of FT2's analysis but I do refute the suggestion that I did not check the edits of other. The article history looked like this at the time I reviewed and blocked. My analysis then, and now, is that over the previous 24 hours Piotrus had reverted 4 times as part of a content dispute (as opposed to addressing vandalism etc). In the same period of time, I cannot see another user reverting more than 3 times, apart from Halibutt (who was already blocked at 10:48 that morning) Some users had groups of edits so that their edit count was higher than 3 (e.g. the 3 edits from Halibutt between 10:12 and 10:44), but I would consider each group as a single revert. On this basis, the number of reverts, in the 24 hours before Piotrus's 4th revert at 17:07 on the 12th, would seem to be:

• Piotrus - 4
• 62.212.208.65 - 3
• Halibutt - 4
• M.K - 3

In terms of how recent the reverts were - Piotrus's last revert was at 17:07, 62... made their last revert at 13:41, Halibutt's was at 10:44 (albeit that they were blocked at 10:48) and M.K.'s was at 9:39.

Looking at the ongoing trend, from March 9th (4 days), the number of reverts was:

• Piotrus - 5
• 62.212.208.65 - 5
• Halibutt - 7
• M.K - 5

So, on the whole, this was not a rampant edit war with large numbers of reverts by individuals. The only editors that actually violated 3RR were Piotrus and Halibutt. I blocked Piotrus and would also have blocked Halibutt if they had not already been blocked. 62... and M.K. may have touched the 3 edit limit, but just once, did not have a lot of reverts over the whole period and, by the time of my review, had not reverted for a substantial amount of time.

I would also like to point out that at the time of my review, neither 62... nor M.K. were in danger of violating 3RR. They could both of have reverted right then, because in the preceeding 24 hours they both only had one revert each.

Further, in my opinion, M.K. did not need to be warned as they had raised the report at WP:AN3 - so were aware of the 3RR policy (I do not consider the warning as a threat, rather as a notification that the limit exists - which M.K. must have known).

Those are the facts surrounding by review of the edit war, as I see them. I would hope they do support the assertion that I did review the situation, and may question how closely the situation was reviewed by others.

As for my opinion on the other matters, Piotrus clearly knew the 3RR policy (having been blocked previously in regard to 3RR) and had violated 3RR. The block was therefore good in my opinion, and this seems to be the general consensus. Certainly the only reasoning that Piotrus provided to me for him not being blocked, was based upon his experience and the amount of content he contributes. From the FT2's IRC analysis, it seems that the email to me was not the only place that Piotrus tried to use his experience as a reason for not being blocked. At best I would consider it irrelevant, and at worst his experience makes violating policy even more unacceptable. It would seem that at least one other editor considers that there is some special privilege from experience to the point of not be subject to policy as much as the next editor - I strongly disagree with this. I was also unhappy with Piotrus's email to me, especially claiming that admins get de-sysopped for acting in the manner I did.

I do not consider Zscout370's unblock to be justified, partly due to the facts raised in my analysis above, but also because the reason for unblocking given was clearly against policy. The fact that he did it without consulting me is not ideal, but going against policy so clearly is far more worrying.

I think that is all I have to say for now. Cheers TigerShark (talk) 00:27, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

User:DbelangeB

User DbelangeB, contribs Special:Contributions/DbelangeB, has been creating pages with useless or otherwise meaningless content for some time. For example, the article Copalindrome describes a construct which is completely redundant, and serves only to confuse readers of the subject (it is also content-less and unsupported by fact). User has described himself as a clever troll (in those terms) who aims to disrupt the Wikipedia project.

Contributions by this user are generally of little worth, and while they may not count as explicit vandalism, they do not contribute meaningfully to these pages.

I respectfully submit that this user be carefully investigated. I can say that I know this person, and he has admitted that he has no good intentions for the Wikipedia project. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.97.51.61 (talk • contribs) 01:02, 20 Mar 2008

FYI, above account is a WP:SPA.--Nsevs • Talk 02:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

User:129.97.51.61, please stop attacking other users. I have seen the contributions of User:DbelangeB and he is trying to help the project. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:22, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

You have seen? He recreated an article that was later deleted as patent nonsense (created it twice). He uploaded an image that was deleted as an attack iamge. He created a second article (Chelophilately) that was also deleted as nonsense. He is trying to help the project? Prove me wrong. hbdragon88 (talk) 07:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I am seeing some apparent good-faith contributions, such as this, this, and this, minor grammar and wording fixes all. The deleted contribs, including some speedied articles, are less than encouraging - but do not themselves signal a bad-faith contributor, but an inexperienced one. I note, also, that the last of these was on 6 March, two weeks ago. I presume that you have a diff or link to the comment from this user indicating that they intend to troll? I'm not finding it in their contributions. Thanks, UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:12, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not the one who made the allegation that this user intends to troll. Ask the IP address for that info. hbdragon88 (talk) 03:51, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I noticed this complaint just now, when looking for additional information about this user. I have filed an open sockpuppet case against DbelangeB at Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/DbelangeB. nneonneo (talk) 13:38, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I saw your sockpuppet notice and informed him about this discussion. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:05, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Whaw! This man certainly has many girlfriends!

