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

Everyme

Resolved

 – User:Everyme blocked indefinitely and talk page protected.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 06:39, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Just noticed my block has been reset and extended to two months for block evasion following this discussion. Unfortunately, I yielded no response to this comment. What can I say? Of course I'm ignoring the rules when it comes to doing minor mainspace edits, and why wouldn't I contact friendly people I have had positive contact with in the past, like Privatemusings or Casliber? So, what's the score here? My block is reset and more than doubled in duration for harmless contacting wikifriends (oh how I despise that term, but it's somewhat true in the cases of e.g. PM and Cas) and apparently also for stuff like this (or e.g. [1], [2], [3]). Could someone please introduce some sanity, or at least honesty? Make it indef rather than two months. Two months is designed to drive me away for good anyway, which will eventually happen, but entirely on my own terms (namely when I finally manage to curb my obsession with things like messed-up formatting and other inaccuracies). I fully intend to continue doing such minor mainspace edits where necessary and I may occasionally contact old "acquaintances", too. If that's unacceptable, then Wikipedia and me will have to agree to disagree. But please at least make it official in that case. Again: I do fully intend to continue evading that block with minor mainspace edits and the occasional comment or question on some friendly users' talk pages. Please do not remove this as trolling. I feel this is a legitimate request for clarification from admins. If nothing else, please at least give me some clarity and officially declare the quoted edits as unacceptable to the tune of extending a block from three weeks to two months. Also, please take into consideration that I'm having a hard time not editing when I see an obvious minor error, not asking a pal when I have a question or contact them in response when there is something noteworthy (or just plain funny) going on. I don't feel I've done any wrong with the edits -- other than evading my block, which in turn shouldn't be a self-serving institution with no need for checks and balances and some sanity. 78.34.134.4 (talk) 06:36, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

• Block evading to complain about your block being reset for er block evading???? Frankly I'm tempted to extend it again. Have you never heard of the unblock template? Don't reply here, Use your talk pageSpartaz ^Humbug! 06:55, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not asking to be unblocked. And the catch-22-type irony which you comment on is inherent in Wikipedia, not in my decision to post this thread. 78.34.134.4 (talk) 06:58, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

• A block means you're not supposed to edit, period, until the block has ended. Not "you're not supposed to edit except to fix minor formatting issues and to chat with friends." This is like telling a child "you're grounded except for playtime, birthday parties, and to go to the movies with your buddies." Any other admin who wants to extend this block has my full support.GJC 07:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

• Well, to me it seems more like saying "you're grounded, and no TV, and no phone, and no doing your homework and no helping with the chores. " 78.34.134.4 (talk) 07:47, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

• That's an odd analogy, because Wikipedia isn't a job. I'm going to reset the block and block the IP.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

• What would the collateral damage be on a rangeblock? I'm clueless about how to calculate such things.GJC 07:57, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

• It's a major German ISP and the block would cover a /16 (60k some odd addresses).—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

• Ok, thank you very much, Ryulong. I for one do indeed see work on Wikipedia as a volunteer job, and I will certainly continue to ignore all rules that keep me from improving it. As I said: Go indef if you honestly believe the little edits I'm still making are (intentionally or otherwise) harmful. You know, that's what blocks are supposed to do: Protect Wikipedia against harm. But that's not what you guys appear to be interested in. It seems you are more interested in demonstrating the power of the system, even if it makes no sense whatsoever. So sad. 78.34.149.223 (talk) 11:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

• Sigh, this IP is blocked for three months as well. At this point you should have realized that you are not to edit the English Wikipedia. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:10, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

• Suit yourself while I continue to ignore all rules that prevent me from improving Wikipedia. Two months and a week now (in addition to the original three weeks) for "block evasion" with the intent ... to make minor edits and some harmless talk page comments. It's not even supposed to make sense, is it? 78.34.144.149 (talk) 12:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

• It makes perfect sense. Let's go for another analogy: If you were a volunteer in, say, St. John Amulance, and you were suspended for improper conduct, would you expect to continue being allowed to attend duties and treat people? Of course not, same applies here. _TalkIslander 12:25, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

• Two words: Make me. Also, the ambulance doesn't allow anyone in without even registering, that's where the analogy ends. And you have to receive formal education and pass exams to work there, too, especially if you want to work in the administration. On a more (or less) humorous note, I wonder if my block will be reset/extended if I stop editing anything but mainspace. 78.34.151.162 (talk) 12:55, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Would anyone mind if Everyme's block was extended to indef? seicer | talk | contribs 13:04, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

That's what I have been saying from the start, by all means please do it. 78.34.151.162 (talk) 13:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I semi-protected this page for a time. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:25, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Seicer, if you are reasonably certain that the IP is indeed Everyme and not someone acting like him (I have no opinion, I have not followed the history of it), then by all means, change it to indef. Fram (talk) 13:25, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Yep, that is def Everyme, I support the ban if it matters. MBisanz ^talk 13:30, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I would support an indef block, but I don't see how we'd do it on the IP... as for the account, there seems to be consensus to indef-block, so I've gone ahead and done it. _TalkIslander 13:45, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Note: I indef-blocked on my understanding of the situation, and of the apparent consensus. If anyone strongly disagrees with me, go ahead and unblock/reblock for a period of time. _TalkIslander 13:53, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the user pages that Everyme redirected to User:Everyme, hasn't he already had a number of indef blocks? Grsz¹¹ 16:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, see here for a list. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:37, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

This was explained to me some time back, but I still didn't quite understand it. Is Everyme blocked or banned? It sounds to me like he was blocked, yet the same blanket rules applied to banned users applied to him (e.g. no edits whatsoever). So really, what's the difference, in his case? I'm struggling to see any difference between a block and a ban. – How do you turn this on (talk) 16:36, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Block="Nobody has unblocked him yet"

Ban="Nobody would be willing to unblock him".

It's a question of semantics more than anything else. – iridescent 17:13, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

"Blocked" means that they have been prevented, in the system itself, from editing Wikipedia. "Banned" means that the community has decided the editor should not be editing; this can be "topic banned" meaning they should not edit articles about a certain subject, or "site banned" meaning they are no longer supposed to edit Wikipedia at all. Site bans are typically enforced by blocking the editor in question. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Yup, we know that. However, what Iridescent is describing is the more literal difference between an indef block and an indef site-wide ban. _TalkIslander 22:45, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what we do, we know that he probably already has another account that he's already using---only this time we won't know it's him. Personally, there is an old adage about the devil you know vs the devil you don't know.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 22:58, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I was just clarifying for User:How do you turn this on. Indented a little too far, I guess. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:56, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Everyme, you know I like you, but this is poor form. Rather than evade your block to contest its details at a noticeboard, please post a request for one of our code monkeys to nick a transclusion template from the old WP:CSN board so that you can walk the straight and narrow while you present your position. You have many virtues as an editor, but civility is a problem. You know how to reach me by Skype and email. I'm a sysop at three other WMF projects and would proudly mentor you at any of them. Let's take steps in the right direction. Sincerely, Durova^Charge! 00:54, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

ditto here. Xavexgoem (talk) 01:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I was going to suggest something as this tit-for-tat IP post and block is nonproductive. We have had one RfC and maybe it is time for a forum again at another, or here, we can open a case to discuss options. Ultimately, are we at the point where Everyme's participation is a net negative or can something be salvaged toward 'pedia building? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:35, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Almost every time I see this page (admittedly not very often!) I see Everyme being blocked, asking to be unblocked, or complaining about being blocked but not unblocked. Is there a place where one can see why he/she/it was blocked in the first place? (Just curious.) --Regents Park (bail out your boat) 03:12, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Here are some relevant recent threads in reverse chronological order, i.e. most recent first: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive491#User:Everyme, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive489#Everyme, and Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive487#Remarks_by_Everyme. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 03:35, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Very instructive indeed! --Regents Park (bail out your boat) 18:46, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Is it time to protect the talk page? Grsz¹¹ 14:05, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

That's what I am wondering. It seems as though Everyme is intent on continuing to use it for discussion other than requesting to be unblocked. He is also requesting that certain people don't comment on it, namely myself and Grsz11. If he's not going to request to be unblocked, I don't entirely see why he needs it. _TalkIslander 14:11, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Forget that - Everyme's continued incivility, plus his assurance that he has no wish to request an unblock, has led me to remove his access to his talk page. Unfortunate, but there you go. _TalkIslander 14:40, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the recent adjustments to Everyme's block, while the talk page use is fine with me, if an unchecked "prevent account creation" box means he can create a different account, shouldn't he rather work to have his indef lifted rather than just avoid it with another account? Grsz¹¹ 06:28, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Grsz11, this is all under control now - me, Keeper, MBisanz and Everyme are sorting it. Though your willingness to help is commendable, could I (with the highest respect) ask you to step back now and leave this to us? Cheers, _TalkIslander 22:21, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

That edit was made two days ago before things were being "sorted", and is meaningless now. Grsz¹¹ 05:11, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Possible ethnic block voting in ArbCom elections?

Discussion moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Possible ethnic block voting in ArbCom elections.

Hersfold Non-Admin & Co.

Resolved

What's the point in having alternative accounts when they just end up stopping being used? For example, Hersfold (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has the said account and La Pianista (talk · contribs) has La Sockista (talk · contribs). I would like to see more alternative account usage please, preferrably in rollback. Thanks. -- MISTER ALCOHOL ^{T C} 05:01, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

What? I could see forbidding rollback to anyone with alternate accounts, but I can't imagine a good reason to encourage rollbackers to have alternate accounts.—Kww(talk) 05:07, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

No. I mean they could be used more often, like when they're on public computers. -- MISTER ALCOHOL ^{T C} 05:12, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

What the hell is this thread about?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:13, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Public accounts. If someone is working from a public computer, it is necessary, but not required, to use an alternative account to prevent the risk of compromization by hackers. See WP:SOCK#LEGIT for more. -- MISTER ALCOHOL ^{T C} 05:17, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

That's why I have both AuburnPilot (talk · contribs) and AuburnPiIot (talk · contribs). I prefer not to sign in with my admin account when using a less than secure connection (like from my BlackBerry). Both accounts have rollback, but that's more of a convenience issue than anything. - auburnpilot's sock 05:20, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

(e/c with AuburnPilot)Actually, I think you're misinterpreting the policy. Alternate accounts are generally discouraged. They are tolerated for the reasons listed at WP:SOCK#LEGIT. For reasons of transparency, we would prefer that all editors keep all of their edits under the same name. While some of us (I use User:Aervasock) do choose to access Wikipedia through a non-privileged account when not on our home computer, that is certainly not a mandate, nor even a suggestion. It's just an allowable option.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 05:22, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I have User:Orderinchaos 2 as an AWB account. It means that my edits on my main account, with which I have admin access, are more readily open to scrutiny without people having to wade through uncontroversial semi-auto edits. Orderinchaos 09:38, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Use an account more on public computers to prevent it from being compromised? That doesn't even make sense. That makes the opposite of sense. Unused accounts aren't any easier to compromise, but ones that you use on public computers certainly are. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 08:43, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

No, it's to prevent the admin account from being compromised. The alt account is presumably disposable should it be compromised. Powers ^T 15:09, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

What's the point of your giant flamboyant signature? John Reaves 08:54, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I was wondering the same thing myself.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 07:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Use of WP:CSD#I9 on fair use images

Resolved

 – Stifle is right. Where a fair use claim exists (even a malformed or incomplete one) or where the speedy is contested, just take the image to IfD or one of the various pseudo-speedy deletion routes available for images. Don't reinsert speedy tags, it isn't worth the trouble. As for the policy question of where I9 ends and NFCC 2 begins, that is both easy to answer and beyond the scope of this noticeboard. Protonk (talk) 21:19, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Soundvisions1 is currently applying {{db-i9}} tags to certain images with valid fair-use rationales. I've removed these, as my understanding is that it doesn't apply to FU images. Could someone else have a look and give a second opinion please, as I'm going off-wiki soon. Thanks. —  Tivedshambo  _(t/c) 18:30, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

This is a cut and paste, mostly, from my comment on the Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion where User:Tivedshambo made the comment: The source is irrelevant. No it is not. And considering the criteria is specific about these images (and will hopefully be made more specific by the proposed addition), as were the links and the portions of A.P's contracts I provided to for reading, I would say you should not be "clearing out WP:CSD". For others - L.A. Times v. Free Republic is an article I sent this editor to as well as Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2008-09-22/Dispatches - "Reviewers should consider the commercial activities of the image's copyright holder and the image's role in those activities. Example that fails: An image of a current event authored by a press agency. Certain press agencies market photographs to media companies to facilitate illustration of relevant commentary. Hosting the image on Wikipedia would impair the market role (derivation of revenue), as publications (such as Wikipedia) would normally need to pay for the opportunity to utilize the image." I would also might like to point out that, even though this image is tagged as being from from A.P and the article is was taken from at MSNBC states "© 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed." the above editor implied that MSNBC may have "borrowed the image from us or another source" and removed the CSD tag the first time. (Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2008 December 4#Image:Australian embassy bombing flag.jpg)

And for also the full CSD I9 criteria reads (Bold markup added by me): "Blatant copyright infringement. Images that are claimed by the uploader to be images with free licenses when this is obviously not the case. A URL or other indication of where the image originated should be mentioned. This does not include images used under a claim of fair use, nor does it include images with a credible claim that the owner has released them under a Wikipedia-compatible free license. This includes images from stock photo libraries such as Getty Images or Corbis. Blatant infringements should be tagged with the {{db-imgcopyvio}} template. Non-blatant copyright infringements should be discussed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images." A.P falls under this, and make it more clear I have proposed adding "and from press agencies such as the Associated Press (A.P)" to that just to make to even more clear. Soundvisions1 (talk) 18:48, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter who's right as to the applicability of CSD:I9. The speedy tag should not have been replaced after it was removed in good faith. All of these images are already at IfD for discussion. Just have the community discussion. What's the rush? -Chunky Rice (talk) 18:58, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

To everyone: In case i9 is not clear enough with the comment "This includes images from stock photo libraries..." perhaps it should be further clarified. Beyond that the Non-free content Policy, under Unacceptable use - Images, clearly states: A photo from a press agency (e.g. AP), unless the photo itself is the subject of sourced commentary in the article. This applies mostly to contemporary press photos and not necessarily to historical archives of press photos. Soundvisions1 (talk) 19:26, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your point is. The fact remains that the CSD was removed. The proper course of action after that is to have a discussion (which is already taking place at IfD), not to edit war and replace the tag. -Chunky Rice (talk) 19:35, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, please back up. Issue 1 - images at IfD. In case you, or anyone else, has not looked, the Nom (not made by me) reads, in full, "recent photo by news agency. fails Wikipedia:NFCC 2 (they charge for this use, we are basically stealing this from them) and Wikipedia:NFCC 8 (this photo doesn't significantly add to the readers' understanding, seeing as it doesn't even show that much)." That alone is pretty clear but I did the leg work and found that A.P licensing doe snot allow for "fair use" of this type, it is already covered in the i9 CSD tag and thusly, I am the one who added the i9 tag. That is fully acceptable and is done all the time. What happened next is the really issue. Issue 2 - removal of the tag. Another editor came in, decided it was not a copy vio because a FUR was being used and than implied that MSNBC/AP "borrowed" this image from Wikipedia and removed the copyvio tag. That is the issue that kicked this off. I reverted because the removal of a blatant copyvio for the reason MSNBC might have taken a Wikipedia image is ludicrous. Now the editor said that i9 for "fair use" images but, as was explained in the actual nom, this is not really an allowed "fair use" image. The Policy is clear on these types if images and so is the i9 tag that was removed...again after it was restored by me. It takes more than one person to edit war but there is no requirement that a blatant copy vio needs to be discussed beyond the point it is confirmed as a being blatant copyvio. Certainly not because an editor does not fully understand a CSD tag and how it relates to these types of images. But even if they do not understand that the actual CSD when it is explained, backed up by policies and discussions and restored explains but still removed that is far more of an issue. Soundvisions1 (talk) 20:15, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

CSD tags can be removed by anybody except for the person who created the subject of the tag. They should not be replaced. Instead, other methods, such as XfD should be pursued. This isn't complicated. -Chunky Rice (talk) 20:18, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

You are right, it isn't. Lets start over. What is the real issue here? It appears clear, to me anyway, that the editor who removed the tag is not fully understanding of the tag itself or the policies and guidelines that define what a "valid fair-use rationale" is. Aside from me I do not see where you, or anyone else, has attempted to answer their question which is: "User:Soundvisions1 is currently applying {{db-i9}} tags to certain images with valid fair-use rationales. I've removed these, as my understanding is that it doesn't apply to FU images." My reply was, and is, there is not a "valid fair use" rationale being used because the image is not allowed to be used with one. The {{db-i9}} tag is being used because "images from stock photo libraries" are considered "Blatant" copyvios and it clearly says that. To confirm you can also look at the "Non-free content" Policy, under "Unacceptable use - Images", wjere ti is even more specific: A photo from a press agency (e.g. AP), unless the photo itself is the subject of sourced commentary in the article. This applies mostly to contemporary press photos and not necessarily to historical archives of press photos. Now a second opinion is needed. Soundvisions1 (talk) 20:39, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

It's important not to leave likely copyvio's sitting around while the argument takes place. As wp:copyvio states, If the criteria for speedy deletion do not apply, you should replace the contents of the page with the {{subst:copyvio | url=insert URL here}} tag, and list the page at Wikipedia:Copyright problems; see instructions. If, after a week, the page still appears to be a copyright infringement, it may be deleted by any administrator. Looie496 (talk) 20:24, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

You have a point chunky, however if someone thinks the tags are being removed for bad reason (systematically over many images) I don't see much reason why we can't have the discussion here. Alternatively mass nom the images in question to an IFD to discuss the issue at hand. I will note that comments on *process* are not as useful as comments on the actual material at hand here.