This user keeps adding to well-known Arab female singers that they are the girlfriend of a person...with his own name. Also adds that he is the friend of a lot of famous people (Like president Sarkozi). It also looks as if he is useing IPs to do the same; check the contributions of:

• 212.72.2.83 (talk · contribs)
• 212.72.18.59 (talk · contribs)
• 85.154.8.5 (talk · contribs)
• 85.154.10.236 (talk · contribs)
• 82.178.92.105 (talk · contribs)

I cannot find a single positive contribution, and some of the vandalism has stayed in the articles for weeks. Can some admin please look into this? Regards, Huldra (talk) 12:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

212.72.2.83 (talk · contribs) adds Qais al-Khonji to List of business leaders in 2006 and List of international organization leaders in 2006. Likely WP:COI. / edg ☺ ☭ 13:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes,

• Qaisalkhonji (talk · contribs) started adding "Qais al-Khonji" to List of Young Global Leaders, + he was the friend/boyfriend of a lot of rich and famous people. When that was reverted, he started using IPs.
• 85.154.8.142 (talk · contribs) ..yet another IP he is using. Keep searching for "Qais al-Khonji" to find new IP´s. Regards, Huldra (talk) 15:29, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

People, I request another block for the user Thegingerone if he/she continues violating the NPOV policy

Before we start any conversation about an edit war, I would like to first address who exactly has been trying to preserve this policy. That is what I have been doing with every edit I have made to the Rudolph Valentino page. This user has been typing bias content in the Rudolph Valentino article, like that: he was the only lead actor in The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse: that he was a better onscreen lover than Douglas Fairbanks; that he came to America with $20,000.00 in his pocket; and that some facts were unproven rumors. Singing voices also do not determine one's natural voice. For example, look at Jim Nabors. He had a Southern drawl but still could perform opera quite well. This user deserves to be blocked for violating the NPOV policy.Kevin j (talk) 16:53, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that this issue may be suffering from multiple posting. See above at #Rudolph Valentino page. Both User:Thegingerone and User:Kevin j have requested help at User talk:EdJohnston. I gave 3RR warnings to both about Rudolph Valentino, and someone else has full-protected the article. EdJohnston (talk) 17:52, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Kevin, you have a lot of good criticisms of the article, and the edit ideas you have are useful. Edit wars, however, are not useful. Please use Talk:Rudolph Valentino to make your points. Please work with other editors involved to get the language right for the article. Collaborate and be civil. Cheers, Kingturtle (talk) 20:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Has Wikipedia Gone Topsy-Turvy All of A Sudden? I have no intent to slander anybody, but it is ridiculous the way you keep labeling us as both equally on tract. Read the pages we have typed on the Rudolph Valentino page. The user Thegingerone does vandalism to this page by writing like it is a fan page, and has written many bias content that is unproven.Kevin j (talk)

What? Justin^(Gmail?)_(u) 18:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Once Again, I'm Asking has Wikipedia Gone Topsy-Turvy? I personally find it prejudice the way you administrators have been labelling me as equally at fault as Thegingerone. The user Thegingerone damages the Rudolph Valentino page with POV vandalism, and continued with it on the Pollyanna page, where the user said that the film Pollyanna was the main turning point in Mary Pickford's career. Read the page histories for yourself. The user deserves a block, and I wish you people would not act with bias accusations against me and assume I'm just as at fault when I am not. I care for the NPOV policyKevin j (talk) 18:53, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

No. Wikipedia has not gone tipsy turvy. This is just a common content dispute, and the reason why you may feel that we are placing the blame on both of you is that you are both edit warring. Please let us work this out without continually commenting on our behavior. Justin^(Gmail?)_(u) 18:58, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

For the Third Time, Has Wikipedia Gone Topsy Turvy? No, this is not a common content dispute, it is an issue pertaining to POV vandalism. I know the vandalism policies and I know about the NPOV policy as well. The user does do it, and you administrators should take a good look at the content in page histories.

Once again, I personally find it prejudice the way you administrators have been labelling me as equally at fault as Thegingerone. The user Thegingerone damages the Rudolph Valentino page with POV vandalism, and continued with it on the Pollyanna page, where the user said that the film Pollyanna was the main turning point in Mary Pickford's career. Read the page histories for yourself. The user deserves a block, and I wish you people would not act with bias accusations against me and assume I'm just as at fault when I am not. I care for the NPOV policy. Also I'm am not whinning or demanding for my want. Bigotry is unacceptable.Kevin j (talk) 19:18, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Please stop posting on this page. The matter is being handled. You are being disruptive. Justin^(Gmail?)_(u) 19:22, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

As the issue is being handled, it is generally improper to ask the same question three times when you are not satisfied with the answer you receive the first and second time around. I strongly recommend that you let it go. I won't say that raising concerns is in itself disruptive, but - in this case - making new posts on old issues is not productive. I'll add that, if you truly believe that the admin in this case was wrong to warn you, the best way to prove that he/she was wrong would be to edit productively from now on. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 19:30, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps this user is having trouble with Wikimarkup? He's allowed to post here. I removed the equal signs and replaced them with bold. Three posts just became one conversation. No comment (as I've not researched) as to his complaint or any complaints about him. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:39, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I need some more eyes

I think the edits of Babakexorramdin (talk · contribs) (Iranian) could use a little more scrutiny, as this discussion worried me a little, not least the...ah...interesting interpretation of WP:RS and the rather obvious Iranian nationalist POV on display (for further examples, check out his edits to Talk:Iranian peoples). Given this, I think any edits this chap makes to Perso-Turkic articles could do with a little extra scrutiny.

And while you're at it, the same applies, for a different set of articles, to Marcos G. Tusar (talk · contribs) (Slovenian, see here for more information). Moreschi (talk) 18:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Jason Anthony Griffith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) stubbified

This is notification that I have blanked the article Jason Anthony Griffith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), for constant violations of our policy on biographies of living individuals, in particular, large unsourced section about controversy, three month old tags on the page relating to verifiability. Some of the older diffs aren't too nice either.. I request that all editors do not revert, but work to include verifiable material. Will ^(talk) 19:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I have added back the filmography, as that seems to be completely uncontroversial. I feel this blanking was draconian, and have said so to Sceptre (on IRC). Simply removing the ridiculous 'controversy' section would have dealt with any real BLP problem. By comparison, I supported Sceptre's blanking of Hal Turner, which really did have issues. J Milburn (talk) 21:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

There's no reason to announce this here. John Reaves 21:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

It's fair notification. If I just went around stubbing articles without telling anyone, I'd get blocked. This way, I'm keeping my intentions totally transparent. Will ^(talk) 21:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up, will watchlist it. Note to J Milburn: No, not draconian. Normal practice in egregious BLP cases, we don't know if there's subtle vandalism embedded in the other content. Good editors are always welcome to reintroduce that material which complies with policy. Guy (Help!) 22:32, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I accept that- as I said earlier, I agreed with Sceptre's blanking of Hal Turner. However, I refute completely that this is a serious enough case to warrant blanking. (On another note- gah, draconian, not draconic. Too much D&D...) J Milburn (talk) 23:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I understood you intention. I choose poor wording for some reason. Just seems like Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard would be a better place. John Reaves 23:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. If you do check, it's crossposted there too :) Will ^(talk) 06:46, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Please, delete Image:DesktopBSD desktop.jpg

DesktopBSD logos and artwork is licensed Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 2.0 License. Austria. See in http://desktopbsd.net/index.php?id=76, see policy for non-free content, this screenshot Image:DesktopBSD desktop.jpg contain logos and artwork with this license, According to policy for non-free content and Wikipedia:CSD#Images.2FMedia, Image:DesktopBSD desktop.jpg should be deleted immediately. Thanks, Shooke (talk) 23:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

 Done. Next time, use {{db-i3}} to tag such images. bibliomaniac15 Midway upon life's journey... 23:30, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks Shooke (talk) 23:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Typo in an article name

Resolved

 – Typo fixed, heading to fix any resulting double redirects now. FunPika 01:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Just to let the head administrators of the site know, the article for Lewis Black's show "Root of All Evil" has been changed to "Lewis Black's Root of All Evil." I noticed though, that instead of Lewis, his name was spelled with a typo and instead the article is titled "Lews Black's Root of All Evil," and "Lews" needs to be changed to "Lewis." I don't know if this is the correct place to post this, but looking through wikipedia's millions of pages to find where to correctly post it was hell to find, so I'm hoping this works.

Lews Black's Root of All Evil

PS - I hope this is all correct this time.

28:57, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

WikiStalking

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

User (who mentions on his own Request for Adminship page that he knows he has "had problems in the past with vandalism") made a large unsourced addition to the Norteños article which I largely wrote. I specified that the information was unsourced/unreferenced, but he undid the changes without any explanation or addition of a reference [18][19]. Now he insists on stalking me by randomly undoing any anti-spamlink or anti-vandalism/unreferenced edits that I make. Diffs for at least four different articles include [20][21][22][23][24]. Not sure if there is a better place to report wiki stalking, but there you have it, retaliatory undos. 74.228.158.68 (talk) 06:58, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, in at least a couple of those diffs, Sickero makes the SAME changes you make after ANOTHER IP reverts your changes. Check, for example, that Hip hop fashion diff. On the Mara Salvatrucha article, what I see is a slow-motion edit war with NO discussion on the talk page between the editors. Rather than reverting and re-reverting, why don't you try discussing it with Sickero (though there are others involved as well who should probably be included in the conversation). Since these are gang articles, of course they're going to be contentious--people are likely to have VERY strong opinions about the gangs they belong to/know much about/affiliate with. (I am not, incidentally, talking out of my butt about this one. I know of whence I speak.) So--summary--yeah, there are a couple of diffs where Sickero is reverting stuff with no reason; a couple of those diffs, though, don't show what you think they do. (Like the MS article--he's been there for a while too, so it's not like he followed you there.) It looks to me like you have overlapping interests, and just happen to disagree in several places. Talk first, revert later, please. Peace. Gladys J Cortez 13:28, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Lost (TV series)

Resolved

 – Page restored. Spebi (talk) 08:25, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Can someone restore Lost (TV series)? I think it got accidentally deleted while we were fixing Grawp's most recent page moves. I've been trying, but the restore screen keeps timing out. Thanks. --Bongwarrior (talk) 07:04, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

That has well over 5000 edits, it shouldn't have been deletable even in error, or is this a loophole/bug? Gimmetrow 07:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I was wondering that too. Still no luck, I've tried every method I can think of. --Bongwarrior (talk) 07:20, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

This may need a dev. Would there be any support to move-protecting most featured articles? Gimmetrow 07:27, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh oh, redirects to that page are getting deleted under R1 now. Gimmetrow 07:39, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

This may require a developer or system admin... Also, I restored the redirects.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:48, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Crisis averted. East718 got it back, somehow. --Bongwarrior (talk) 08:31, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Segma

Resolved

 – Speedily deleted and closed by Ryulong --Tikiwont (talk) 08:43, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I sent this to AfD yesterday but I must have been asleep. It appears it's a copy of Haze (video game) with a few changes. There are more details at the AfD. Can someone take a look and close this out early if they agree. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 08:17, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Zelda Templates