The problem here is we have a bunch of tags added by one person and the same tags removed by one other person. My suggestion is to have a sane discussion here or elsewhere (perhaps WT:CSD) about the particular class of images. —— nixeagle 20:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

←From WP:CSD: CSD I9 "does not include images used under a claim of fair use". No mention of credible, valid, or otherwise. Therefore the tagging was incorrect. It's there in black and white. The correct tag is {{ifd}} or possibly {{subst:dfu|reason}}. Stifle (talk) 20:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

You just sated that the only thing i9 says is "does not include images used under a claim of fair use". Holy mouse turd batman! WTF am I reading than? I see: "Images that are claimed by the uploader to be images with free licenses when this is obviously not the case. A URL or other indication of where the image originated should be mentioned. This does not include images used under a claim of fair use, nor does it include images with a credible claim that the owner has released them under a Wikipedia-compatible free license. This includes images from stock photo libraries such as Getty Images or Corbis. Blatant infringements should be tagged with the {{db-imgcopyvio}} template. Non-blatant copyright infringements should be discussed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images." I am going to use your oneline reading as a new proposal a CSD. I am seriously done jumping between three locations. Soundvisions1 (talk) 21:17, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

"News Flash": I almost fell over when I saw this. We have have had proof all along sitting right here: Image:Marked-ap-letter.jpg. It is a letter from the Associated Press that is giving permission for two images to be used. But the very last paragraph should be extremely clear: "With respect to any and all other photographs in which The Associated Press is the copyright holder, The Associated Press reserves all its rights, and specifically does not agree that any Wikipedia publication of a copy-protected Associated Press photo in which a Wikipedia user chooses to upload would constitute fair use." Does anyone want to volunteer for A.P image patrol? Soundvisions1 (talk) 23:37, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Why would we care if the AP agrees that our use is a fair one or not? The whole doctrine is based on the concept that the objections of the rights-holder are irrelevant if the user meets the established criteria for fair use.—Kww(talk) 23:48, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I came here to say the exact same thing. Thanks, Kww. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:54, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I just came to say "Good luck, we're all counting on you." Soundvisions1 (talk) 03:19, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Why should we care? I guess we should care when AP takes us to court over whether these constitute fair use or not. The objections of the rights-holder are certainly not irrelevant when they have the means to have their day in court. Now I'm certain the cries of "but they haven't yet" or "they haven't because they know we'll win" are sure to ensue. However, as indicated in my letter, it's possible to be be forthright and actually secure permission (OMG what a concept) to use the image. I did it with two of the best known images in the world. --Wgfinley (talk) 05:46, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

AP is never going to take us to court over these images until they've taken to Wikimedia legal council (Mike Goodwin, I believe), and Goodwin's said that our use is legal, and Jimbo and whoever else is in charge has decided to fight it out. If we believe we can make a valid fair-use claim, it's not our job to deal with their objections, and if they have real objections that would pass legal scrutiny, they know how to make them.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:16, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Topology Expert (former title: User: Moondyne and User: Sarah)

Resolved. Enough of this. Martin 15:01, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Argh, I hate adding stuff to archived discussions, but, for transparency: I have blocked Topology Expert (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for 48 hours for trolling this board with unsubstantiated accusations of abuse and, when asked to stop, for widening that to include others who he disagrees with. Review is welcomed, as always. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 15:03, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

No comment on the merit, but I am relieved that you didn't block User:Moondyne and User: Sarah ;-) [11]

LOL :) Just noting here that a user, User:Michael Hardy, with one of the worst justifications I've ever seen following an unblock request at, of all places, a WikiProject talk page, unblocked him. I have reinstated the block, as after consulting with others, it could not justifiably be called a violation of WP:WHEEL given the obvious conflict of interest of the unblocking admin and the lack of due process or consideration. Orderinchaos 02:26, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

What exactly is the "conflict of interest" here? I think you are assuming far more unity among the math project than actually exists... — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:39, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The language and rationales provided by Michael Hardy before and since suggest a conflict of interest, not his affiliation with the math project (which I'd imagine would indeed be quite wide and diverse). My mention of the project was only insofar as noting it was a rather odd place for an unblock discussion to be taking place. Orderinchaos 05:22, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I completely agree it was not the right place to post a notice about a block. The user who posted it is only an occasional contributor on that page, and I have no idea why a notice was posted there. But there was no actual discussion about it. Someone actually removed the notice for a period of time, and even after someone else restored it nobody has commented on the block. — Carl (CBM · talk) 05:28, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Orderinchaos 06:56, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

"I've unblocked this user. I find some of the behavior of those who blocked him to be unreasonable and in some respects disrespectful to me and to any others who might be concerned. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:18, 5 December 2008 (UTC)"

Beggars belief. Michael Hardy unblocked Topology Expert because of something that someone else did or said? Because Michael Hardy was offended by comments made by the blocker? He might just as well have said "I have unblocked Topology Expert because he is about the same age as me." If this is not a flagrant abuse of administrative privileges, I don't know what is. Hesperian 04:43, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed and I think there's a couple of issues that the community needs to address. Firstly, admins who became admins back in the early days of the project before RfAs even existed and who apparently have not kept pace with current policy and culture. I personally like Michael and I don't want to see him dragged through an ArbCom case but this does seem to be a real concern. Michael really needs to acknowledge that he will familiarise himself with the relevant policies before using his tools in future to ensure his actions are actually compliant with current policy. Secondly, as a result of this incident, I have concerns about allowing users to use "expert" in their usernames. We have here a self-admitted primary (grade) school aged kid terming himself an "expert" and then berating other editors with his "expertise" and behaving condescendingly, arrogantly and dismissively towards other users, particularly those outside the maths wikiproject. What's ironic is, knowing the background of some of the users who have had problems with this kid, he's berating people who really are subject experts with advanced degrees and PhDs etc. There's something really wrong with this scenario - a primary school aged kid who has self-styled himself an "expert", treating real subject experts like crap. TE may be a great mathematics editor, I'm happy to defer to the maths editors on that, but his behaviour towards other editors not acceptable and he continues to behave this way even after being blocked, with more than half-a-dozen incidents of name calling currently on his page. We have always evaluated contributors based on the merits of their actual edits, rather than on who and what they claim to be and I think that TE needs to accept this and start behaving like he's participating in a collaborative project and stop treating other editors in such a condescending and dismissive manner. Sarah 01:13, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Regarding usernames, I think that you actually have a point. I think it is not a good idea for a username to convey the meaning of substantial authority (regardless of whether such authority is justified by the user's real-world credentials or WP contributions). There is, in fact, something in WP:USERNAME policy regarding this, as it says the following as a part of the section about inappropriate usernames: "Misleading usernames imply relevant, misleading things about the contributor. For example, misleading points of fact, an impression of undue authority, or the suggestion that the account is operated by a group, project or collective rather than one individual." Maybe this needs to be fleshed out and elaborated further. On the other hand, there is a fine line here as in many instances a username may reflect the user's interests rather more than the meaning of authority. E.g. say TE changed his username to PKpUser:Topologist. Would that be better? Much better? Regarding T.E. himself, I have to say that I am not particularly surprised to find him involved in the kind of a situation as the above thread. I have had a few interactions with him at wikiprojectmath and on math related articles and have found his behaviour to be frequently annoying, childish and stubborn. So to the extent possible I try to avoid direct engagements with him. He tends to edit math articles on basic graduate-level math definitions and it is clear that he has access to a few graduate math textbooks and has actually understood something in them. (So I don't think he is a primary school kid). His edits are usually fairly mundane, frequently redundant and, mostly harmless. He does make math mistakes, reasonably frequently, but they are usually caught by others since the articles he edits are on rather basic math topics and it is typically easy to spot a math error there. It is clear that he is generally a well-meaning editor who is, however, unaware of his own limitations (sometimes agressively so, which is the annoying part). Hopefully, this episode will teach him some humility, but I have some doubts about that... Nsk92 (talk) 03:22, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I offered to be a kind of mentor for TE, and this has been accepted. He is usually a good, helpful and cooperative editor in my opinion, but occasionally gets into sticky situations, of which this has been the most serious. I must say I have been impressed at how he has kept his word and got straight back into editing mathematics articles after his block expired and refrained from coming back and posting here. I will try to work with TE, and will bring up the issue of the username some time in the future. I suggest we mark this as resolved now. Martin 07:57, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

To User:Nsk92 (and unrelated to the issue of Moondyne):

Wait a minute. That ‘age’ issue was irrelevant to that discussion and was just to defend myself against Hans Adler who said that I was not an expert (but later said sorry about this). And as I have already mentioned, I have never had access to graduate textbooks (which particular articles are ‘graduate level’?). What you are also implying is that by having access to these texts (which I don’t), I merely copy stuff from there and put it on WP (I think many users can justify that this is not the case because my editing frequently has problems with WP:OR).

And please, if you don’t think that I am a primary school kid (which I am in terms of age but I have finished school ages ago), keep it to yourself, there is no need to publicize this on a forum (and as a matter I fact, I was basically forced to admit my age (it was not my choice)).

I know, I have made mistakes in the past, but that was a long time ago and those mistakes were minor (and not because of my lack of understanding (I do understand topology (and math) very well)). Since I am not bothered by the opinions of other users (real-life people can judge me) and would rather leave deciding whether my edits are good or not (memorizing and understanding a textbook means nothing; pyou have to be able to invent your own theorems (and definitions), be able to come up with links between different parts of mathematics by yourself and in general I prefer to prove a mathematical theorem (such as Urysohn or Tychonoff in topology) by myself (and am mostly successful (and successful for the two examples mentioned) in getting the idea of the proof and carrying it out)).

I created this account at the time I was learning topology and was not concerned with the username. Nowadays I am more mathematically precise and less prone to making ‘precision errors’ (as I said, apart from topology, everything I have learnt is from Wikipedia; I have looked at a particular definition, thought about it and come up with a few results myself. That is how I learn rather than learning from a book). If my edit was wrong it was most likely because I did not think about the definition at all.

Since it is not necessary now, I will not reveal my identity but maybe when I do, you will regret what you have said (I don’t wish to boast; merely only to explain some of what you have said).

Topology Expert (talk) 08:49, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Like I said before, I did not hold my breath that you would learn much humility from this episode... Nsk92 (talk) 12:29, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

TE, the first thing you need to understand is we don't care who you are. You could be a famous professor of mathematics at a renowned university or you could be a grade five student at a local primary school; we don't care. All we care about is what you choose to do when you log onto Wikipedia. Your merits as a Wikipedia contributor are judged entirely on your edits so these constant referrals to who you are in real life and how people would "regret it" if they knew who you are in real life are not only unnecessary but irrelevant. We don't care and it makes no difference whatsoever. All we care about is your edits. Being an "expert", even a real life expert, does not excuse people from following policy or give them a free pass on behavioural guidelines. Secondly, you have voluntarily revealed on site multiple times now how old you are so you can't now claim that it's "confidential". Sarah 23:38, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

And a note to math editors reading this: In future, I would prefer that my age is not referred to. If you know my age then that's fine but it is best to keep it confidential because it is irrelevant and seems to always pop up in discussions.

Topology Expert (talk) 08:52, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

"Undue authority" and credentials

Just to notify that the above thread has sparked a Bureaucrat discussion of how to interpret "undue authority" relative to credentials, rather than the more usual implied admin or other official role. See Wikipedia:Bureaucrats'_noticeboard#Undue_authority_and_credentials. --Dweller (talk) 09:42, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Well commenting on that, there have been experts who were young (take Gauss and Galois as prime examples). And did I ever say that my highest level of achievement is finishing school (given that I have)? For all you know I might have a higher achievement than that. Don't assume that just because I am young(er), it implies that I am only in school. Even if it were true I would consider publicizing that as WP:OUTING.

Topology Expert (talk) 12:46, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't see anyone there commenting about your age. All we are talking about is that a user's expertise should not generally be flaunted in a discussion in order to weigh one side over the other, because wikipedia has seen too many trusted users fake such expertise. Protonk (talk) 19:40, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I just want to make it clear that I don't want to 'make' users think that I am an expert by 'topology expert'; it is just a username and should be treated lightly. I don't claim to be an expert (judge this from my edits; not from my username).

Topology Expert (talk) 19:50, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention no real expert would go around with a username with 'expert' in it :P Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 20:08, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

LOL, I wasn't going to say it, but I thought it ;-) ---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 20:10, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Its just suppose to indicate that I am a topologist.

Topology Expert (talk) 20:10, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

But the worry is that someone who edits a topology article with you might say "gee, he's a topologist, I shouldn't press him for a source on claim XYZ." And that's bad. Protonk (talk) 20:17, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I see what you're saying, Protonk, but to be honest I don't think that happens much. What might happen is that people with questions on topology might go to TE's talk page to ask him questions about it, but we assume that editors, if out of their depth, will pass the question on or ignore it; either one is fine. The inclusion of "expert" in a username doesn't worry most people here - after all, people will argue with genuine, proven experts with credentials. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 20:55, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I see a difference between presenting yourself with the label "expert" and "Dr" or "Professor." Expert is a self administered label, which can mean any degree of expertise; Dr/phd/Prof are different.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 21:13, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

If a hypothetical such as the one described by Protonk were to occur, then I'm sure TE will immediately deny any expertise. The name only becomes a problem if TE decides to act like an authority on topology. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 23:48, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, sir. Are you really a frosty beverage? Jehochman ^Talk 09:26, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I can answer topological problems and I know topology very well. If it is something I don't know then I will admit it but generally people ask questions at the ref desk (and I answer every question there unless it has already been answered or I am the one asking it!) And in general, I would not want people to say that I am right because of my username but if they do so explicitly and I was wrong, then I will remove my change, but if I was right, then I will not. But one thing has to be made clear: I do not claim to be an expert but that does not mean that I am not an expert (I created this account when I really was not an expert (I was learning topology) but now I am in terms of knowledge!)

Topology Expert (talk) 09:06, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Admin usernames seem to be devoid of "undue authority" references. The only admins I can think of whose username might indicate a credential is User:DrKiernan - that is, if you discount User:Jengod, User:SirFozzie, User:Taxman, User:Master Thief Garrett and User:King of Hearts, User:BorgQueen and User:Deacon of Pndapetzim. Kingturtle (talk) 21:05, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

In my off-Wikipedia experience, I've found that people with those abbreviations after their names which confer some degree of authority (like a Ph.D.) treat them one of two ways: either they're always relying on them like a crutch; or they're a bit embarrassed by the credentials, & explain that they only have them in order to earn a living at their chosen trade. Oddly enough, the credentialed folks in the second category are not only the more interesting & honest types -- but exhibit more of the necessary knowledge & experience to actually be considered authorities than those in the first. -- llywrch (talk) 07:37, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

You may discount Kingturtle as well :) Cenarium (Talk) 17:50, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if mine counts... :P Orderinchaos 18:42, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Major UK ISPs reduced to using 2 IP addresses

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/2008 IWF action. Note that the filtering has been removed.

Related discussion on the use of the Virgin Killer image

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/2008 IWF action#Removing the Virgin Killer image

Drama over?

According to this morning's editions of the UK papers, the block has now been lifted due to the length of time the image has been out there. I suspect this whole thing was simply mischief-making by one of the "ZOMG! teh kiddie pr0n!" types on Wikipedia, but it matters not in the long run.