Resolved

 – Happy‑melon 17:41, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Recently I created Template:The Legend of Zelda to replace three other existing templates (Zelda, Template:Zelda characters and Template:Zelda games), following discussion it seems there is a consensus to use the new template but some users aren't happy about the break in history from the old templates - in particular Template:Zelda games (see discussion here). For the time being I have redirected the templates to the new one and linked the page histories on the talk page[25]. I think merging the page histories would be a better solution, even if only the largest of the former templates (Template:Zelda games) can be merged in and the others have to remain as links. Any help would be appreciated. Guest9999 (talk) 13:10, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Can you drop a list of all the templates historys you want merged and the one you want it merged into on my talk page and ill work on it? Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 13:29, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

 CompletedI merged {{Zelda characters}} and {{Zelda games}} into {{The Legend of Zelda}}. If i missed one, let me know! Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 13:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. Guest9999 (talk) 16:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

User name like mine

My User Name is "David in DC" I have edited the The Awareness Center extensively and been involved in some heated conversation there.

Someone with the User Name "DavidD in DC" recently blanked both the article and its talk page. Others have reverted this vandalism.

I have posted a challenge on the talk page of "DavidD in DC" and asked him to change his handle.

I have posted a note on the Awareness Center's talk page, alerting editors in an effort to stymie this joker. Can you do more, please?

I first posted this request to the UAA board and was directed here by Rudget. David in DC (talk) 18:19, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked DavidD in DC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and indicated that I'll unblock if he wishes to edit constructively following a new choice of username [26]. Splash - tk 18:33, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. David in DC (talk) 18:37, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Although there is no need to unblock that account with the similar username if he chooses to edit constructively under another username is there? It's best to let it lie dormant for the reasons David in DC chose to post this dicussion. Lradrama 15:52, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Tagalog Wikipedia Campaign messages

I've run across DaughterofSun (talk · contribs) who is spamming various user talk pages with User:Felipe Aira/Campaign. I've been trying to figure out where the list of editors is originating from, but I can't figure out the common denominator. Some editors left the message are active while others are not. I'm a bit torn on what to do about this. On one hand, it's spam. On the other hand, it might be an official campaign by a sister Wiki. So I'm looking for some consensus on what to do with this. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 18:20, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I think they all have a user category relating to the Philippines on their userpages. I don't see that it's doing much harm when (so far) about 18 editors have received the note. Splash - tk 18:43, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Felipe Aira (talk · contribs) sent it to about 18 editors, but DaughterofSun has sent it to over 250 editors. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 19:55, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:TOV

Could an uninvolved administrator or editor take a look at Wikipedia_talk:Threats_of_violence, see if consensus is there or now, and the likelihood of it forming... or not? Thanks in advance, NonvocalScream (talk) 18:45, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

A second pair of admin eyes would do some good here actually, it looks like there is the beginning of a small scale edit war over placing the rejected or proposal template on this policy. Tiptoety ^talk 18:58, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not touching it again, for at least a couple of weeks... or longer :) NonvocalScream (talk) 19:00, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

• Their behaviour might provoke me to threats of violence. Guy (Help!) 10:13, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, under the proposed plan, I would have to take the seriously. :) NonvocalScream (talk) 19:26, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Special:Undelete

I am sure my memory is not at fault: Special:Undelete used to provide a query to list all deleted titles with a given prefix. Where has it gone? Can admins have it back please, PDQ? To give one example, I know we had a clutch of OR solutions to the Prouhet-Tarry-Escott problem. I know I could find them if I could see all deleted titles beginning "Prouhet". -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 20:25, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Special:Log/delete ? -- KTC (talk) 04:28, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

No. Doesn't allow prefix or "wild card" search which is waht we had. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 08:03, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Candidate bot for AN/I maintenance in trial

A proposed bot that has been in discussion for some time has just begun an "official" trial keeping the bot owners' noticeboard into neat subpages. The intent is to apply that function to AN/I (and possibly AN) eventually to allow

• Simpler archival (and return from archival) of threads
• Watching individual threads
• Keeping the edit volume on the noticeboard low (watching the noticeboard will allow one to see new threads)

Adding a new subpage is done entirely automatically: the bot creates them from new sections added to the page in the usual way completely transparently.

• Permanent links to threads remain valid indefinitely after archival.

Previous attempts at discussing the bot have met with little interest— I would suggest that everyone who habitually watches these noticeboards to keep an eye on WP:BON to see how the bot works and comment on it before it goes live.

Of particular interest:

• Is the section header adequate for everybody's need?
• Should more links be provided than [edit] and [watch this thread]?
• Keep an eye out for bugs, obviously.