IWF's statement is here: [12]. Note the reference to their online reporting mechanism. The past history of debate regarding the Virgin Killer image leads me to suppose that this report was made by one of the participants in said debates, motivated no doubt by a sincere concern over the image concerned. Hopefully the resultant publicity will persuade IWF to be a little more careful in future, but it should also serve as a reasonable notice to us that WP:NOTCENSORED is not a suicide pact and we should be sure that, as in this case, any images we do include have rock solid grounds for inclusion. Actually I think we mainly do a pretty good job of self-policing on the issue of child pornography and paedophilia, and there are many thoughtful contributions on this issue, as well as the inevitable polarised all / nothing posturing. So actually I think we come out of this looking good, as a project, thanks in no small part to the measured response from the WMF reps. Guy (Help!) 12:44, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Ironically I think there'll probably be a jump in Scorpions sales thanks to the free publicity - you couldn't pay for that level of coverage if you were a band. Orderinchaos 18:37, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

See Streisand effect. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:25, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

The drama isn't over folks!! The nightmare is continuing. See the above. (Kreb (talk) 16:23, 13 December 2008 (UTC))

Link to possible malware site

Information on the site

1. www.freewebtown.com identified as malware site by Firefox: (example [13])
2. www.freewebtown.com identified as problem site by Google: Google Safe Browsing diagnostic page for www.freewebtown.com
3. www.freewebtown.com identified by WOT Security Scorecard as: phishing, spyware, adware, malicious content, viruses

Two editors have been restoring it to L. Ron Hubbard 1, 2, 3. Requesting uninvolved admins to evaluate. Thank you, Cirt (talk) 00:00, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I've removed it. Including a link that directs readers to a "THIS IS MALWARE" shock page in Firefox and Safari (IE7 as well?) is not acceptable. BJ^Talk 00:24, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Considering the entire domain is designated unsafe, is removal of the link from other articles also in order? ^LeaveSleaves _talk 00:47, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Woo, /me gets to work. BJ^Talk 01:04, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Cirt (talk) 01:07, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not in order. My guess is that one person's directory has malware and thus Google and Mozilla think everyone needs to be protected from the entire site. Many of the links probably fail WP:EL for other reasons, but we shouldn't take these "malware alerts" at face value. --NE2 01:08, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Linking to a site that leads the majority of users to a "This is malware, stop now" page is a Bad Thing. And nothing of value is lost anyways. BJ^Talk 01:13, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure it's not just Firefox users? I went to freewebtown just fine in the latest version of IE. See also [14]. --NE2 01:19, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Any browser or client that uses Google's data, the big three being Firefox, Safari and Chrome. I'm not aware how the IE7/8 malware system works so I can't say where they get their data. BJ^Talk 01:26, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Considering the fact that some of the links might contain malware is a very discouraging thing. Plus the site is a website hosting community. How can in either case could this be considered a valid EL or a reliable source? ^LeaveSleaves _talk 01:31, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

If it's the official site for something it's a valid external link. I've seen short line railroads with official sites on a free service. --NE2 01:34, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Agree with LeaveSleaves (talk · contribs). This site is simply not appropriate anywhere on wiki. Cirt (talk) 01:35, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

This isn't a matter of what you or Google thinks. We can link to sites that meet the criteria, even if Google erroneously lists them as malware. --NE2 01:37, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The report by Google and other sites is correct. Cirt (talk) 01:40, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

It's correct in saying that there is or has been malware hosted at that domain. Mozilla is incorrect in using that to block access to the entire domain. --NE2 01:43, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

By the way, scroll up: it appears that someone labeled Wikipedia as having child porn and so now all visitors from some major ISPs are being sent through a handful of IP addresses. We should avoid this sort of thing, and evaluate each link on a case-by-case basis. --NE2 01:46, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Whether or not it's a site that contains malware (my guess is it's a false positive) is independent of the text being added. The PDF is simply a convenience link to a print source that may or may not be relevant. If the link is to be removed, that's all that should be removed unless there's consensus that the text does not belong. --NE2 00:53, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Update: 4. Cirt (talk) 00:54, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

If you object to that edit, please explain why (preferably on the talk page, not here). There's no link now. --NE2 00:57, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay thank you. Cirt (talk) 01:07, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I left a brief note on Misou's talk page regarding the 3RR, but since the link has been removed, I doubt it will be an issue. - auburnpilot talk 01:12, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

After researching this a bit, I think this might be a false positive on Google's part. It seems malware distributors must have been abusing the free hosting freewebtown.com to spread their goods, but the host itself isn't doing it. For example, digging into the links from Bjweeks above - this list of malware found on the domain suggests that the malware was stored in individual members' accounts. I think the links should probably stay in place for now until more information can be found, as this might be a ham-handed mistake on Google's part. krimpet✽ 01:26, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this site has hosted malicious software over the past 90 days. It infected 50 domains. If you read the entire report at Google Safe Browsing diagnostic, it is a bit larger than a few members' accounts. Cirt (talk) 01:29, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

It's a free hosting site like Geocities. Some of the members hosted malware, knowingly or not. --NE2 01:33, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The list of article with links is here: User:Bjweeks/Sandbox. I don't suspect many of the link are valid under WP:EL but that takes a closer inspection. BJ^Talk 01:32, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Unintentional or not, linking to domains hosting malware is unacceptable. This and 117 related/involved domains have been blacklisted. Of perhaps 200 domains, I removed anything remotely resembling a legitimate site unless it had malware - most were blatant spam (the most creative perhaps being incestlessons.net \o/). De-listing for legitimately useful domains will of course occur upon request provided malware is no longer present.

More information is of course welcome. I spent about an hour sorting through stuff, but I was (am) rushed, and may well have made a mistake. Thanks.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 04:05, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Did you verify that there is malware present on any of the links that are now disallowed? --NE2 06:22, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Everything I added was either pure spam (cf incestlessons.net) or had the nasty when I checked. The proportion of sites someone might want to link to which had malware was very low & as I say, they'll be removed upon request provided they're clean.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 18:47, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Freewebtown doesn't "resemble a legitimate site"? --NE2 22:01, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

• Well don, Mike. I note it's now on the meta blacklist. Good call. Guy (Help!) 09:36, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

  Thanks. Recall, I'm not an admin here.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 18:47, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

What was Light Characters in the Wheel of Time: a redirect to?

Resolved

 – New redirect was reasonable, so I took care of it--Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:17, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Can someone allay my curiousity? What was Light Characters in the Wheel of Time: a redirect to? --SSBohio 01:17, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

There was never a redirect or other page there. Perhaps you wanted Light Characters in the Wheel of Time series? --NE2 01:20, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, what NE2 said. SSBOhio (Shouldn't you change your name now?...;) ), if a page is deleted it will show logs of the deletion to any non-admin (example for a page I deleted) giving you the reason for deletion. That sometimes (for pages deleted due to a discussion) leads you to a page where you can find out more about why it was deleted and what pages were related to it. Protonk (talk) 01:33, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

And now THAT version redirects as well. Redlink gone, and peace reigned throughout the earth. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:17, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I took a closer look, and it looks like the actual redirect that was deleted was Light Characters in the Wheel of Time:. I missed the : the first time around. And for me to become SSGN Ohio, I would have had to start out as SSBN Ohio. As I do not glow, I cannot be part of the Nuclear Navy. So, I'll keep my initials. :-) --SSBohio 02:19, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

It redirected to Light Characters in the Wheel of Time series originally. And you don't need to glow to be on the Ohio, you could have been a coner. :) Protonk (talk) 23:02, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I lived in San Diego, and the closest I came to the "Silent Service" was taking a date to Point Loma to watch the submarine races. Thanks for your satisfying my curiosity about this deletion. --SSBohio 04:32, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Take care, thanks for indulging the odd questions of strangers. Protonk (talk) 17:51, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Another one for the edit history blacklist

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikia&diff=256191441&oldid=255789444 - not sure where the edit summary blacklist is. Guy (Help!) 10:14, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I didn't even know we had one. If we do, could someone tell me where it is?--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 10:46, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The spam-blacklist will catch edit summaries. Won't do anything about the ### DOT org though. Stifle (talk) 12:31, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I know; in this case he is spamming without the http syntax. I guess we should just remove Grawp vandalism via oversight, per WP:DENY. Guy (Help!) 22:29, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

New Tool/Bot

You can now get notified when a user you have blocked requests to be unblocked. Opt-in here. (According to Peter this isn't spamming. Remove it if your opinions differ. _David^WS _(contribs) 17:41, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Excellent tool. Thanks. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:13, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Now that's a good idea in both halves: to be told I've made a mistake or to be told I've made the right decision. Either way, everyone wins. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 18:16, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly. Feedback is always helpful. --Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:49, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Rudolf Steiner IP Hopping Vandal is Back (12.72.195.162)

The IP hopper vandalizing topics relating to Rudolf Steiner that I reported yesterday is back (see this for details). Once again can an admin who is familiar with blocking ranges nail this hopper (unfortunately I have zero knowledge of how to do so :( )? Seems the 3 hour block wasn't enough to stop him. May need to instate a longer one this time.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 17:53, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Several of these were reported to AIV yesterday, and I too blocked them for three hours each. Unfortunately I do not think a rangeblock is viable, as the IPs in question are part of the dynamic allocation pool used by one of the biggest American ISPs in the tenth largest city in the country. If I am reading the sub-allocation blocks correctly (and I may not be), but there appears to 130,050 IPs in this range that are distributed across the whole of the most populous state in the Union. --Kralizec! (talk) 18:54, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

We are talking about blocking anonymous editing from a single public library. So we'd need to cover 12.72.192.* through 12.72.195.*. This looks very doable, and I think we could leave that kind of a rangeblock in place for a week. It is at most 1024 addresses even if all of those IPs exist. EdJohnston (talk) 20:24, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

This editor has said that he will stop vandalizing these articles. Thanks for all your help. --EPadmirateur (talk) 21:12, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Even better than a range block in this case :).¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 19:43, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

The British ISP Problem

Resolved

 – Article removed from IWF watchlist, according to this morning's papers Guy (Help!) 12:38, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

As described in a recent Wikinews article [15], in order to block images of naked children hosted on our servers, British ISPs are now routing all of their internet traffic to Wikipedia through six proxy servers, thus rendering it difficult, if not impossible, to block vandals without locking out enormous numbers of legitimate users. Now, far be it for me to suggest that we resolve this situation by deleting our images of naked children :) However, if these ISPs are going to proxy all traffic to us, it would be extremely helpful if they could implement a system of XFF headers so that we can identify the underlying IP addresses, as we did for AOL. Has anyone from the Wikimedia Foundation contacted them about this? Kristen Eriksen (talk) 21:52, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

• See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Major UK ISPs reduced to using 2 IP addresses. Also, XFF headers need to be sent to us. They (the IWF) may forward that if they can continue to block the material to anyone proxied through them. Protonk (talk) 21:56, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
• Not all British ISPs, mind. Said he, from a British ISP. Guy (Help!) 22:28, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The Foundation is aware of the problem, and is working on solving it. As a note, edit warring over any images involved in this is highly disruptive and may create a problem by presenting the image that the foundation has taken some sort of actions here. I'd ask that admins keep an active eye on the pages involved to prevent disruption there.⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 21:17, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Edit war on Resident Evil: Degeneration article

Resolved

 – Article full-protected for 48 hours; one WP:3RR warning issued.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 04:23, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi im reporting a rather heated edit war going on in the Resident Evil: Degeneration article between an IP user and a registered user by the name of User talk:OsirisV. over the plot so much so that foul language has already sprung up. I suggest and admin step in before things get out of hand. Deus257 (talk) 21:57, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Copyrigt Violation

[16] is a picture of a postcard. Sorry, I didn't know the right place to report this, because I haven't used wikipedia in a long time, but this image needs to be deleted. It also should be deleted from wikipedia commons. If you do not believe me, look at the metadata of the image and ask yourself if that makes sense for a photo supposedly taken from an aircraft.

BTW: This is the only fake image, the rest of [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ewok_Slayer/Images ] are all real.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.213.141.241 (talk)

It looks to me like the picture was taken with a Canon PowerShot A20, I don't think it looks to be a scanned image of a postcard. As of now, the only reason the I can see that the image should be deleted is lack of copyright information, the user seems to be inactive so I doubt that will happen. For the future, the best place for this would be Commons:Administrators' noticeboard.§hep • ¡Talk to me! 03:09, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Take that back, I found the copyright tag in the image page's history, it was removed recently. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 03:11, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I know, because I took that photo. Look at the exposure time...(1/15 sec for an outdoor photo?). I can't login, cause I haven't used that account in years and don't remember my password. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.213.141.241 (talk) 03:13, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Please delete the photo.-- --(U | T | C) 03:20, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

The admins over there will handle it now. Thanks. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 03:29, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Increased activities via open proxies

I'm observing an increased activity of edits via open proxies (OP). See [17]. Since 6 Dec a significant portion is of the same type, e.g. [18].

This coincides with a remarkable increase of number of working OP's that I'm daily adding to my database. This increase is due to OP's using a particular port. Probably caused by a new virus/worm spreading since beginning of November. - RonaldB (talk) 01:17, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

The ####alk spammer has been very active tonight (see my block log), so that's probably why those so many are showing up right now. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 01:20, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Revision deletion request

Resolved

 – Protonk dealt with it Monster Under Your Bed ^(talk) 07:33, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Can someone please delete these edits? They're a little on the defamatory side (but don't require oversight). Andjam (talk) 04:16, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Anyone feel like padding their edit count?

This category is full of charmers like these:

• Image:Airport.gif - derivative work, dodgy source, no permission. Very likely copyvio.
• Image:Alfredstower.jpg - no permission.
• Image:Argentine PNA 02.jpg - who took this photo? (no source)
• Image:BJUP.jpg - obvious copyvio is obvious.
• Image:BT GMDD T6H-5307N .jpg - another blatant copyvio
• Image:Bardarsheep.JPG - um, no.

Some of these have been floating around for more than two years. So if you are fairly proficient at image issues and want to pad your edit count, have fun. MER-C 10:01, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I had a look at the images you mentioned. Comments below:

• Image:Airport.gif - agreed it is derivative, and uploader said "source - Myanmar Times", but might be worth going through IfD here.
• Image:Alfredstower.jpg - see King Alfred's Tower - not sure what you mean by permission here (the tower was completed in 1772). The upload details contain an e-mail address, so it is possible to e-mail and clear up the paperwork to see if it was intended to be freely released. We do have a similar picture already in the article, though, so it would be no great loss if this one went. On the other hand, if this set of photographers really are releasing their images into the public domain, it might well be worth following up.
• Image:Argentine PNA 02.jpg - uploader is still active, why not ask them about this picture?
• Image:BJUP.jpg - should be OK as fair-use in British Undergraduate Philosophy Society (where the journal is covered).
• Image:BT GMDD T6H-5307N .jpg - uploader is still active, why not ask them about this picture?
• Image:Bardarsheep.JPG - agreed. Deleted as possible attack page and unencyclopedic (person's head photoshopped onto a sheep).

So I've deleted one of those five six. I'll try and follow the other four five up later today. Carcharoth (talk) 15:25, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Agree that this category is extremely problematic. I'll take a crack at it now, but I suspect I would be a little more heavy handed with it than many would be. J Milburn (talk) 15:51, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

If you find any academic journal covers, could you bung them my way? Carcharoth (talk) 16:25, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I will- I only worked at it for a few minutes, I wasn't really in the mood. I'll have another crack at it another time. J Milburn (talk) 17:08, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I deleted Airport.gif. It was from here. Chick Bowen 17:44, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Review

Hello all. Today User:Fastily requested rollback at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Rollback. I decided to decline his request for the reasons stated in this edit. Despite my decision User:Ruslik0 granted rollback to User:Fastily a few minutes later. After a long discussion User:Ruslik0 removed rollback. Most probably you'll ask why I brought this matter up here then. It's because User:Ruslik0 wrote in his last comment at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Rollback “Well, I removed rollback. However I strongly disagree with your interpretation of necessary prerequisites for rollaback.” This was my reply to his comment. While I really regret to bring this matter up here, it's simply necessary for me to know, whether my course of action in this issue was reasonable and right.

To summarise my reasons for declining the request:

• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5

Thanks for taking the time to review. :) —αἰτίας •discussion• 16:08, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I want to note that when I granted rollback I did not know that the request had been already denied by Aitias. After a discussion I undid my action. However I think Aitias' interpretation of the relevant policy is overly strict. I think the ability to distinguish vandalism from good faith edits can be demonstrated not only by mass reversion of vandalism, but also by other productive activities. Ruslik (talk) 16:19, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

This has absolutely nothing to do with mass reversion of vandalism at all. However this user had nearly no experience in reverting vandalism (cf. my links above). I think it's quite important to emphasise this. —αἰτίας •discussion• 16:24, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

While I agree with Ruslik that "the ability to distinguish vandalism from good faith edits can be demonstrated not only by mass reversion of vandalism, but also by other productive activities", the granting of rollback is also based on need for the tool. If the editor only has 2 or 3 reverts of vandalism, that hardly demonstrates need for the tool. I would also have denied rollback as Aitias did. I'm not sure I would have kept after Ruslik to remove the tool after it was already granted, though. More probably just sat back and monitored the user's use of the tool, to see if the trust was warranted or not.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 16:32, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I though getting rollback was not a big deal? Easy come, easy go. – How do you turn this on (talk) 16:39, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I want to say that I agree with you. Ruslik (talk) 16:47, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

How do you turn this on, please don't start a debate on principles here. I asked for an admin review of my decision, no more, no less. —αἰτίας •discussion• 16:50, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

And I'm saying I think your decision, while careful, was possibly too careful. It's supposed to be no big deal, so I don't see the need for high standards when granting, because unlike adminship, it can be removed easily. Just my 2 cents. What exactly did you want reviewing? – How do you turn this on (talk) 16:57, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree with How do you turn this on, Fastily is an experienced user who has been here almost a whole year, has several hundred edits, no previous blocks, and no history of edit warring. I see no reason to deny rollback. This seems like it should have been a rather obvious decision to grant it IMO. Mr.Z-man 19:28, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I briefly commented on the original discussion, so I'll give my view. I support the granting of rollback to this user, but it should've been handled differently. Usually when two admins disagree about whether rollback should be granted, they should refer it to a third uninvolved admin. In my experience, rollback has generally been removed if another admin disagrees (but there was a e/c in between) until a decision can be realised, and then reinstated (or not) depending on the outcome. Every admin has a different general standard for granting rollback, so a third admin is sometimes helpful, and prevents a drawn-out dispute. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 20:10, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I agree with you that a third uninvolved admin should probably consider this issue. Ruslik (talk) 07:52, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Hemanshu

A request for comment is underway regarding admin User:Hemanshu. Desysopping is being considered. More input would be appreciated.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 17:16, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Assume good faith

Resolved

hello. I'm quite new here and trying to resolve issues regarding the article osho. there is one aggressive editor by the name of semitransengenic that seems to me to be in no way trying to improve the article I have looked at his posts and I found that he appeared here on the 2 jan 2008 out of nowhere and was immediately a proficient editor . I find this unbelievable and have the idea that he was posting previous to 2 jan under a different name and has changed it to hide an anti osho agenda. would it be possible to have a look at this possibility for me ? thankyou (Off2riorob (talk) 18:05, 7 December 2008 (UTC))

This new user has now leveled a series of user conduct accusations against me, including the heading of this post, and is currently contravening WP:GF & WP:NPA. There is absolutely no evidence of me being aggressive with this user, in fact it's the contrary. I took the time to discuss a number of issues, and did so politely and pragmatically:[19][20][21][22]

I have since asked him to cease making allegations. He had previously been asked to comment on content, not on the contributor, but is insistent on ignoring good faith with this fantasy about me editing previously under a different username. I request that this post be removed or it's heading changed, as this amounts to a false accusation. Semitransgenic (talk) 18:23, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Off2riorob, you haven't yet provided any evidence to back up your statements. Please show us some diffs of the conduct you object to ("immediately being a proficient editor" is evidence of almost-nothing, thus far--he may have been contributing anonymously for some time before creating an account, or perhaps he's familiar with wiki-markup from working on another wiki. AGF clearly applies here]] and tell us what administrative action you are requesting. Thanks.GJC 19:27, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

thankyou for your input gladys. are you an administrator? I am here looking for administrative assistance regarding the comment I have posted above! (Off2riorob (talk) 20:44, 7 December 2008 (UTC))

ok gladys I found your admin status. it's the ip address I want to get checked as he is dominating the editing at the article osho and after reading the archived posts and asking him about it he said he was just used to prog... he did not mention any other wiki at all! I immediately got the thought that previous he was posting under another id. this perhaps is not out of order .. unless as I thought he had been editing under the other name and under that other name could be seen to have a involvement (financially) with anti osho book or similar . if checking this is not possible or in your opinion unwaranted then I will leave it alone.. to make the title clear ..it is not me I think he has been aggressive to ..it is the article in question. (Off2riorob (talk) 21:11, 7 December 2008 (UTC))

thanks gladys.thats what I was looking for a 'check user' on semitransengenic. I was reading that .Assume good faith link you included. and I can go with that ..I have since birth here come with the idea of improvement! give it another try so to speak but please at the least do me a favour (please) and assign me a moderator for this article one of the other editors there jalal also asked for one today! thanks for your comments (Off2riorob (talk) 21:32, 7 December 2008 (UTC))

I have a serious objection to this users line of inquiry, irrespective of the user 'new' status, someone needs to make it clear that the allegations he is persisting in making here are serious breaches of WP:AGF & WP:NPA and are therefore intolerable: "involvement (financially) with anti osho book or similar"???? Semitransgenic (talk) 22:04, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

If Off2riorob has evidence that another user has a conflict of interest then the relevant noticeboard would be the best place to address it. If there's no grounds for the assertion then it's not helpful to make the charge. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:18, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I have since found undisputed evidence that the user semitransgenic has been posting under multiple names and multiple ip addresses.. from all of which he has been propogating his anti cult agenda. see my postings at... User talk:Will Beback ‎ (→New User / editors personal anti cult agenda (semitransgenic) how am I suposed to assume good faith with him when he hides his posts under multiple identities. he (semitransgenic ) has already been involved in a serious outing case on the osho articles which should have imo resulted in a block.Is it possible to have him removed at least as a biased editor from the osho page so that people could at least try to improve the article.. while he is an editor there that is impossible . thanks (Off2riorob (talk) 01:43, 9 December 2008 (UTC))

• I don't see evidence of "posting under multiple names and multiple ip addresses". I see that he edited under an IP address before getting an account, and that he's occasionally forgotten to log-in before editing. He has acknowledged his edits and hasn't tried to use multiple accounts to skew consensus or evade 3RR, so far as I can see. I'm not sure what the outing issue is, but if it's more than six months ago I'd suggest that it's stale. Back in January I did caution him against making negative personal comments about other editors and I've given you the same advice. If you think an article needs improvement then I suggest you discuss that rather than the possible motives of other editors. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:50, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Associated press

Resolved

 – Guys, keep discussion in one thread please. The discussion going on right now is not about the article, but about what has already been posted here.

— neuro^(talk) 12:15, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Looks like the AP has gotten hold of the current story [23]. DriedOut (talk) 19:43, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

The AP didn't say what the offending article was. I think it may be this one, but I'm not sure. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_Killer Chergles (talk) 19:55, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

That's the one, Virgin_Killer. Since wiki servers are in Florida, US law rules and US law is very strong in child pornography. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:00, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Major UK ISPs reduced to using 2 IP addresses for more info. D.M.N. (talk) 20:32, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

"There shouldn't have been any collateral damage". I'm so glad such tech-savvy people are telling me what I can and can't view on the Internet. J Milburn (talk) 22:08, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Great Britain isn't known as the "nanny state" for nothing, it seems. Resolute 22:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

You mean the United Kingdom... – ukexpat (talk) 04:12, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I think that the image on the article is clearly a child and should be removed. The actual album cover has been changed for this reason. Why not show the new album cover? 86.154.11.85 (talk) 10:08, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:NOTCENSORED. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 10:15, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Could the image not be termed a shock site? Titch Tucker (talk) 10:19, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

No, it's just an album cover. It's not an erotic image, it's just a naked girl, posed as erotically as dog vomit. It's no more shocking or pornographic than a statue of a nymph in a park. Naked child != child porn. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 10:23, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

That's may be so for you and I, but there will be certain rather sick people out there who may see it differently. Also, it is not a statue, it's a little girl Titch Tucker (talk) 10:32, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

You can't legislate for what a tiny minority may get from an image. There are some people who are sexually attracted to animals. Do we remove pictures of animals from our articles? After all, certain rather sick people out there would see porn were we see a picture of an animal. Censor the Virgin Killers album article and you've got a can open and worms everywhere. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 10:45, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

• As some people may know, I am British. My ISP does not block this image. Neither does ScanSafe, the web filtering service we use at work. I suspect a bit of mischief-making, at some level. Guy (Help!) 11:35, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Nope, it's genuine. Details are in bug 16569. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:33, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

• Not disputing that it's genuine, it's the scale of the problem I think has been somewhat exaggerated for effect. Guy (Help!) 13:46, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Urgent, guidance needed!

Resolved

[Belinrahs | 'sup? | what'd I do?] 22:01, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I just recently applied for account creation interface access, and it was denied. I then appealed the decision, and I've just received a very disturbing/worrying reply...

Extended content

My appeal: Hello fellow Wikipedians, I would like to appeal the decision of Stifle to decline my application to access the Wikipedia Internal Account Creation Interface. The following is the information I understand I need to include: user_id: 346 user_name: Belinrahs user_onwikiname: Belinrahs user_email: belinrahs@gmail.com log_id: 21886 log_pend: 346 log_user: Stifle log_time: 2008-12-04 11:43:44 log_cmt: Thanks for your interest in working the account creation interface. Unfortunately your application has not been successful this time. This is because you don't seem to have a lot of experience on Wikipedia. Please try again in a few months. Regards User:Stifle I would like to, respectfully of course, disagree that I "don't seem to have a lot of experience on Wikipedia". First of all, I would encourage you to either talk to User:Neurolysis, my on-wiki adoptee, about my qualifications. If it isn't feasible to contact him in the short-term about this issue, then I would welcome you to look at the adoption page where he has given me some questions ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Neurolysis/Adoption/Belinrahs ). Secondly, I have an edit count of over 1,200. I most certainly realize that edit count doesn't mean I have wiki experience, but what it does say is that I have spent a reasonable amount of my time on the wiki. At this point, the thing I seem to mostly do is reverting vandalism (using Huggle) and doing some minor copy-editing but I believe it does show I contribute to the wiki in good faith. The reason that I did apply for the Account Creation Interface was to help those who wish to register an account, but had trouble doing so. I'm known among my peers for being able to take on multiple tasks and do so efficiently and with a high-quality end result. Thank you, and I will understand completely if you do not agree with my views on why I should qualify for this position. I'd also like to note that if you have any questions that you'd like to ask me, I'd most certainly be pleased to answer them. Once again, thank you for your consideration. Garret Smith Wikipedia: Belinrahs Reply from appeal: Email removed per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Durova#Private correspondence and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Durova#Removal of private correspondence. Daniel (talk) 23:52, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I should note that the IP in question is a dynamic IP now -- my ISP, HughesNet, has made my previously static IP into a dynamic one and all Hughes users run from proxy servers, a poor choice on my ISP's part.

But most of the vandalism in question, that led to the block on this account, occured when it was static. What actually happened was that my brother was vandalising the page Maple Valley Schools from our IP. I didn't know it was happening, and I went out to get a drink. Low and behold, he got on my computer and, if I remember correctly, vandalised from my logged-in account. Soon after I got back, he wasn't there and I was blocked for "same vandalism as IP".

Anyways, the fact that Promethean, who I've seen around Wikipedia, wants to run a checkuser on me is actually really scary -- all the checkusers I've read through as research to learn more about Wikipedia -- that were successful ones -- led to permanent bans...

I don't want to make it sound super-severe but I majorly need guidance. Wikipedia's become my home-sweet-home on the Internet and I'm on almost every day. To be blocked for such an unfortunate misunderstanding would be tragic for me. If you look at some of my more recent contribs, they haven't necessarily been mainspace edits, more personal edits, but in the past I've done a lot of vandal-fighting and copy editing. Thanks for your help guys. I hope I can get some good news. I wish I never would have applied to get access to that stupid account creation interface if it leads to my permanent ban! Once again thank you from the bottom my heart for the help. [Belinrahs | 'sup? | what'd I do?] 20:40, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Without commenting on the account creator issue, I don't think you have anything to worry about when it comes to Promethean (talk · contribs) and checkuser. First of all, he isn't a checkuser. Secondly, I imagine there'd need to be a great deal more than a few edits made by an IP a year ago before any respectable Checkuser would run a check. If that's all there is on Promethean's desire to have a checkuser "follow up on that", don't worry. You're fine. I've pointed out this thread to him, so hopefully he'll shed some light on what he meant. - auburnpilot talk 21:05, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I believe that a response that was meant to be sent to only to the list was accidentally sent to you, and therefore it isn't 'official' in any way. Additionally, any checkuser asked to preform a check for the reasons Promethean gave would immediately reject it as fishing. I wouldn't worry about it. Prodego ^talk 21:08, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Just a quick note to say there is an ongoing discussion concerning your access request and appeal. I have been asking why your original request was delined. The reason declared was lack of experience, although I personally would have said you have enough experience. Another issue that has been raised is your block log. However, the block in question was over a year ago, so I see no issues surrounding that either. Everyone makes mistakes, does the wrong thing occasionally, or suffers a temporary lack of good judgement. There is another issue which I've just emailed you about, which from a personal PoV I'd rather remain off-wiki, but I'm sure that that too was an honest mistake. :-) Stwalkerster [ talk ] 21:39, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I was given adminship six months after being blocked! No reason to worry about that. --Kizor 21:46, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

As was I. [24][25] In the long run, blocks are never as big a deal as they seem at first. - auburnpilot talk 22:03, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I'm happy about the private issue as well now. I just want a word with the tool admin who originally declined, (which I've been wanting to do since you appealed, incidentally) and then I'll see what I can do. Stwalkerster [ talk ] 21:55, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you all for the help. I consider this issue now resolved as I'm at rest and all is back to normal. You all deserve a cookie. *hands you all big chocolate-chip cookies*. Thanks! [Belinrahs | 'sup? | what'd I do?] 22:01, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the email per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Durova#Private correspondence and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Durova#Removal of private correspondence. Please, never, post emails on Wikipedia without the consent of all the authors. Daniel (talk) 23:52, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Belinrahs, This was my mistake and I realised it before you made this thread, for starters you were not intended to get the email but further more when I looked at your block log I didnt exactly look at the year of which the block was given that as well as the fact that I dont keep track of the date precisely when I dont need to led me to believe your block had occured much more recently then it did. I'm sorry for any distress I may have caused you and in hindsight, I probably should have CC'ed you the email (which I sent to the other ACC users) that says "Scrap that, that block was over a year ago" but then again, you shoudn't have got the initial email...doh!   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 03:04, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Amigo29 90

Hello there. I was looking around where to post this, but since it really isn't "vandalism" that I am reporting, I guess I will report it here. User Amigo29 90 has repeatedly uploaded copyrighted images claiming them as his own. He has received sufficient warnings to stop his undesired behavior. It would be best, if possible, to block the user's right to upload pictures for a limited time, since his written contributions are useful. Colombiano21 (talk) 23:03, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately that is not possible. A user cannot be blocked from uploading, as far as I know. — neuro^(talk) 12:18, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

On the other hand, a user can be blocked from editing (which will include uploads) per the blocking policy in the case that he repeatedly uploads copyvios. Stifle (talk) 14:45, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

And indeed he has been, by Alexf, for 1 week. Stifle (talk) 14:45, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Alrighty then, thanks. Colombiano21 (talk) 16:14, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Kalkaski

Kalkaski (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:Kalkaski seems to be a vandalism only account. Not a frequent contributor, which is why I didn't list at WP:AIV but doesn't seem to have made a valid contibution to Wikipedia since 17 August 2008.

• Edit summaries for all edits back to 18 August 2008 - [26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33]

The user has had a number of warnings on his talk page. --AussieLegend (talk) 23:33, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Blocked as vandalonly. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:17, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom Clerk appointments

The Arbitration Committee is pleased to announce that Nishkid64 (talk · contribs) and Ryan Postlethwaite (talk · contribs), who have been assisting with clerking our cases, have been formally appointed to the position of Arbitration Committee Clerk. The committee appreciates their assistance as well as those of our other Clerks. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:44, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Yay. Daniel (talk) 23:48, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

An unblock notice

After exchanging many e-mails with both disputants and topic-banned users user:opiumjones 23 and user:BKLisenbee where we discussed ways to move forward in order to settle their dispute using collaborative and assisted methods instead of edit-warring and mutual accusations, I am announcing here that I'll be unblocking user:BKLisenbee who has been indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry since early August 08.

Both users remain topic-banned (Jajouka/Joujouka-related topics) until further notice but will be active at the mediation page user:FayssalF/JK. For this purpose, I have also left a notice at administrator user:Gyrofrog's talk page (the admin who has been working alongside me to sort out this dispute).

P.S. Any help in the mediation process will be appreciated. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 11:31, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi FayssalF, Given the fact that an identifiable anon IP who works for the same people has been editing in a similer pattern here [34], I feel that your unblock is premature. It will lead to vitriol and further problems. The user refused to mediate for a year before his block, is there a reason and solid undertaking from him to do so now?

I object to this unblock as I stated in email and due to the serious violations that resulted in his block see here [35], and his previous editing history that continuously violated WP:OUTING, WP:BLP, WP:NOT . It should have been put to the community for consensus before the unblock was made. Has there been any undertakings in these regards?

The user has a history not unlike ED re his editing and personal attacks on wiki users off wiki. Bad Unblock

Opiumjones 23 (talk) 12:39, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

A recent series of edits on Dec. 1 to Jajouka ([36]) concerns me. The topic ban doesn't prevent this sort of thing, and we are bound by WP:OUT etc. from drawing conclusions. I have to assume that the off-Wiki email exchanges addressed such issues, and allowed for some sort of control whose enforcement will not place undue burden upon FayssalF nor myself nor any other Wikipedians. I have to also assume that this is an absolute last chance, at least for the unblocked editor. My $0.02, -- Gyrofrog (talk) 13:06, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

There has been serious off wiki online posting re wikipedia by the unblocked editor. I have not been informed of any guarantees that have been given. Having been over this for too long with this editor and his refusal to mediate. I am 100% against this unblock. It will only lead to more problems. I am also constrained with what I can say due to WP:OUTING. This editor has continuously been disruptive and uncooperative. His edits will affect a wide range of other pages, not just JJ issue, as there is he has a NPOV agenda regarding several other pages? Despite a year long opportunity to mediate before his block he 100% refused to participate. Opiumjones 23 (talk) 13:13, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Why would one be against unblocking someone for the purpose of sorting out a mess knowing that no editing will be involved?! The "topic ban remains until further notice" (meaning until problems are fixed) says it all. Neither him nor you will be entitled to use fingers to edit a word at those articles. The purpose is to fix your non-ending problems which include off-wiki harassment from his and your side alike. You are talking about wp:outing, wp:blp and wp:not which concern both of you. None of you has respected those policies in the past. Off-wiki harassment? Both of you! You are on the same boat opiumjones 23.