The only known drawback of this scheme is that the automatically-created subpage cannot be automatically watched by the creator of the thread on creation— this is unfortunate but unavoidable because the subpage obviously does not yet exist at the time of the edit (further edits to the subpage, of course, behave normally). There are a few possible workarounds involving either talk page notification when the thread is created (providing a "watch the subpage" link), or javascript trickery, but none that appear clean or straightforward to use. Suggestions are, of course, appreciated. — Coren ^(talk) 21:52, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Can I just clarify -- this means that the discussions currently taking place on the noticeboard would be held in subpages and transcluded into the main page? My major reservation about this is that it makes regular studying of the noticeboard necessary. I find it very helpful indeed to see on my watchlist which threads are appearing most often (i.e. being edited most often) and therefore which might be useful to comment on. Am I right in thinking that this would be impossible with this system? Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 00:09, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, arguably, this means you need but watch the subpages that are of interest to you instead of sorting through all the edits to pick up the "good" stuff. Watching the main noticeboard, on the other hand, will pop up when a new thread is added. YMMV, but I think the advantages of being able to watch the threads of import outweigh the ability to find the "hot" threads— but that's entirely personal opinion there. — Coren ^(talk) 00:13, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Mmm, that's kind of what I was afraid of. I'm not particularly enamoured with either the current system or your proposed solution: the problem is that too much goes on. The disadvantage of each is that it is easy to miss something. The particular disadvantage of the proposed change is that it requires basically reading every thread on the page. I'm not arguing either way -- I'm just trying to figure out the relative advantages and disadvantages. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 00:18, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Someone else found the solution: Related changes; with a single clicky link you get to see all the changes to the linked subpages at a glance, and separated by thread to boot! — Coren ^(talk) 04:29, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Just from reading the above, that sounds like a great idea. I just looked at WP:BON and I like the "watch this thread" links. Thanks, Coren – good work! My already high esteem for you hereby goes up 2 notches. Re Sam Korn's concern: Is there any way for a user to opt in to having the subpages automatically added to their watchlist? How about maintaining a separate, dummy page which is edited every time one of the subpages is edited, with the same edit summary (but null contents?) so that users can watch that if they prefer? --Coppertwig (talk) 00:21, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure Mediawiki doesn't give us a trick to "watch subpages of X"... but that would be useful in a number of circumstances regardless, there are a number of processes that work with a bunch of grouped subpages. — Coren ^(talk) 00:25, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

As for a page with a log of edits, that would be workable. It's fairly easy to create a bot that watches RC to keep the page updated, but that means literally doubling the edits that go on— whether that's a reasonable trade off is not obvious. — Coren ^(talk) 00:28, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Horrible idea. Viridae^Talk 00:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Overall, I don't believe that this would be an improvement: using the watchlist/history to be able to see active threads is a useful feature. I am a bit confused with how archival of threads would be made easier. Isn't that done by a bot already? Christopher Parham (talk) 02:28, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, for one, only the transclusion needs be moved, leaving the history with the archive. Also, if a thread needs to be brought back all that's needed is to get the transclusion back on the noticeboard. There's also the possibility to archive with a link and title, instead of a transclusion, so that the archive page would look more like:

• Some title [[Link to discussion]]
• Adm1n Abuze!!1![[Link to discussion]]

Plus, and I just added that above, it means that permalinks to threads remain valid even if a thread gets archived. — Coren ^(talk) 02:52, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Archiving, actually, is more complicated: you need to edit the main page, an archive, and also the discussion subpage itself to close the discussion. To your main point, the fact that the history remains with the archive is exactly the problem, since you can then no longer read through the history of ANI conveniently. There are a variety of problems with this aside from the fact that it makes watching ANI difficult; e.g. any absolutely-positioned vandalism becomes challenging to revert, requiring you to first figure out where the edit was made. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:19, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not entirely certain I understand your point about vandalism; could you give me an example? — Coren ^(talk) 03:23, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

For instance if I add to one of the subpages code that places something offensive in the upper right hand of the page, or anything along those lines. When transcluded this will appear atop ANI, but there is no way to tell from looking at ANI where the edit was made, so you need to dig through the history of the individual subpages to find and revert it. The same problem came up with the main page when edits to obscure templates, of which hundreds transclude onto the main page, were used to place penis images onto the main page. This is more an example of the problems created by using a lot of transclusion than a serious difficulty, however. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:33, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, someone on the BRFA page just volunteered the fix for both problems at once: Special:RecentChangesLinked! That gives you all the changes to all the transcluded subpages at a single glance! — Coren ^(talk) 04:27, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

... that would give something like Special:RecentChangesLinked/Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard/active. Perfect! — Coren ^(talk) 04:33, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

That someone was me, and that measure would satisfy any concerns I have about this. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:43, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

So you got thanked twice without my noticing.  :-) It's already implemented in the bot and works dandy. I'll whip up a template to go at the top of a page handled by the bot to explain about the threads moving and provide a convenient link to the combined history. — Coren ^(talk) 04:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

This seems like a solution in search of a problem, and I'm quite opposed to the idea of moving all discussion on this page to subpages, that would then be transcluded here. For one, it splits the history of this page into hundreds (and soon thousands) of individual pages. AN and AN/I are much busier than the bot board, and I see this becoming unmanageable quickly. - auburnpilot talk 04:44, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

If this is going to end up with page names like "Daniel is a pedophile", "Daniel is being a dickhead" and "Daniel eats kittens" (because page titles archive far more highly than merely text on the page), then I strongly oppose this as it can cause harm to contributors who use their real names. Daniel (talk) 11:28, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

To date there are approximately 1500-2000 AN/I subsections just since 1 January. You are proposing a process that will create 6000-10000 subpages per year. Perhaps automatic transclusion of individual threads that exceed a certain threshold size would be useful, but we certainly do not need subpages for every two-post section "Please fix X" "Resolved". Also object per Daniel. Do you have more than a couple hundred bot requests per year? I'm not sure you've thought the volume issue through sufficiently. Thatcher 12:20, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Those are both very good points. The first has a trivial solution: numbered subpages instead of named ones; I admit I had not considered the greater impact of page title on spiders. The second point is substantive — it might indeed be wiser to not automatically move very short threads around — but it's not a clearcut as it first seems: does the cost of the added database rows (the sum of actual text stored in blobs isn't affected significantly) add up significantly when the data isn't otherwise being accessed (as would happen to archived threads), and does the ability to permanently link to threads overweight that cost? My inspection of the Mediawiki schema says the cost is negligible and, for archived threads, would be a gain because it improves locality of data (under postgres, at least, blob data is stored differently that row data — out of the way; I would expect that mysql behaves the same way). — Coren ^(talk) 15:13, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Numbered subpages is a bad idea. Watchlist of a numbered page would become pretty much unusable. --81.104.39.63 (talk) 15:17, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Is part of the proposal that the bot watches all the subpages it has created and re-transcludes any changed ones, to prevent the situation that a conversation continues on a subpage after it has been "archived"? --81.104.39.63 (talk) 20:02, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

backlog at Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage

There are several entries at Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage that have been placed for over 24 hours, placing an AN report per the advice of the page. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 03:31, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