The recent IP editor edited from Denmark and opiumjones 23 knows who that preson was --it was not BKLisenbee and as known those kind of biased edits can be reverted on the spot per wp:NPOV. Now, are you ready for a mediation or not? Otherwise, what's has been the reason of you and him sending me e-mails regularly if not asking for help. Well, here's it is... let's work here in the field and leave e-mail boxes alone. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 13:39, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Concerns as stated above are more related to talk pages than article pages. I also object and disagree with your above statement re off wiki as it has been directed against me!!. My first email does require an email response. A bad unblock given the history and I have respected 100% the topic ban. I have repeatedly agreed to mediation but other user refused. Recent Danish editors works with BKL and his friends. ie proxy/meat puppet. As a meat puppet has been editing in the last week I think that the lesson has not been learned. The unblock is premature. It should have had community consensus. The unblock comes at a time when real world commercial concerns are driving the issue not wiki issues. ie CD release by BKL pals , Bad unblock without wider community support. Gyrofrog's concerns are also relevant.. Opiumjones 23 (talk) 13:56, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

It can be premature though I believe the amount of e-mails i've been receiving from both of you shows otherwise. You fix your problems here and not with e-mails. The Danish IP is under the radar of course and the reason behind the IP appearance is duly noted. And again, this is an unblock not for editing. Nobody will be editing. You got your concerns straight but you forgot that other party got their concerns as well. Hearing from both sides on a mediation page is the norm especially that there are concerns about NPOV --the Wikipedia core policy. As for the wider community view I must say that this wiki dispute has been going on for ages with no one ready to understand it or help due to the specificity of your dispute. At the exception of Gyrofrog, no single admin has ever delved into your dispute. What would the community say about a dispute which doesn't understand? If there's someone familiar with your problems then I'd be happy to hear from them or accept their objections in case there would be any otherwise I see no single problem at all in letting someone back after 4 months of being blocked coming back to discuss and not to edit. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 14:27, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

One simple reason is his use of talk pages to wage vendettas Opiumjones 23 (talk) 14:32, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I have asked him to be careful. You can follow the same advice. He'd present his concerns objectively and you'd do the same. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 15:13, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Something doesn't smell right about this. FayssalF left a notice at the blocking administrator's user talk only ten minutes before the actual unblock.[37][38] For a four month old indef it would seem prudent to allow a bit more time for discussion than that. Opiumjones 23 demonstrates no desire whatsoever to mediate. Although I have great trust in FayssalF's good intentions, this isn't off to a good start. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it operate a corkscrew. Durova^Charge! 15:31, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I was willing to mediate for over a year. The unblock is premature as there are off wiki issue that are ongoing and I have no faith in the unblocked users intentions to mediate. There should have been discussion before the unblock for sure. Off wiki emails that I have been cced by third parties do not indicate any change in the users temprement or interest in good faith mediation and postings on other websites also indicate the same. I can provide copies and links by email if any one wants them; I suggest reblock and time for discussion at a community level. Opiumjones 23 (talk) 15:36, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

To Durova... I must say that the unblock was discussed a month or so ago and Opiumjones 23 had little concerns about it (not that important since no one is going to edit any word). Plus, we could keep doing this via e-mail but I can't guarantee for them that i'd be available everytime they need help. It's an on-wiki dispute and should be fixed here with the help of other admins. The other party has no more desire to mediate than Opiumjones 23 as nobody trusts the other but they both have genuine concerns which need to be discussed. Nobody is obliged to mediate but everyone has the right to tell us publically about their concerns which I get via e-mail almost on a daily basis.

In fact, both users will be under the same topic ban because they both acted wrong in the past couple of years which explains the general topic ban I put them under. I've been quite busy lately and i have had little time to deal w/ this issue and other ones and this explains the "10 minutes". I know the story of these two users very well and letting one back is common sense because they have genuine concerns as well which I have been receiving from them (same thing from Opiumjones 23). The difference between the two users is that one have socked and got indef blocked. The rest (outing, blp, pov pushing, incivility) was common practice for both of them. Let's hear them before judging. You are invited to help at this long-standing conflict. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 23:57, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I did respond to you 15 Oct and may not have been clear enough but my comparing BKL with ED should have indicated my concerns. I don't know how that was taken to mean I had little concern. I should have been clearer obviously. You also do not get daily emails from me. Why a user indef blocked for his behaviour , (and his editing problems were not just with this user), should be allowed to publicise their NPOV, Outing other issues on Wikipedia I can't understand.

I have GF Svest but your points here are not at all in keeping with your normal well balanced approach. They are a contradiction of basic principles here and make no sense. The User also refused repeated requests, pleas, and suggestions, to mediate for a year before his was indef blocked. It as you say he has "no desire to mediate " why unblock. Also re the statement "everyone has the right to tell us publicly about their concerns", he has two websites that air his concerns off wiki as it and all these concerns were aired here to death in the days of User:Emermann and the BKL period. It makes no sense and has no precedent here as far as I know.

Opiumjones 23 (talk) 00:31, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I still have a balanced approach. You have done the same things wrong in the past and that was the reason behind the topic ban, otherwise you'd be still editing yourself. You are both topic banned because you both did wrong. Just because he sockpuppeted after that (for which he was blocked) doesn't mean that you are 100% right and he's 100% wrong. I'd have done the same for you if you were blocked indef. Now, what if we listen to his concerns as well? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 19:29, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

We have and still can in all their grossly misrepresenting glory in his own words on his website here [39] and [40]. Opiumjones 23 (talk) 19:42, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

• URGENT ATTENTION NEEDED BY ADMINS at ~user:FayssalF/JK. Can some admins check the WP:BLP and WP:OUTING issues that have come into play or should I go to incidents. I emailed FayssalF but as he has left it as it was I think it is prudent that another admins looks it over. In the huge comment there there are several WP:OUTING issues which FayssalF assured would not be taking place under his watch. Opiumjones 23 (talk) 01:08, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

• • There is no outing whatsover. Please show us some evidence. I emailed FayssalF but as he has left it as it was is misleading as I haven't replied to you until today, just after reading your email. Please address the concerns of the other user instead of repeating yourself. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 14:52, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

• • • Thanks for the email, outing exists when wiki names applied to real life situations, sources? Please watch for third party living people being accused of illegal activities such as the one you just redacted.

Will address only re wiki guidelines for sources and verifiability when time permits as outlined in email. Thanks Opiumjones 23 (talk) 15:26, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Move protect common vandalism targets?

Hello, my apologies if this is the wrong place to bring this up. I've noticed that some pages on my watchlist are moved for obviously bad reasons. Why not protect certain pages from being moved around, when there's no likely reason to ever move them in the first place? Pages like parts of the body, famous people, countries, etc. Thank you. LovesMacs (talk) 15:42, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I doubt the moves are being made enough that it matters... ie the work to debate which articles should have indef move protection, and then to protect them is more then the work to revert a move when it happens. Wikipedia already has auto-confirm which means new accounts can't move pages until they do X number of edits and wait Y amount of time. (I think). —— nixeagle 16:12, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

What articles are you referring to. I could take a look and see if the amount of move-abuse warrants a protection. Kingturtle (talk) 16:14, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I think lovemacs was referring to groups of articles... ie protect all the body parts, protect all countries, etc. Of course if there is an article that is on your list that is getting moved many times... then I'd suggest either listing it here or listing it at requests for page protection. The latter is the "correct" option, but admins are watching here anyway :). —— nixeagle 17:05, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, if you notice that a particular article is being targetted by someone for repeated moves, point it out with diffs and we'll protect it. But one move isn't usually enough and it's better to revert, block and ignore than tie ourself in knots. People have proposed wide-scale move protection in the past, but there's low-level opposition because it's anti-wiki and concentrates power in the hands of admins, who don't want it. Nevertheless, a proposal - at WP:VP or on the talk page of WP:RM? - that's been thought out and is well argued may fly, so feel free to make it. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 17:27, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

This has been done some time ago for names of countries, by several admins. It is not done wholesale for other categories or types of articles due to the work involved. Redvers comments are very valid as a proposal if you care to make it. -- Alexf^(talk) 17:38, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

If a specific well known page move vandal moves a page once, it usually gets move protected immediately, although not always. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:12, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Forming a Citation Study Group?

Any interest in forming a Citation Study Group or Reference Repair Squad? Part of Wikipedia and part of getting featured articles is fixing the format of references. This is very hard work as references are often written in different formats. It's hard work to standardize this. For example, if an article has 50 references, then one has to manually fix them. If there is a group of people who is skilled in doing it well and fast, it would be very helpful. Any interest? Chergles (talk) 17:30, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

For example, some citations have a "Retrieved 2008-12-05" while some say "Retrieved on December 2, 2008." Others say it differently. Some have no retrieved date on some references but have them on others. Sometimes, the use of italics vary. Chergles (talk) 17:31, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

• you probably want the Village Pump for this but have you considered getting a bot to do this? Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:01, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Not really worth going through so many articles to fix, I think. Just do it if you happen to be on an article that has that problem, but otherwise, it's not something that would particularly bother readers. A bot would probably indeed be a better solution since as long as they are using templates, arguments should be standardized. Gary King (talk) 22:17, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Page move vandalism?

Resolved

 – A problematic change to Mediawiki:Titleblacklist has been reverted and should no longer cause this problem. — Gavia immer (talk) 20:15, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Why am I getting this message:

This page-move has been automatically blocked, because it looks like page-move vandalism. If you think this has been done in error please leave a message on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard.

when I try to move a page? I was only trying to remove the space in the middle of the title of WT:Articles for creation/Submissions/ The Mount Sinai Holy Church of America. Thanks, Martin 17:36, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Helgoland Airport -> Heligoland Airport

Hi, I've moved Helgoland Airport to Heligoland Airport to make the spelling consistent with the article on the island, which is at Heligoland. However, the talk page was not moved and when I try to move it separately (i.e. Talk:Helgoland Airport to Talk:Heligoland Airport), I get the message: "This page-move has been automatically blocked, because it looks like page-move vandalism. If you think this has been done in error please leave a message on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard." -- 3247 (talk) 17:38, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I confirm that it is impossible for us plebs to move this talk page to where it should be. Could an admin please oblige? DuncanHill (talk) 17:56, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

It appears that Fut. Perf. moved the talk page about the time DuncanH. posted. Anything else? -- llywrch (talk) 20:07, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

False-alarm page move block

Attempting to move The Oriental Bangkok to the more descriptive title Mandarin Oriental Hotel, Bangkok returns:

This page-move has been automatically blocked, because it looks like page-move vandalism. If you think this has been done in error please leave a message on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard.

--Paul_012 ^(talk) 17:52, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

No idea why this happened, but I've made the move for you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:53, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Isn't there a limit on the number of moves that an account can make in one sitting? Paul_012 made a lot of moves today, they probably got throttled. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 01:11, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Zef shoshi to Zef Shoshi

Same with the above. I've moved dozens of articles to their correctly capitalized form before without obstruction; what is going on? Skomorokh 17:54, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Done, but the article needs a lot of work. JodyB _talk 17:57, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

• Has the vandal filter gone live I wonder?Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:59, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

If it has it's doing a terrible job. Whatever this nonsense is it needs to be reversed quite quickly. Thanks Jody for performing the move. Skomorokh 18:04, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

You might want to direct any questions about the filter to its developer Werdna. I just left a message on Werdna's talk page. Wonder if he was aware that a live demo was going on. I didn't see any indication of one on the bugzilla report or the WP:ABFIL talk page.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 18:12, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

It is the MediaWiki:Titleblacklist. Someone added quite a few entries in the last hour, I have reverted until the problematic regexe is found. Regards. Woody (talk) 18:17, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Gah guess that would have been the obvious place to look first >.<...¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 18:22, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

My fault, I had a bad one in there, gone now. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:37, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

You've caused major problems by badly-thought-out additions to the blacklist several times now. The next time you edit it, I'm going to block you for disruption. --Carnildo (talk) 21:19, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

That's probably over the top as a reaction, Carnildo. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 22:27, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

(ec)And I'll be one step behind you to unblock. Really, Carnildo, don't make such ridiculous threats. Instead, try using those keys in front of you and have an actual discussion (I know, difficult). I'll start it off for you: "Hey, NawlinWiki. In the future, please don't add something to the Titleblacklist unless you are 100% certain it is correct". Maybe after that, you can suggest that NawlinWiki use the talk page to run additions by other admins. But hey, use your own words. - auburnpilot talk 22:28, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I tried discussing things in August, when he blocked all pagemoves to titles containing the letter "p", in September, when he added a number of entries with likely false-positives, and in October, when I removed a number of his additions for generating unacceptable levels of false positives. Talking isn't working. I'm wondering if blocking will. --Carnildo (talk) 22:59, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) While your irritation is understandable the threats and rash action are not. Certainly this does not rise to disruptive editing. JodyB _talk 23:30, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Disabling pagemoves for half an hour isn't disruptive? --Carnildo (talk) 00:13, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

No I'd say not. Being a bit clueless is not the same as being disruptive. Theresa Knott | token threats 08:59, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Clueless people shouldn't be editing the blacklist either. --Carnildo (talk) 10:43, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

In this case, blocking wouldn't instill clue. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 10:44, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

True, but it would prevent editing the blacklist. --Carnildo (talk) 01:15, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I consider it disruptive because instead of carrying on reviewing articles at AfC I had to come and post here to find out why I couldn't do a simple page move. However over-reacting isn't going to help either. Martin 11:43, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Image to be deleted

Resolved

 – I have closed the new Commons deletion discussion as "delete."  Sandstein  20:28, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Earlier I indef blocked a newly registered user (User:Priorem) who was putting this image of some guy masturbating onto heavily used templates, such as Template:User Good Articles. However, when I go to this image (and trust me that it is not safe for work), I don't have the delete option as usual. Anyone figure out what's going on? I feel I'm missing something very simple... Tan | 39 21:17, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

It's on commons[41] -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:20, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Duh. And holy shit, the debate kept that image, despite its obvious trollishness and not being linked to any articles. Wow. Tan | 39 21:22, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

(ec)And has been kept in a deletion debate there; I'll add it to WP:BADIMAGES here. --Rodhullandemu 21:24, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Commons standards are different from en:wiki standards. Active use in articles is not required. Mentioning this without comment regarding the particular issue at hand. Ahem. Durova^Charge! 23:55, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

...so, as long as it is not lifted from another web-site, pretty much anything goes at Commons? Good grief. seicer | talk | contribs 00:00, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, not quite. Different standards, though. Durova^Charge! 00:09, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Commons standards of retention are based more on legality (copyright, re-use under licensing) and actual image quality/value than anything else. Where WP is a repository of information and articles, Commons is a media repository. But if the image (I haven't looked yet) is bad, then by all means fire off a Deletion Request there--the template for that is {{DR|Reason}} on that side, and follow the template directions. Drop a note on my talk here or there, if you do. rootology (C)(T) 00:18, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Is there any record or confirmation of the subject's age? -- /me goes to check... Privatemusings (talk) 00:12, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

It's got a personality rights problem. Indoor photo, model permission is lacking. But really, that's an issue for the sister project. We wouldn't like it if Commons tried to dictate how to manage articles.Durova^Charge! 01:50, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I was going to add something witty or scathing here, but Durova is really spot on about this being an internal Commons issue. When it comes to the image's shock value use here on en ... that is what we have WP:BADIMAGES for. --Kralizec! (talk) 13:27, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Bearing in mind the current excitement, and the image being discussed here and lots of others, somebody at Commons needs to be made aware of 18 U.S.C. 2257, which requires "any person who... inserts on a computer site or service a digital image of, or otherwise manages the sexually explicit content of a computer site or service that contains a visual depiction of an actual human being engaged in actual sexually explicit conduct" to obtain and retain for inspection "the legal name and date of birth of each performer, obtained by the producer's examination of a picture identification card". Further information here. Basically, you have to be able to prove that the guy sorting himself out in the picture is over 18. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 19:06, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

No, "the producer's examination of a picture identification card". If the picture is self-produced, then he's allowed to examin his own picture ID and validated that he himself is of age. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:38, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

That's not quite good enough, unfortunately. The term "producer" is defined here. Check secondary producer. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 19:58, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

{{Obvious joke|picture subject matter|word "producer"}} -- llywrch (talk) 20:36, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

the template at the top of the page

(big wolfwhistle) hey everbody! I played around with the template here on its talk page to try and (a) highlight some troublespots (which could always do with more eyes) and (b) place things one may need more logically near each other.....but it didn't really attract much discussion. What do folks think? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:41, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Colbert and Conan

Resolved

 – Seems pretty dead. I've watchlisted them in case, but nothing on late night for about 5 hours or so. Protonk (talk) 07:57, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

FYI, Stephen Colbert just appeared on Late Night with Conan O'Brien and mentioned that he had false claims added to the Conan O'Brien article (see contribs of RobertCane (talk · contribs)). They've been removed, but the vandalism started almost immediately. I've semi-protected the article, but a few extra eyes on Conan O'Brien and Late Night with Conan O'Brien will be appreciated. - auburnpilot talk 06:08, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jack Merridew ban review motion

The above-linked ban review has been closed and a motion passed. Jack Merridew (talk · contribs) is unblocked, conditional to the restrictions and mentorship arrangement set out in the motion, available in full at this link. The three mentors assigned are Casliber (talk · contribs), Jayvdb (talk · contribs) and Moreschi (talk · contribs).

For the Arbitration Committee,
Daniel (talk) 10:03, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Is it really a good idea for a notorious serial ban-evading sockpuppeteer on a final chance to help other, similar users who just had their ban reinstated for a full year?[42] Fram (talk) 08:17, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I am across this. Fadix had has his ban reinstated because he has chosen to reveal the identity of some of his socks in order to attack my candidacy for arbcom. I have previously offered to help Fadix, but that went nowhere - I believe that Jack Merridew, who took me up on a similar offer, is letting Fadix know that he should seriously consider following the same path, and that Jack Merridew can show him the way. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:15, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Brian Beacock and its talk page again

Resolved

 – the pages are both semi-protected. JodyB _talk 17:36, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

• Look, guys, this is an ongoing problem that won't go away. This IP games the system by waiting a few days in between his rounds of vandalism. A more permanent solution needs to be put into place. If you look, most of the recent vandalism comes from one IP, so that should be blocked for a long term period. If he starts resorting to other IPs as he has done in the past, those can be handled on a play by play basis, but the juvenile idiocy has to be stopped. JuJube (talk) 15:21, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I have semi-protected the talk page. The article page was already protected. Similar edits are occurring from a large block so a range block would probably not be indicated. JodyB _talk 17:36, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

My rope--let me show you the end of it.

I have finally reached my point of exhaustion with 1mikie19. He's clearly a kid, which has been a mitigating factor, but I have attempted (as have others) to explain to him the very basic concept of Wikipedia: it's an encyclopedia, not a scribble-board for every random opinion you have. The edits that broke the camel's back, so to speak, are here:[43] and--when asked to explain how that edit possibly could be justified by any of the policies I'd attempted to explain, the following--[44]. Whether an age thing or whatever, a truly amazing amount of Clue is not here. I'm "an involved admin" but I would appreciate someone else either doing a better job of counseling this child, or doing the inevitable--I'm without an opinion, either way, at this point. GJC 23:34, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

From my POV, this was a clear case of an indefinite block needing to happen until the user has grown up, shown an understanding of core policies, etc. I admire your resolve here, GJC, but I think even you agree this had to happen. Tan | 39 23:46, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. No arguments whatsoever. Thanks! GJC 00:04, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Can't argue with that; I left a lifeline of sorts (I'm not good with kids), but if it's not taken up I won't complain. --Rodhullandemu 00:07, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Question: Is that you at the end of the rope? Answer: No, I'm a frayed knot... BTW, I think the editor is a troll(ette? What is the diminutive for troll?) in that all responses are similar puppy speak "what did I do?" but in good grammatical order and well spelt. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:43, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Trollita, trollito. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:54, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

That might work. Odd thing when English borrows from languages - "kitchenette" is a small kitchen, but a "Marquette" is a female Marquis. Personally, I like "trollina" or "petitroll". ►BMW◄ 16:17, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Trollushka being word. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Japers, Gwen! I'm on a British isp - I am not allowed to mention the existence of that book that has spawned two films, and is ironically referenced in a song by The Police... LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:59, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

What. The one that goes ...that book by Nabokov? Heh, I was only playing with words and truth be told, I've found it's wontedly more helpful not to type the noun troll at all on en.Wikipedia, although I might rarely stoop to throw the root verbwise into an edit summary, as in rm trolling. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:12, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Every once in a while, I feel the urge to pedantically point out the the noun related to the concept of "trolling" is "fisherman". "Trolling" is a fishing technique of floating bait on the water to see which stupid fish bites the hook, not "pretending to be a fictional humanoid that hides under bridges and scares goats." Thus, one who trolls is a troller.—Kww(talk) 17:22, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Were we separated at birth? You are the first I've ever seen mention that private peeve of mine... Aunt Entropy (talk) 22:27, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

One more reason not to be too loose with that word as a noun. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:41, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I thought that the noun related to "trolling" was singer ("Troll the ancient Yuletide carol, fa la la [etc.]") and that rm trolling was akin to the fine old custom of chucking lumps of coal out the window at irritating Christmas waits. Deor (talk) 22:55, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Bluemarine motion passed

The Committee's decision in this case and the preexisting community ban of Bluemarine (talk · contribs) are modified solely to the extent that Bluemarine is unblocked for the limited purpose of his making contributions related to increasing the accessibility of Wikipedia to users with handicapping conditions. This includes uploading encyclopedic audio files, formatting audio file templates, and captioning those audio files, as well as editing his userpage and talkpage, all under the mentorship of Durova (talk · contribs). Except as expressly provided in this motion, the ban on editing by Bluemarine remains in effect. If Bluemarine violates the terms of his limited unblock, or makes any comment reasonably regarded as harassing or a personal attack, he may be reblocked for an appropriate period of time by any uninvolved administrator. If Bluemarine complies with these conditions for a period of 60 days, a request for further modification of his ban may be submitted.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Daniel (talk) 09:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

• Good result. I had a lot of correspondence with the guy on OTRS, he is volatile and easily provoked but quite capable of reason and is apparently sincere in wanting to do some good. Guy (Help!) 12:26, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Just in passing...

Jenuk1985 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) reverted my removal of http://www.pathetic.org.uk as an unrelibale source from A329(M) motorway, accusing me of having a vendetta against the site. I dispute that, obviously, since I had never even heard of it before yesterday. The site is fairly widely linked despite it being largely personal opinion (what is the objective definition of "pathetic" in respect of motorways, one wonders?) and I have it in mind to add it to User:JzG/Unreliable sources and work on removal. There are several other equally unreliable sources listed as resources in Wikipedia:WikiProject UK Roads. Guy (Help!) 12:25, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

• Certainly a more well put-together personal site than most, but a personal site nonetheless and not suitable for usage as a source or external link. GlassCobra 12:37, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree. You may want to post over at WP:RS/N, we live for this stuff over there. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 16:05, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
• Ah, "Pathetic Motorways", the WWW site that invented Walton Summit motorway (AfD discussion) just so that it could decry it as "pathetic". Given that it has demonstrably invented an entire motorway, I'd certainly challenge its reliability as a source. Uncle G (talk) 00:36, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia triggering Norton Internet Security alerts

Please see Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Intrusion attempts on edit pages?. seicer | talk | contribs 15:42, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

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

Hi folks, just hoping you can help me out with something. Whenever I visit a Wikipedia page (be it an article, talk or WP: page) I keep getting a warning from Norton Internet Security that "a recent attack was blocked" - a supposed "HTTP Acrobat PDF Suspicious File Download" from species.wikimedia.org. I'm pretty certain I'm the only one having problems with this, but I'd just like to be sure that you aren't aware of anyone else reporting a similar issue (in case this isn't just a case of NIS going nuts or my machine being afflicted). NIS updated just tonight, and the last I accessed the project (a couple of days ago) I was having no problems at all, so I'm wondering if something in the most recent update from Symantec is causing a false trigger. Cheers. SMC (talk) 12:33, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

• Are you sure you don't have a virus on your PC? Symantec Endpoint Protection does not report this for me, on any page, and my web proxy also does not throw alerts. Guy (Help!) 12:46, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Running a scan right now. Why would a virus target species.wikimedia though? SMC (talk) 12:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Scan turned up clean. meta.wikimedia is now apparently attacking me... SMC (talk) 13:41, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

• Related thread at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#A recent attempt to attack my computer. DuncanHill (talk) 15:29, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I too had an update but it was for Windows last night. I'm going to try and reboot my computer and then my modem. Perhaps a static IP makes a difference? Anyways we'll see what happens after the reboot. If you don't hear from me in 2 days then it's most likely a serious virus!!! LOL --CyclePat (talk) 15:37, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

• Another related thread at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Intrusion attempts on edit pages? DuncanHill (talk) 15:30, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

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

Are next user page OK

User User:Robthebig has been copied same text than this The Red Coat to his userpage, are this OK--Musamies (talk) 18:39, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Copying text as thus is fine, but I don't see what it accomplishes. — neuro^(talk) 23:17, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

It seems he is trying to save the page before it is deleted at an AfD debate (or at least, it looks it is going that way). This is called userfying, and he is allowed to do it. The page, however, may be brought up at an MfD later if required. — neuro^(talk) 23:18, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, if he wants to userfy the content, we should just move the article into his userspace. This is to make sure we don't violate the GFDL... though it's less of an issue, what with him being pretty much the sole author the article. EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:47, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Is it worth userfying? He has done nothing but edit this page, if he doesn't edit anything else his page should be brought to MfD. Yanksox (talk) 21:50, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

re: Wikipedia triggering Norton Internet Security alerts

Please see Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Intrusion attempts on edit pages?. --CyclePat (talk) 19:24, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

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

• Wikipedia triggering Norton Internet Security alerts has been fixed. A emergency patch has been relased. --Mixwell!^Talk 18:43, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Run Nortons Liveupdate to download the latest updates. (This resolved the problem for me)! Also, please see Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Intrusion attempts on edit pages? for further discussion.--CyclePat (talk) 19:24, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

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

User:Hungupbg - Persistant addition of unsourced information

Resolved

 – An admin was already thinking what I was thinking. Blocked. — Realist² 20:42, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I have given the above user a final warning twice for inserting unsourced information to articles on my watchlist. Users talk page is littered with various warnings, I would appreciate some help resolving this if at all possible. — Realist² 20:39, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

An admin just blocked him. — Realist² 20:41, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I was going to suggest bluelinking your ability to do that yourself...but it is already there. :) Protonk (talk) 23:33, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Problem with my user page

Resolved

 – bathed, shaved and in a new suit now - JodyB _talk 23:50, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

My userpage is displaying strangely; there is a male torso on it that doesn't seem to be in the page history or anything, and it follows you as you scroll down/up. I've really got no idea what's going on, but I'm sure some of you have seen stuff like this before? I have checked another couple of user pages and it appears to be just me; probably a vandal. Richard001 (talk) 23:17, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I fixed your userpage by removing the userbox for mainspace edits. I am unsure why this happened but seems a problem with the template. JodyB _talk 23:36, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

The fun of template vandalism. Burinex (talk · contribs) blocked indef. - auburnpilot talk 23:42, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Man you're fast AP. The userpage is now restored and the template fixed. JodyB _talk 23:43, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

And I protected the template as high-risk and the image is heading directly to the image blacklist. Secret ^account 23:48, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Appealing User:Apovolot

I find it ironic that the original administrator "Doug"'s MFD decision re deletion of User:Apovolot because Doug's decision was done without regarding the fact that "no consensus" was achieved during the MFD discussion. So I appealed that MFD decison by raising WP:DRV issue re that. But in closing that WP:DRV, the administrator Aervanat used "no consensus" reason to stay that wrong ("no consensus" based) MFD deletion decision? So I am now appealing both:

a)The original (administrator "Doug"'s) MFD decision to delete User:Apovolot (because Doug disregarded the fact that there was no consensus to delete)

b)The DRV discussion decision (by administrator Aervanat) to "stay" MFD decision to delete User:Apovolot

I am requesting to restore User:Apovolot because its original deletion decision was done in violation of WP consensus rule. Apovolot (talk) 23:18, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Consensus is only one part of the equation. The closing administrator took into account the discussion and the policy implications of your page. His close was based on policy. The DRV was likeiwse based on a review of that application of policy. You are not prohibited from having a user page, just not that one. JodyB _talk 23:27, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

For reference, the MfD is here and the DRV here. Cheers. lifebaka++ 23:44, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

A DRV is a call to impel or compel an action. That requires consensus. We require consensus to delete article and user pages because we have some preference for content rather than against it. A DRV is explicitly not a content discussion but a discussion of the merits of the deletion. The conclusion of a DRV requires consensus to overturn that deletion. Absent that consensus we cannot say to the closing admin "We think you screwed up, so we are going to reverse a decision of your which you refuse to reverse on your own". The notion that "consensus defaults to keep" carries over to DRV is false and misleading. Further, absent some misconduct in the DRV, an appeal here might be construed as forum shopping. Protonk (talk) 00:00, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I would like to second Protonk's assessment here. No-consensus in any discussion should ALWAYS preserve the status quo. In an MFD, the status quo is the existance of the article. If a DRV is discussing a currently deleted article, the status quo is a deleted article, so a no-consensus DRV would keep the article deleted. There is no expectation that "no consensus = keep" in all situations. Its "no consensus = take no direct action to change the current situation"... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 13:58, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

But the principle "No-consensus in any discussion should ALWAYS preserve the status quo. In an MFD, the status quo is the existence of the article" was not obeyed in the User:Apovolot MfD decision - so what could be done to correct and undo that deletion mistake ? Apovolot (talk) 17:54, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

you've missed my point. Your user page violated policies. Consensus never trumps the policy. JodyB _talk 18:15, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

• CommentTo clarify two points, 1) What I believe JodyB is saying is that if consensus appears to call for a result contrary to policy it is not the true consensus, consensus is the consensus of the community, not the consensus of the five who show up to an MfD - a result contrary to policy would normally require a change to policy which can't be done by five editors at an MfD (IAR results excepted); 2) The closer of the DRV suggested this as further appeal here, so this should not be considered forum shopping by the User:Apovolot, even if it is a bit excessive. (note I'm the one who closed the original MfD and deleted the userpage) --Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 20:22, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

  Five was an arbitrary number, there were actually 11 who showed up to this particular MfD I believe.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 20:47, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

JodyB recently said in this discussion: "Consensus never trumps the policy". This statement contradicts with the FIFTH PILLAR of WIKIPEDIA, which says: "Wikipedia does not have firm rules". Also - please note as Doug mentioned - there were 11 participants in Mfd discussion. Take out the submitter of Mfd (Nsk92) and myself (due to being possibly subjective) - this still leaves the number of independent opinions to be large - 9. Those 9 were roughly split in half between KEEP and DELETE. Such 50/50 split tells me that the policy is not clear on this subject and therefore due to no consensus, the KEEP decision should off been chosen. Apovolot (talk) 03:02, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

You have the fifth pillar interpreted completely wrong. The fifth pillar, WP:IAR, says rules can be bent "if a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia" (emphasis mine). There has to be a good reason fulfilling the above conditions to suspend the rule in question. It does not mean suspending rules because you want to. —kurykh 03:29, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

In case you haven't realized already, simply reading WP:5P doesn't help with understanding the nuances inherent in those pillars. It only serves to depict a general picture or scheme of things. You might want to read the policies themselves rather than just rely on 5P. —kurykh 03:36, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment by closing admin of the DRV - The reason I told Apolovot to come here is that I wasn't quite sure where one went to appeal a bad DRV decision. I guess you could file a DRV to review the result of the first DRV, but I wasn't sure if something recursive like that would fly. I figured he could come here and get some other admins to take a look, as I am open to the possibility that I made a mistake and mis-read the consensus (or lack thereof) existing in the DRV discussion. I don't really want to say "Well, DRV is the end of the line and that's it", because I feel that there should be a recourse if a DRV is closed incorrectly. If that outlet is DRV itself, I guess that's fine, since DRV is for reviewing the results of deletion discussions, and DRV is technically a kind of deletion discussion. I'd appreciate some other editors' input on where you should appeal a DRV decision.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 17:39, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I am mostly appealing the Mfd decision due to the reason that there was no consensus between large number of respondents (9) and the opinions splitted as 5 -to KEEP in one form or another and 4 to DELETE. That contradictory split tells me that the policy is not quite clear on that case (otherwise why half of the people interpreted policy in ONE way and other half - interpreted policy in OPPOSITE way  ?????!!!!!). Now given that the policy is not quite clear on that case and no consensus - why Mfd closing admin desided to go with DELETE ? I understand that in Afd discussion the leaning towards DELETE is reasonable but in the Mfd discussion regarding innocent user page (as most of Mfd responders pointed out) - the tilt should go towards KEEP. Apovolot (talk) 19:24, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Why on earth are you still arguing this? By continuing to argue to have your userpage undeleted, you continue to look more and more like someone who's not here to build an encyclopedia. So far, all of your contributions to articles have been either deleted or reverted. After the articles you created were deleted, you moved the content onto your userpage, and that was deleted. If you want to look like a serious contributor, I suggest you stop arguing and rules-lawyering (at least you dropped the "free speech" argument) and actually contribute. Mr.Z-man 19:39, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

@Apovolot: I guess I wasn't clear. You can't appeal the Mfd decision again. I directed you here so that other admins could review my decision on the DRV, not Doug's decision on the Mfd. You already appealed the Mfd once, to DRV. You can claim that my DRV decision was in error, which I would not take personally, and the admins and editors who watch this board would probably have a good idea what to do about that error. However, the original Mfd decision is essentially off-limits at this point. I know you disagree with Doug's reading of consensus, but that is water under the bridge as far as the community's concerned. You'll have to accept it and move on. Sorry this didn't work out the way you wanted.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 02:11, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Block needed for Apovolot?

I had a look at this as a completely uninvolved admin. What I see is a user with only 350 edits since signing up in April--only 25 of which (counting deleted edits) were to article space. The great majority of them were to project space and talk space. Is it just me, or is this someone who isn't here to edit an encyclopedia? I was about to summarily indef this user as someone who isn't here to help the project, but wanted to seek other opinions. Blueboy96 04:54, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we've reached that point quite yet. He's been quite careful about following proper channels to challenge the results of the Wikipedia deletion processes. The fact that the majority of his edits have not been in article space is due to the simple fact that the articles he was first working on were all deleted, and he has been spending all the subsequent time trying to get them undeleted. This is not somebody who's wasted the community's patience yet, this is somebody that needs to spend some quality time at WP:OWN and WP:NOT, and then start poking around some WikiProjects or CAT:BACKLOG, looking for something to help out on that won't get deleted. He is not a vandal, nor does he some to be a troublemaker. He's a somewhat confused newbie, that's all. Let's not WP:BITE him quite yet.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 08:55, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

A travesty has occurred.