All cleared. Mr.Z-man 05:17, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Page protection

Resolved

 – Semi-protected for a week. Let's see if he can find something more useful to do. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 04:27, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to bring this here, but my request at WP:RPP earlier today has gone unanswered (it's been about ten hours). An anon has been changing correct information in Weasley family to incorrect, has not defended his actions and has ignored the comment I left in the article (as well as warnings left by other editors on his talk page). The anon's IP has changed with every edit, but is always 209.94.212.XX. As I am involved in the article, I won't protect it myself, but this is really getting ridiculous. I'd recommend a one or two week protection; the anon should lose interest by then. Cheers, faithless (^speak) 04:21, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Rodhullandemu. :) faithless (^speak) 05:03, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Brief protection at User:Vintagekits

• Vintagekits (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• User:Vintagekits (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

There's been a bit of an edit war, past few days, at User:Vintagekits. User is banned; some users want to blank the userpage and others do not, I'm not aware of any efforts to discuss at this time. That being the case, I've protected for three days and will encourage participating users to comment here. If a (preferably uninvolved) admin feels consensus is achieved regarding blanking/not, or that protection is harmful in this case, feel free to do as is appropriate. Maybe worth noting that the page was indefinitely semi-protected, prior to this current protection. – Luna Santin (talk) 09:52, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

• There is no reason at all for the page to be completely blanked. The user contributed and wrote a great many useful pages concerned with boxing etc. I re-instated the page - a move endorsed by Alison [27], until Rockpocket came along [28]. Rockpocket can never resist an opportunity to comment on VK, now he is a banned use this is beginning to look like corpse kicking - whatever. By all means - have the page protected for ever, but it is useful to have it in all its glory, if only for people to be able to check the editor out in regard to his many thousands of very valuable edits. Having the page blanked when the editor is already banished, with his talk page permanently protected, and his hands cuffed behind his back looks more than a little unnecessary and extreme. The page as it now stands is as left by Rockpocket - so where is the harm now? Giano (talk) 10:05, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with what Giano says above no need for this page to be blanked. Vin has created numerous articles and seems a bit vindictive to just blank it. BigDunc (talk) 11:40, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused. Don't we have a standard approach for cases of this kind? If not, why not? Relata refero (talk) 11:52, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

• Per WP:User page, they are used to facilitate communication among participants in its project to build an encyclopedia. If an editor has been permanently banned from being a participant in the project, what further need is there to "facilitate communication"? — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 15:36, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

You are confusing the talk page with the user page. We are talking here of the user page. Also hiding facts is always a slightly odd thing to want to do, anywhere any place at anytime. Giano (talk) 15:38, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not confusing anything here. Certainly the user talk page is for frequent two-way communication between editors, but the user page has elements of communication too:

• it is a way of organizing the work that you are doing on the articles in Wikipedia, and also a way of helping other editors to understand with whom they are working
• they help you to use Wikipedia more effectively: to list "to do" information, works in progress, reminders, useful links, and so forth

None of this is applicable to a permanently banned editor. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 16:28, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Whatever, this is something for you Admins to decide, the pointless and needless kicking corpses has never been one of my interests. Giano (talk) 16:46, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Your actions don't appear consistent with what you claim here, Giano. If my edit - or "corpse kicking" as you so kindly represent it - was the problem here, why did you revert back to that version? [29] All I did was remove one factually incorrect sentence that you had previously added (Vk is not "still standing" after twenty blocks and, even if he was, his user page is not the place to celebrate his record of poor behaviour), leaving the record of his many thousands of valuable edits. I have no problem with that, in fact it makes it easier to find his shower of sock puppets when all his favorite articles are linked on one place. Rockpocket 17:29, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I reverted back to your version Rockpocket, to keep you quiet, anything for a quiet life, and to keep VK's page alight. No other reason, I assure you. Why you, and your friends, can't just leave him and his page alone, God only knows. Why the Arbcom could not follow my advice during the Troubles Arbcase and ban VK from Irish pages, and why VK can't behave himself, I don't know either. I do know though that you have some obsesion with VK which does not help the problems here - he is gone - a banned editor - what more do you want of him? And while you are being so bloody snide Rockpocket you might just note that Alison endorsed the version of the page I reverted to!Giano (talk) 21:02, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not being snide, Giano. I made a single edit to correct a factual inaccuracy that you made, and made no effort to get further involved when the usual suspects started posturing. You have some gall lecturing anyone about obsessive behaviour. Please go and wage your anti-Arbcom campaign under a different proxy, because this horse is dead and you are the one still waving the stick. Rockpocket 23:22, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

*Cough*. The Evil Spartan (talk) 21:12, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

..and you need not sit there making clever links, ES, go get a handkerchief, if you have a cough. Giano (talk) 21:21, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Why is anything being deleted at Wikipedia? We've heard the justification: what's the motivation here? --Wetman (talk) 22:30, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Huh? Are you seriously questioning why anything gets deleted? Avoidance of a libel lawsuit for an obvious motivation for deleting some material. Rockpocket 23:22, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I've no particular opinion on the matter either way, but note that both Giano and Rockpocket are manipulating the page for their own largely personal reasons. Both sides have a fair point, however I'd like to see the community decide this one. And all the while, BTW, Vintagekits is happily socking away - Alison ^❤ 23:14, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Additional input requested on topic of subject ban