Ladies and gentleman, something truly horrible has happened. The namesake article for one of our most revered and honored guidelines was blank for over four and a half hours today. This sort of lax behavior on the part of the community can be tolerated no longer. I demand of all able-bodied and vigilant editors to put this article on their watchlists and give it the attention and security it deserves. GlassCobra 10:37, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Good lord! How could such a travesty occur?! I have watchlisted this important article and demand that others do so post-haste! <joke /> Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! 11:53, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

And if they don't, what are you going to do about it, eh??? ;o) ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ takes life at five times the average speed 12:11, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Somebody climbed the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man and nobody noticed it? We should place some CCTV like this one on top of the Reichtag. The problem is... who should pay for it? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 12:12, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we could issue Superhero-costumed-Reichstag-climbing tickets. That should raise enough to pay for the CCTV and allow us to do away with the fund-raising drive into the bargain. Win-win. -- Derek Ross | Talk 16:15, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I heard Rod Blagojevich was selling the Reichstag for bail money. GJC 16:17, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

A fitting response would be to indef block everyone who had ever edited Reichstag. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:25, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

 Done EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:55, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Naw, I think we should just cover it up; WP:OVERSIGHT the relevant revisions on the article and this page and then indef anyone who ever mentions it. The real problem will be persuading the anon to keep quiet: anyone who lives near Aston willing look him up and 'drop off a fruit basket'? -- Vary Talk 17:02, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I think we need to sue someone. They clearly didn't do their job. They should have anticipated this years ago. But no, they didn't, and this happened. And now we're going to have to pay for it. Completely unfair for us. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 13:39, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

All joking aside, how did that happen? Where were the anti-vandal bots? --Tango (talk) 17:10, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, Clue Bot should have caught that. -MBK₀₀₄ 17:50, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I thought the anti vandal bots would have gotten to it...or bitten it. hbdragon88 (talk) 17:51, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't remember ClueBot handling WP space but I haven't been around enough to notice. spryde | talk 19:05, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

The WP page wasn't hit, the disambig page for Reichstag was.[45] EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:08, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

It's not really a travesty but more disappointing and shows the err that exist. But I think the heightened awareness will properly hit the right spots and lead towards progress. Yanksox (talk) 21:49, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Request to remove vandalism

I was wondering if an administrator could entirely erase some recent vandalism from edit history of my own userpage. The vandalism in question can be found here [46]. I realize that typically vandalism is left in the editing history, but in this case I was hoping that the vadalism could be removed entirely from the edit history because it is of a particularly personal and disgusting nature, not to mention entirely fictional. Thanks. -- Andrew Parodi (talk) 17:40, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

 Done Vandalism and revert both removed from history. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:56, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Ban proposals

Do I propose bans here or on /Incidents? --Dylan620 _Contribs ^Sign! 00:04, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I would take that to /Incidents. Malinaccier (talk) 00:06, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Malinaccier. I asked so that I could propose a ban of Ianxp (talk · contribs · global contribs · page moves · user creation · block log). I think that the site has had enough of him. --Dylan620 _Contribs ^Sign! 00:08, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

It looks like a block would be more appropriate than a ban in this case. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 00:12, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

The user was indefinitely blocked nearly a month ago and I see no sign of anyone intending to unblock, so the user is essentially banned. --Tango (talk) 00:25, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Is it appropriate to put {{banned user}} on his userpage? If so, I would be happy to (assuming Ian's userpage isn't fully protcted; I'm not a sysop). --Dylan620 _Contribs ^Sign! 00:28, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Whoops, I didn't see that he's blocked already. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 00:30, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Does that mean I can unstrike my ban proposal on /Incidents for Ian? (Wow, I'm a mouthful of questions today!) --Dylan620 _Contribs ^Sign! 00:32, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

• The header at ANI says "To start a ban discussion, see the administrators' noticeboard." Admittedly, I put that there a few months ago, but it's nice to have it confirmed that no-one actually reads that header! :-) Carcharoth (talk) 00:57, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

• Haha. I've definitely never seen it. The distinction between AN and ANI is quite hazy actually. Malinaccier (talk) 01:06, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

• Having perused Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Ianxp, and noticing he has recently created PhillKnight as a sock account (note the spelling) I would support a ban. I would encourage any admins who notice new socks of Ianxp to block them on sight. EdJohnston (talk) 04:06, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

• editors that behave in ways that outrageously flaunt their own intentional violations of Wikipedia policy, most commonly WP:SOCK, effectively self-ban themselves. The formal ban process is usually reserved for situations involving long-term, less obvious disruption. Of all of our most famous vandals (you know who you are!), none has ever been formally banned since it was unneccessary. It seems a waste of time to go through a formal bureaucratic procedure to announce a "ban" on a user that no admin in their right minds would ever unblock, or whose socks we would not block on sight. I see no need for a formal proceeding here... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:37, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

• I agree, WP:RBI seems more appropriate in this case. Mr.Z-man 04:39, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

• I agree with EdJohnston. It may be because I proposed the ban, but I support. With that being said, I am unstriking my ban proposal for Ian, but per Carcharoth , shifting the proposal over here. --Dylan620 _Contribs ^Sign! 10:49, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

• Striking per above comments. --Dylan620 _Contribs ^Sign! 11:06, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Not sure which noticeboard to post on? Consult the Noticeboard Noticeboard! SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:14, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Cydebot appears to be malfunctioning

See this edit. Cydebot duplicated the whole article and pasted it back into itself. It's doing that a lot right now; could somebody block it? —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 00:32, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to be doing that with all of its edits (one recent one really was just changing the category), but it's doing it with most of them. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 00:34, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Update: it seems to be working fine when it edits categories, just not articles. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 00:36, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I've informed the botop, don't block. BJ^Talk 00:37, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Blocked. Can you please post to it's handler or on its talk page? I'm late for a meeting! Tan | 39 00:38, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I was about to block. It does say it is OK to block if it is malfunctioning, but if the botop has been informed, I'll leave it alone. For the record, "Autoblock any IP addresses used" should be unticked for bots like this, as it runs off the toolserver or something, doesn't it? Carcharoth (talk) 00:39, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

This is very strange; I haven't edited Cydebot in a long while. Maybe something on wiki changed? If so, look for many other pywikipediabots to begin malfunctioning like this. --Cyde Weys 00:42, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Is there a list or category of pywikipediabots that can be checked? Carcharoth (talk) 00:43, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Not that I'm aware of. And leave Cydebot blocked for the time being. I'll unblock after I've turned off the crontabbed tasks to run some tests to see what's wrong. --Cyde Weys 00:46, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Something on wiki most definitely did change; the question is, where's the bug? —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 00:54, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

According to Brion on #wikimedia-tech ^connect, the bug's fixed. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 00:59, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Also see Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#.22Undo.22_button_acting_weird. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 01:02, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Something changed with the last software update, and now any bot that edits pages with multiple sections via screen-scraping (instead of using the API) is causing page-doubling. --Carnildo (talk) 01:04, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

A lot changed actually. See testwiki:New changes. The biggest change was Image: --> File: --MZMcBride (talk) 01:07, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

That one I was prepared for: ImageRemovalBot and OrphanBot detected the change and shut themselves down, while ImageTaggingBot was able to ignore it. --Carnildo (talk) 01:09, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

It was a one-character "minor cleanup" that broke it. It's fixed now. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 03:37, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Ouch, a good ol' triple-equals, eh? Glad it was easy to fix! --Cyde Weys 04:51, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Request for deletion

Resolved

...for the image File:Wikistress3D -1 v3 .jpg. Yes, I uploaded this myself but I didn't know there was already one with "-1" and I didn't realise the space I had behind the file.
Sorry if this is in the wrong place but I would like it to be deleted since I've reuploaded the image as "File:Wikistress3D 0.01 v3.jpg" (yes I'm warned that it is a duplicate file). Thanks alot in advance. — Yurei-eggtart 07:31, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

There's WP:IFD for this. Or just tag it with a db tag and explanation. ;) ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 08:03, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Deleted as requested. Next time you can use {{db-author}}. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:09, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Expired mottos

Resolved

Could someone with AWB or similar tool place db-g6 on all pages with old mottos on all those in August, October or November, or even better simply delete the mottos in these months. Don't worry, they have been preserved. See User_talk:Simply_south#Wikipedia:Motto_of_the_day.2FAugust_1.2C_2008, User_talk:MacGyverMagic#Mottos and Wikipedia:Motto_of_the_day/Schedule. Not December as this month has not passed yet. Simply south (talk) 12:12, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a list of the actual mottoes you want to delete?. John Reaves 12:14, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Delete the days containing the mottos, but not their preservation in the schedule. Here is a lisy of the rest Wikipedia:Motto of the day/August 10, 2008 Wikipedia:Motto of the day/August 11, 2008 Wikipedia:Motto of the day/August 12, 2008 Wikipedia:Motto of the day/August 13, 2008 Wikipedia:Motto of the day/August 14, 2008 Wikipedia:Motto of the day/August 15, 2008 Wikipedia:Motto of the day/August 16, 2008 Wikipedia:Motto of the day/August 17, 2008 Wikipedia:Motto of the day/August 18, 2008 Wikipedia:Motto of the day/August 19, 2008 Wikipedia:Motto of the day/August 20, 2008 Wikipedia:Motto of the day/August 21, 2008 Wikipedia:Motto of the day/August 22, 2008 Wikipedia:Motto of the day/August 23, 2008 Wikipedia:Motto of the day/August 24, 2008 Wikipedia:Motto of the day/August 25, 2008 Wikipedia:Motto of the day/August 26, 2008 Wikipedia:Motto of the day/August 27, 2008 Wikipedia:Motto of the day/August 28, 2008 Wikipedia:Motto of the day/August 29, 2008 Wikipedia:Motto of the day/August 30, 2008 Wikipedia:Motto of the day/August 31, 2008 Wikipedia:Motto of the day/October 1, 2008 Wikipedia:Motto of the day/October 2, 2008 Wikipedia:Motto of the day/October 3, 2008 Wikipedia:Motto of the day/October 4, 2008 Wikipedia:Motto of the day/October 5, 2008 Wikipedia:Motto of the day/October 6, 2008 Wikipedia:Motto of the day/October 7, 2008 Wikipedia:Motto of the day/October 8, 2008 Wikipedia:Motto of the day/October 9, 2008 Wikipedia:Motto of the day/October 10, 2008 Wikipedia:Motto of the day/October 11, 2008 Wikipedia:Motto of the day/October 12, 2008 Wikipedia:Motto of the day/October 13, 2008 Wikipedia:Motto of the day/October 14, 2008 Wikipedia:Motto of the day/October 15, 2008 Wikipedia:Motto of the day/October 16, 2008 Wikipedia:Motto of the day/October 17, 2008 Wikipedia:Motto of the day/October 18, 2008 Wikipedia:Motto of the day/October 19, 2008 Wikipedia:Motto of the day/October 20, 2008 Wikipedia:Motto of the day/October 21, 2008 Wikipedia:Motto of the day/October 22, 2008 Wikipedia:Motto of the day/October 23, 2008 Wikipedia:Motto of the day/October 24, 2008 Wikipedia:Motto of the day/October 25, 2008 Wikipedia:Motto of the day/October 26, 2008 Wikipedia:Motto of the day/October 27, 2008 Wikipedia:Motto of the day/October 28, 2008 Wikipedia:Motto of the day/October 29, 2008 Wikipedia:Motto of the day/October 30, 2008 Wikipedia:Motto of the day/October 31, 2008 Wikipedia:Motto of the day/November 1, 2008 Wikipedia:Motto of the day/November 2, 2008 Wikipedia:Motto of the day/November 3, 2008 Wikipedia:Motto of the day/November 4, 2008 Wikipedia:Motto of the day/November 5, 2008 Wikipedia:Motto of the day/November 6, 2008 Wikipedia:Motto of the day/November 7, 2008 Wikipedia:Motto of the day/November 8, 2008 Wikipedia:Motto of the day/November 9, 2008 Wikipedia:Motto of the day/November 10, 2008 Wikipedia:Motto of the day/November 11, 2008 Wikipedia:Motto of the day/November 12, 2008 Wikipedia:Motto of the day/November 13, 2008 Wikipedia:Motto of the day/November 14, 2008 Wikipedia:Motto of the day/November 15, 2008 Wikipedia:Motto of the day/November 16, 2008 Wikipedia:Motto of the day/November 17, 2008 Wikipedia:Motto of the day/November 18, 2008 Wikipedia:Motto of the day/November 19, 2008 Wikipedia:Motto of the day/November 20, 2008 Wikipedia:Motto of the day/November 21, 2008 Wikipedia:Motto of the day/November 22, 2008 Wikipedia:Motto of the day/November 22, 2008 Wikipedia:Motto of the day/November 23, 2008 Wikipedia:Motto of the day/November 24, 2008 Wikipedia:Motto of the day/November 25, 2008 Wikipedia:Motto of the day/November 26, 2008 Wikipedia:Motto of the day/November 27, 2008 Wikipedia:Motto of the day/November 28, 2008 Wikipedia:Motto of the day/November 29, 2008 Wikipedia:Motto of the day/November 30, 2008

Simply south (talk) 16:05, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

 Done -- lucasbfr ^talk 16:28, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Can someone counsel User:Mooretwin?

This is similar to the "end of my rope" topic here. We have a user (the one above) who's gotten five blocks for editwarring (one later overturned when it was found out that he was editwarring with a banned user), who has a thing about changing articles that use uppercase as an official designation (for example, Special Protection Area) and trying to switch them to lower case. He's been quite persistent on it, even in some cases breaking category names by switching out the uppercase letters for lowercase. He's not gone over the line in any one thing to require a block at the moment, just persistent infringement in various ways. The latest is proposing a series of Requested Moves to lower case titles, and then a canvassing violation at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Capitals.

So requesting moves - having been advised to do so as the proper course of action by another editor - is now an "infringement"? Mooretwin (talk) 20:19, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

The above, combined with an almost aggressive clueless-ness at times (I had to point him at the right area three or four times (an ongoing ArbCom case) for his accusations of tag team editing by some of the people opposing him in these battles).. it's become quite vexing for myself, and User:Ddstretch, and due to Mooretwin's contention that he or I have a "vendetta" against him now (see his talk page, my talk page and Mooretwin's talk page for the gory details), I want to see if a previously uninvolved administrator could look at this and try to break through in discussion. Thanks. SirFozzie (talk) 17:36, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with this summary and the reasons for this request, which I could equally well have made and which I therefore support.  DDStretch  (talk) 17:45, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Me too. I was directed by both of the above editors to [a page which didn't include any comments about me], and then accused of being obstructive because I couldn't read the comments, which were actually [on another page]. DDStretch has also been following me around and hassling me and made unfounded accusations against me [at 00:56 on my talk page], and didn't have the courtesy to explain them. Mooretwin (talk) 20:11, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

62.30.249.131

62.30.249.131 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has been blocked 6 to 8 times. (It is hard to follow the block log.) The current block is for only 12 hours. It seems to me that this is grossly inadequate considering this IP’s prodigious vandalism. (Twelve months would be more appropriate.) In the last 8 hours it has made 65 edits. I have examined the most recent 12 of these and found only 2 that did not need to be reverted. (I can’t post this to AIV because there is a current block.) —teb728 t c 20:08, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Isn't that one of the addresses that's being used by something like half of the U.K. at the moment? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 20:11, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's Virginmedia/Tesco.net. 12 hours seems reasonable considering the trade-off between allowing legitimate users and vandals to edit at present. we can always unblock for legitimate editors. --Rodhullandemu 20:16, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Good block. Even ignoring the particular circumstances of this IP, the fact that it's been used for only ten days would indicate a block of one year would be highly inappropriate. We should keep these blocks short so we have some idea of the collateral. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:32, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Ordinarily when I find vandalism, I check for other vandalism by the same user or IP. But if we are not going to protect ourselves from this disruption, I won't waste any more time on this IP. —teb728 t c 21:10, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

So you're telling us that you're going to purposely ignore future disruption to prove a point? Mr.Z-man 21:30, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

To Mr.Z-man: No, I'm telling you that it would be a considerable effort to review the other 65-12=53 edits (and how many more when the block expires). The facts that there are a few good edits mixed in with the vandalism and that the vandalism style varies makes reviewing harder. Under the circumstances, it seems like an exercise in futility. I have better things to do. I might feel different if it were a matter of cleaning up a problem that had been solved.