Resolved

I have opened the question of a topic ban against a disruptive editor at ANI under the subject "User:Justpassinby". The only other administrator who has weighed in agrees that this is appropriate, but given the nature of the conversation I'd appreciate additional feedback. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:31, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

User has subsequently been indef blocked. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:40, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Copyright violating spam

Per a thread on my talk page, we have over 300 links to this "news site" which looks legit but if you read the disclaimer turns out not to be. The disclaimer says:

Disclaimer: Many of the stories on this site may or may not contain copyrighted material whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Where ever and whenever possible The Post Chronicle™ sources and or includes the name of the author/owner and gives them full recognition for the excellent and invaluable work they do. The Post Chronicle™ make such information available because of it's newsworthiness in our efforts to advance understanding of: free speech, the free press, environmental issues, political practices, human rights, economics, democracy in general, science, political and social issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material. The Post Chronicle™ accepts no responsibility for the accuracy or inaccuracies of any story or opinion. The views expressed on this site are that of the authors and not necessarily that of The Post Chronicle™. We run banner advertising in order to cover the operating costs of delivering the material.

It's also being used as a source for critical material in WP:BLPs.

It seems to me that per WP:C, WP:RS, WP:ATT, WP:BLP and (looking at the WP:SPAs adding a lot of the links) WP:SPAM, this needs to go. It's more than I can handle in anything like short order, and may be a good candidate for anyone with good AWB skills or a handy bot.

We also need to consider what, if anything, to do about Smokefan2007, and his IP, User:69.125.122.202, and the article on Marc Centanni, the site's CEO. Guy (Help!) 13:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Scratch that last, it's been A7'd once before and we know how to deal with autobiographies that rely on the school yearbook to achieve the magic two sources.

postchronicle.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

• Smokefan2007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
• 69.125.122.202 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)

There's some cross-wiki links out there - is this a candidate for global blacklisting? It certainly justifies me running a spamsearch tomorrow. MER-C 13:28, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

• I've removed a couple of these. I'm not particularly impressed with the notion that it's our responsibility to police potential copyright violations on third-party sites, and I think that we should give such sites the benefit of the doubt in marginal cases (parody/satire, fair use, etc). But, copyright issues or no, this site is clearly an unreliable source and there's no reason we should ever be citing it when we have much better, mainstream news sources available online at no charge. I suggest that, before removing references, do a Google search to see if the material can be cited to a more reliable source instead. That was the case, for instance, in the Brad Delp article (see [30] - only took about 30 seconds to track this down). Some material on this site, however, is pure gossip and should be removed entirely. There are some gross BLP violations "sourced" to this — see [31] for one that I found almost immediately. *** Crotalus *** 14:50, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

• We should not be linking to sites that say right up front that they violate copyright. That could be construed as contributory infringement. Guy (Help!) 15:58, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

• Per this comment I have blocked Smokefan2007 - I don't think comparisons with Adolf Eichmann are an acceptable way to deal with other users. Guy (Help!) 15:44, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Good call Guy, people see something one South Park and they think it is appropriate to repeat here, but it isn't. _(1 == 2)^Until 15:46, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

While I agree that this site can't really be relied on as a source, I'm a little aghast at how Smokefan2007 (talk · contribs) has been treated. I also think that he is associated with the website in question, and that his block by JzG was probably warranted, but it should be kept in mind that the people who run this site are also living people. The communications with this user by JzG and FCYTravis, and the edit summaries being used by Crotalus horridus in removing links, seem intentionally designed to piss the user off and provoke a reaction, and prevent any chance of people involved contributing usefully. Couldn't this have been done in a more professional way? Nesodak (talk) 16:51, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm a bit nonplussed by this. How, exactly, were these communications inappropriate? I went out of my way to suggest to the user that he cease the legal threats and constructively address the question at hand (whether his site should be considered a reliable source). His response was to attack me. I'm not quite sure how this could have been handled with any more "kid gloves" than it was. FCYTravis (talk) 17:10, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you were offended...maybe I'm too touchy-feely for situations like this. I just saw that you filed a lot of reports in different places referring to this person as a spammer. Also JzG has told the person that we don't want their help, and Crotalus horridus keeps referring to the site as a "spam aggregator". It may be an unreliable source, but I don't think "spam aggregator" would be accurate. I think Smokefan2007 definitely had some conflict of interest problems, but they also made useful contributions. Maybe they had to be blocked, given the threats at the end, but I can't help feeling that could have been avoided. And to keep kicking them only seems to encourage further animosity. Nesodak (talk) 17:23, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what other name can be applied to someone whose contributions overwhelmingly consisted of inserting links to a single Web site, and who responded to attempts to question that site's sourcing suitability with legal bluster and ad-hominem remarks. "Multitudinous single-site link adder and defender?" And nonplussed doesn't mean offended, so I'm not offended by your question - puzzled, is more like it :) FCYTravis (talk) 17:31, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I understand where you're coming from...maybe that's what it takes to protect Wikipedia, I get that. I've just seen in lots of Internet communications that being confrontational and using loaded terms just encourages the other person to declare war, where being neutral and referring to site policy seems to result in the person giving up and going away. Anyway, I'm glad you weren't offended, and consider the matter dropped so far as I am concerned. Ta! Nesodak (talk) 17:39, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

← Nesodak, your good faith does you credit, but I'm afraid Travis and I are somewhat more jaded. Yes, there are going to be cases where single purpose accounts have, as their single purpose, linking websites, and writing articles about the sites' creators which laud the sites' success in getting all over the Internets, and where the sites are being used inappropriately as sources, and host content which is not theirs to host, and who then go on to Godwinate debate about the links, but - well, let's just say that the number of genuinely good-faith users I've seen engaging in such behaviours is a single digit number less than one. I'm guessing it's the same for Travis. Guy (Help!) 19:19, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Guy, for responding! No, I understand - I was just saying that maybe it would have been better to take the high road and simply state policy in regards to this person, rather than getting into the gutter to argue with them. But you guys obviously have more wisdom in smoothly dealing with these problems than me. Nesodak (talk) 20:18, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

The thing is, you have to have some word to describe a behavior which is inappropriate, and you have to use those words when calling attention to someone who may be engaging in that behavior. Otherwise, how do you communicate? FCYTravis (talk) 20:28, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Dubious image licencing

Hey guys and girls, just stumbled across Image:DennisMortimer.jpg which User:Chasetown07 claims is entirely his own work. Amongst his other contributions are Image:Peter Withe.jpg (which has a curious similarity to this) and Image:Dwight Yorke Aston Villa.jpg (which vaguely resembles this). I'm just curious how we've dealt with this sort of thing before? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:06, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

• Unless Chasetown07 is a professional sports photographer and has been since at least 1982, these aren't his own work, The Dennis Mortimer one comes from [32] by the way. I presume we just delete these through WP:CSD#I9? Black Kite 17:21, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Rightyho I'll work my way through them and remove them appropriately. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:28, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

PipepBot

Can I suggest that an eye be kept on this bot? It sometimes seems to delete interlanguage links for no apparent reason, for example recently at Gmina Brzeg Dolny and Brzeg Dolny. I've left a note at the owner's Italian talk page (from where it appears that there have been similar problems in the past, involving blocks being placed).--Kotniski (talk) 17:14, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Update. Following brief discussion with the bot owner (he replied at my talk page, I at his), he claims this behaviour is intentional, i.e. the bot is apparetnly deleting interlanguage links which it finds on more than one page. I have serious doubts as to: (a) how a bot is supposed to be capable of deciding which of duplicate links is most correct, and (b) whether there is anything wrong with having such duplicate links anyway (in some cases they would seem to be highly desirable). --Kotniski (talk) 17:38, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the main problem I see with this is that it is often the desired behavior. There is not going to be a bijection between the topics in one Wikipedia and the topics in another. For instance our biography of Isaac Newton spans many pages, but it seems to me that they should all link to the (lone) Isaac Newton page existing in most other Wikipedias. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:52, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Image deletion 20+ days old

Resolved

Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2008 February 29#Image:Vincennes shot.jpg is more than 20+ days old. --Dual Freq (talk) 18:38, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

• Also on ANI. Closed as delete per licensing problems compounded by questions over appropriateness. No doubt it will end up at DRV. Guy (Help!) 19:09, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Need botched categories deleted

I need Category:Fictional martial arts masters and Category:Fictional elderly martial arts master deleted because, in regards to the former, I wanted "elderly" in the title and there is already a category called Category:Fictional martial artists. In regards to the latter, it is not in the required plural form. I have created a new category to fix the plural problem. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 19:31, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Easy enough. If you get to know one or two admins who work on articles with you, you can ask them directly for simple things like this. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:39, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Or just tag them with {{db-g7}} - if you're the only editor and the categories are empty, the next admin to work CAT:CSD will delete them for you. Happy‑melon 19:50, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:BLP violations on Eric Lerner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

ScienceApologist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Arthur Rubin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) insist on inserting a claim that Eric Lerner is associated with Lyndon LaRouche, a highly controversial political figure, into this article [33] [34] [35] [36], sourced only to a propaganda website, in violation of Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Remove_unsourced_or_poorly_sourced_contentious_material. Arthur Rubin has attempted to justify the restoration of this material on the basis of a disagreement with the current language of the biographies of living persons policy. Administrative assistance is requested in remedying this WP:BLP violation. John254 20:10, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

This looks to be an edit war more than anything--I've full-protected the article until this can be resolved on the talk page. Blueboy96 20:23, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the legitimate enforcement of Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Remove_unsourced_or_poorly_sourced_contentious_material is not considered to be edit warring. To quote the policy in relevant part:

Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see Wikipedia:No original research). The three-revert rule does not apply to such removals... Administrators may enforce the removal of such material with page protection and blocks, even if they have been editing the article themselves. Editors who re-insert the material may be warned and blocked. See the blocking policy and Wikipedia:Libel.

The removal of inadequately referenced controversial information concerning living people is administratively favored. John254 20:43, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

True, the only reason I full-protected it was to give them time to find an adequate source for the material. Blueboy96 20:46, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposed modification of CSD A7

A modification to the CSD A7 criteria has been proposed at the CSD talk page. NonvocalScream (talk) 20:48, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Note: The proposal was unanimously opposed by 12 editors and subsequently withdrawn, and is now archived. Tanthalas39 (talk) 23:12, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

known puppetmaster trying to slip harmful changes into policy.

An abusive puppetmaster (ten accounts at last count) is trying to slip harmful edits into the encyclopedia - I suggest people keep an edit on his games, he's suggesting that nobody is saying no so he should be able tohere look carefully at the language he uses. --87.113.93.118 (talk) 23:26, 22 March 2008 (UTC)