To others: It seems to me that if “half of the UK” has to login in order to edit, that is better than this disruption. If there are brief blocks, they have to login anyway during the blocks. I don’t think logging in is much of an imposition. —teb728 t c 22:36, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

• With the best will in the world, reviewing all the recent edits would be pointless, since all edits from that ISP are still apparently being routed through the one proxy. When VirginMedia/Tesco.net stop doing that, or include XFFs in the headers, we can distinguish between good and bad editors. It is somewhat difficult to argue that in an opening editing model, "good editors" should be required to register accounts when that is not a requirement. As I said above, it's a trade-off, and a regrettable trade-off, between preventing vandalism and permitting good edits from anonymous IPs. At present, we cannot make that distinction, and I sincerely hope that customers of the affected ISPS make their displeasure felt to them, but our concern is to prevent damage to the encyclopedia, and that is also why anon blocks must be applied, not so long as to unduly prevent valued editing, but to limit damage. --Rodhullandemu 22:46, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I would say that the normal situation is a good tradeoff: It allows anonymous editing at the risk of manageable vandalism. But this situation is the worst possible choice: It allows an intolerable level of vandalism, and blocks good editors. Dozens of vandal edits get in at a time. Unless they are to persist in the articles, they all need to be reviewed. And since they cannot be marked as reviewed, they need to be reviewed by multiple people. At the same time good editors are blocked—blocked unpredictably, perhaps in the middle of a series of edits. I should think that an anonymous good editor would be less annoyed at predictably having to login than at being blocked unpredictably. —teb728 t c 00:41, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue (remove this message once resolved)

In less than one hour Did you know will need to be updated, however the next queue either has no hooks or has not been approved by an administrator. It would be much appreciated if an administrator would take the time to ensure that DYK is updated on time by following these instructions:

1. Check the Next update if there are between 6-10 hooks on the page then it is probably good to go. If not move approved hooks from the suggestions page and add them and the credits as required.
2. Once completed edit queue #1 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
3. Add {{DYKbotdo}} to the top of the page and save the page
4. When the next queue is good to go remove this entire message from the board

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKadminBot (talk) DYKadminBot is operated by Ameliorate! ^(talk)

User:Smith Jones

I haven't taken the trouble to see whether any previous AN or ANI threads have dealt with Smith Jones (talk · contribs), but a number of his/her edits seem problematical. Just tonight, the user has managed to delete two other users' postings to ANI, and those aren't the only recent and similar incidents. In addition, the user has created what seems to be an inappropriate redirect, which I've nominated at RFD, and a category that seems to me inappropriate, though I haven't yet nominated it at CFD. The user's recent edits to the mainspace don't seem very helpful either, and a look through his/her talk-page archives shows what seems to be a recurring pattern of problems. Is this someone against whom any action needs to be taken? Deor (talk) 05:07, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I know this type of behavior has been discussed before but I can't recall when/where. It was awhile back though (at least this summer, if not before). The user does not seem to resolve edit conflicts when they occur (placing his text in favor of the old text rather than merging) and displays communication skills that make it hard to understand what's being said on some occasions through the errors. I'll see if I can find where it was discussed previously, either way (talk) 05:12, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I think this archived thread is the one I'm thinking of right now, either way (talk) 05:18, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Smith Jones can be a little hard to fathom, but he means well and in his own way he's one of Wikipedia's treasures. The "crazy den of pigs" comment alone wins him a place in the pantheon of heroes. Notice your first two examples of deleting others' postings were edit conflicts: most likely he overwrote the others' comments in confusion over the edit conflicts. I also seem to recall that he suffers from a disability of some sort, which explains his rather unusual approach to orthography. Suggest gentle guidance and correction rather than serious discipline. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:24, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

(ec, how ironic) Nonetheless, users whose edits (particularly to mainspace) have to be monitored constantly to get rid of the bad ones tend to sap the resources of other editors. I know that I am keeping an eye on a handful at the moment, and I'd rather be doing something else. (Plus, the other "inadvertent" deletion I linked to, which also had the effect of restoring an irrelevant talk-page comment, clearly didn't involve an edit conflict.) If this guy can't edit in a productive manner, perhaps he shouldn't be editing at all. It's harsh, but there it is. Deor (talk) 05:46, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I know that I've had to suggest to him many times in the past not to insert himself into random discussions on AN/ANI and make a bigger mess with his typographical errors and no knowledge of the topic at hand. He just seems to delete these from his talk page.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:25, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Twice today he removed very well-sourced, non-controversial information from an article (here and here), invoking WP:WEASEL, WP:IAR, WP:BLP as his rationale, and in the process inserting inaccurate information. And with all due respect, Short Brigade Harvester Boris, I don't consider this the behavior of a "treasure" or a "hero". Ward3001 (talk) 05:40, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I've asked Smith Jones several times to watch his spelling and typos, though he's never said anything to me about a disability. Despite the occasional hilarity from his comments, he's not malicious just misguided. He can certainly be irritating, but he makes some good contributions and I'm not sure there's anything actionable here. AniMate 06:51, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

My attention was brought here by this misleading edit,[47] certainly some of the contributions appear to be more nuisance than help. . dave souza, talk 09:47, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I understand the frustration but ask that if anything is done with regard to blocking etc. that we do our best to leave his dignity intact. While such action may be necessary to protect the goals of the project, when doing so it costs us nothing to be sensitive and humane, especially when dealing with people who have disabilities. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:06, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how many good contributions. On several occasions, though not very recently, I've seen him come up on my watchlist due to edits to pseudoscience/paranormal articles. Convoluted, poorly explained, non-NPOV edits mind you. After clearing that, I usually sift through some of his recent contribs to clean up other articles he's edited. I don't think there's an malicious intent, but he just doesn't get it. I'm not strictly in support of a block either, I don't know what should be done here. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 18:43, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree he doesn't seem to get it. And let me make some comments about the disability issue, again with no disrepect to any of the editors commenting above. I am a strong advocate for disability rights. I am involved in that issue every day of my life. But I also strongly believe that attributing every improper behavior to a disability not only is a weak excuse, but that "acceptance" of inappropriate behavior is itself disrepectful to the vast majority of disabled people who live their lives without this kind of behavior. It also encourages the inappropriate behavior. I'm not arguing for or against a block or other sanction against Smith Jones (nor would I if disability was not an issue). I am stating, however, that unacceptable behavior should be addressed and dealt with rather than swept under the carpet. If he were a 12-year-old (and some of his edits are typical of many 12-year-olds), we would explain, persuade, and (if necessary) eventually become firm and even block if the softer means were not successful. He states on his user page that he is a lawyer. He also states that he is an admin on Russian Wikipedia. He should know better than to make some of these edits (and I'm talking about the ones that appear to have less than honorable intent, not the ones that result from typos or careless errors). We should handle this like we would for anyone else on Wikipedia. Ward3001 (talk) 20:08, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

deletion rewquest need some deletion

closed deletion request Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Red Coat needs some more deletion, page Sec tank and The Red Coat (comics), can someone help in those--Musamies (talk) 07:34, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I asked User:MBisanz who closed the prior deletion. That would be the person I would trust best to determine whether they are all related or deserve separate AFDs/prods or whatever. At The Red Coat (comics), (also at User:Robthebig) he provides a link (which actually further indicates the non-notability of the character), but that still deserves an AFD since it asserts notability. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:29, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I've deleted Sec tank per the AFD, but given that The Rec Coat (comis) was not listed on the AFD page, I would suggest a re-nom for procedural fairness. MBisanz ^talk 20:58, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

The Red Coat (comics) is an exact, word-for-word copy of The Red Coat deleted per AfD. (Not sure if it technically qualifies as a db-repost as it was officially reposted before the original article was deleted.) And it was listed on the AfD page, see the second line there: "a copy of the above article is at The Red Coat (comics)..." 131.111.223.43 (talk) 21:37, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Autoblock affecting logged in Wikipedians who have BT as their ISP

User:Elonka put an autoblock on an IP address that BT use. It has affected a number of Wikipedians that have BT as their ISP, including myself, User:Shoemaker's Holiday and User:Snowded. Can this autoblock be lifted immediately as I'm having to use the secure server atm with all the problems that brings. Mjroots (talk) 09:16, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

This is probably the same as Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#RE: Block of Ashley someone or other. --NE2 09:17, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Improper block of Giano

Dramahz alert!

Giano was also affected by the above autoblock on half of London. He was venting on his talk page, and Theresa knott (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) came along and gave him an unauthorized civility block. If you check the recent ArbCom ruling, she's not allowed to do that. I recommend removing the block immediately. Jehochman ^Talk 13:10, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally this also caused "half of London" - or at least myself - to then be caught up in a new autoblock. Guest9999 (talk) 13:21, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's true. It was a klutzy move all around. Jehochman ^Talk 13:23, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

It was certainly stupid of me to cause the autoblock as I was certainly aware of it, and I apologise for not thinking to uncheck it. Theresa Knott | token threats 13:26, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Someone might want to go through Category:Requests for unblock-auto, update the template, etc. Guest9999 (talk) 13:38, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Done. Viridae^Talk 13:49, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Guest9999 (talk) 14:07, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

• Giano II now unblocked, drama ensues... in other news... LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:20, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

• No, we are going to make this the last tupid trolled block of me, with a proper investigation of why this Admin blocked me, and make it a lesson to all who think like her. What I want to know is, why I was editing quite OK for some time before Elonka's actions suddenly block me, then why did the page telling me I was suddenly blocked transform itself into WJScribes election page, and then most importantly why some Admin arrived on my talk page (who has never posted there before) and start shrieking at me to stop being uncivil, and then when I told her to take her complaints to Elonka - blocked me! I want this thoroughly investigated - why was TKnott watching this page - what sent her here and why. If she had been watching this page for some time is impossible she she did not know of the Arbcom ruling, so if she was not watching she was sent! Either way she is in the shot! So lets have some questions directed at her. You can do them or I will, but asked and answered they will be! This morning I was quietly and happily editing a page then along come Wikipedia's admins - WHY? The Arbcom are quick enough to sanction me - now lets see TKnott sanctioned. I am sick of all these problems from incompetent Admins - this time I am going to have some action taken against them. This was ridiculous block with no justification or reason, what's more it was against an Arbcom ruling and the blocking Admin knew it. Now de-sysop her!Giano (talk) 14

• She could have had Elonka's page watched, and saw your interactions there and then come to your page... It really could be as simple as that. Oh, and personally, I would be very grateful if you would not insist on having admins desysopped for acting on behalf of editors for whom they have some prior relationship. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:57, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Giano, it was not a "stupid trolled" block. Using these labels is making you the troll, not them. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 15:05, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I have just removed a personal attack by you from my page [48]. I suugets you leave these matters to those that understand them before you to are blocked. Giano (talk) 15:31, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Please dont personally attack admins by calling them stupids and trolls. And dont threaten me. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 15:40, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Giano II, enough is enough. Regardless of the legality of the block, your actions (calling people stupid and idiots) are getting so annoying. Get a moment and ask yourself why none of the autoblock victims used such a language and see if you merit a long-term block. You are not alone in the project and you must respect people who are sensitive to your usual words "stupid" and "idiot". -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 15:49, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

when an Admin mis-uses her tools to block half of one of the World's largest cities and its inhabitants are still being blocked four hours after she was told to desist - you tell me who is imcopmpetent and stupid? Instead of chasing me, the Admins should have been sorting it, but that is too much to ask!Giano (talk) 16:21, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Giano, please tell me how Elonka knew she was blocking half of London? How was she aware of the IP address of that user when she blocked it? How, also, did she then restore the autoblock again if she hadn't edited since five hours before those second autoblocks occurred? either way (talk) 16:32, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Since this block is against an express Arbcom ruling, I propose it be brought to Arbcom Enforcement. Jtrainor (talk) 16:27, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

It was not a civility _parole_ block, so the limitation of the parole is not relevant. --Apoc2400 (talk) 16:34, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Apoc2400 is correct. The Arbcom motion specifically states that Giano shall not be blocked citing the RFAR as justification. This was simple, garden-variety incivility. Giano doesn't get a pass on incivility because the Arbcom revoked a previous restriction. Horologium (talk) 16:56, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Um... the Civility Parole was superceded by the ArbCom requirement that such proposed blocks be directed to them for agreement; that is exactly the purpose for that wording - to diminish the disruption that is the frequent result of Giano being blocked for perceived incivility that the parole had failed to address. The civility parole was originally produced to deal with "general incivility" concerns regarding Giano's conduct, which I suggest TK's block fell under. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:13, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Do I got this right? An Administrator has to check with Arbcom, before blocking Giano II for civility breaching GoodDay (talk) 17:24, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

There is a magical possibility we should concern ourselves with: some admins will run into Giano, block him, and not have any idea that Giano has an Arbcom restriction against him, nor that ArbCom has limited the restriction in that way. To many admins, not out of any philosophical issue, but simply a perspective issue, see Giano as a normal everyday editor and will act accordingly.--Tznkai (talk) 17:27, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

In short, yes. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:33, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Understand folks, this could be seen as a 'double standard' treatment. Rightly or wrongly, the question will be asked Why is Giano, so difficult to block, when he's been un-civil? GoodDay (talk) 17:37, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Without wanting to comment on the wisdom of the block, the people involved, or especially the ArbCom ruling itself: I agree that, because the ArbCom ruling prohibits only "enforcement action relating to Giano's civility parole", a block for incivility (as opposed to a block to enforce the civility parole) does not violate the ArbCom ruling. Otherwise, we would have to believe that the ruling was intended to allow one specific user to violate the civility policy, of which I see no indication. Given that the block seems to have been lifted, I don't think that further discussion or admin action is needed here.  Sandstein  17:37, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Don't block Giano! Only arbcom can authorize that, and they won't. Good trick. Chillum 18:47, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Seems they just did.[49] - auburnpilot's sock 18:58, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, here we go again. I'll get the popcorn. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:19, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

My apologies to arbcom, I was mistaken. Chillum 19:03, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Developer needed

Any chance we can get a developer to add a feature that the autoblock is turned off by default, and a warning message displayed, for sensitive IP addresses? When a clueless ISP implements proxies without XFF, we should have the ability to turn off autoblocking on those IPs to avoid causing excessive collateral damage. I can understand how an administrator may not know or notice that an IP is listed as sensitive. Jehochman ^Talk 14:01, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Keep in mind that ISPs using XFF is not enough. XFF usage on Wikipedia needs to be whitelisted. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:12, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

That would be a very sensible move. Theresa Knott | token threats 14:14, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

In the spirit of {{sofixit}}, I recommend the filing of a bugzilla request; adjustments or additions to the MediaWiki software are almost-never made without one. AGK 14:32, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

So, who's heard of the Autoblock whitelist? — Werdna • talk 15:07, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Not me. I'll go add that IP to the list as soon as I find it. Jehochman ^Talk 15:28, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Could a checkuser please figure out the IP address of that proxy and whitelist it please? Jehochman ^Talk 15:34, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#RE: Block of Ashley someone or other says 194.72.9.25 (talk · contribs). --NE2 15:42, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that IP's contributions look like the represent half of London. I'll check it and see if the IP is currently softblocked and then consider what to do. Jehochman ^Talk 15:44, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I've whitelisted that IP so there will be no further autoblocks generated there if one of the many named accounts on that IP happens to get blocked. The IP itself is softblocked for excessive vandalism. Users there will need to create an account, at least until BT boards the cluetrain. Jehochman ^Talk 15:51, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Sofia Shinas and OTRS

There has been considerable debate about her date of birth, leading to my protecting the page. As you can see from the talk page and from a comment on my talk page here [50], a change was made through protection on the basis of something via OTRS, which no one has since been able to verify and which is still being challenged. In order to avoid further edit warring, I'd like to know what to advise editors such as the one who posted on my talk page how to best proceed. And I'd like to get to the bottom of whether this edit through the block was actually justified by incontrovertible evidence. Thanks. dougweller (talk) 15:02, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm concerned. If it can't be verified through the location of the respective ticket at OTRS, the information should be removed. Caulde 17:24, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

otrs:2164024. Mr.Z-man 18:34, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I can't access that, so it's of no use to me. dougweller (talk) 20:04, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Just tried to have a look, but it's not in one of my queues so I can't see it either. Stifle (talk) 21:03, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Administrator vacation day

If you're like me, you spend a lot of time on Wikipedia. If you're reading this post, you probably spend a lot of time on Wikipedia in the places that make people miserable, or at least see a lot of people being miserable over Wikipedia. Admins especially, deal with a lot of dispute resolution issues, arguing with people over page deletion, and arguing with each other over this or that piece of Wikipedia trivialities.

I say we take a break, together, for at least one day. There are at last count about a thousand active administrators. Wikipedia doesn't need you, and it doesn't need me, at least for one twenty four hour period.

So, my suggestion? Friday the 19th of December, turn off Wikipedia. Go call a friend, spend time with your kids. Read a book. Concentrate on your job, start your own wiki. Enjoy meatspace or the other parts of the internet or both. Spend time doing something that makes you happy that isn't Wikipedia. This project is important to all of us - but it isn't everything.

--Tznkai (talk) 17:45, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Your basically opening both arms to vandals all across the world by giving admins a day off. D.M.N. (talk) 17:48, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Unless, we get more bots! Caulde 17:54, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

But what better time of year is there to show the vandals some love? -- tariqabjotu 17:57, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

In the unlikely event that all 1000+ administrators heed my advice we have an army of normal every day editors who will watch over Wikipedia fine on their own.--Tznkai (talk) 17:58, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I dread to think what state Wikipedia would be in when we came back, for starters the CSD backlog would be in the thousands. It would be like a day of anarchy. So yeah sure, lets go for it. Why not make it December 25th?--Jac16888 (talk) 18:00, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Vacation is for those who are under occupation. Would you consider yourself under occupation? ^LeaveSleaves _talk 18:02, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

• Maybe not all admins taking the same day off, but how about admins randomly being selected to be de-sysopped for a week - just as a reminder of what it's like for the proles? DuncanHill (talk) 18:11, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Why not take vacations on different days instead of all at once? Chillum 18:55, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia with a massive drop off in administrator population (if that is what happens) will function about the same as Wikipedia on any other day. Maybe a little better - maybe a little worse, but it'll be fine. Remember, this is just one 24 hour period. --Tznkai (talk) 19:10, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I can't work out if you're just messing around here, but if you're being serious I will point out that so far today, since about 7.30am (my time, I make it 7.30pm now, so you know) there have been about 2000 deletions and about 120 blocks and unblocks. Thats 12 hours. Imagine the immense backlog if there were no deletions or blocks for 24 hours. Not to mention the fact that it would be like an open buffet for every grawp/WOW/Zodiac wannabe in existence. Grawp accounts probably move about 20odd pages per account before we catch and block them, thats in the space of about a minute. Imagine what he could do in 1440.--Jac16888 (talk) 19:37, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I will bet all the money in my pockets against all the money in your pockets that if every person who frequents AN and AN/I took a simultaneous 24 hour break, Wikipedia will be absolutely fine.--Tznkai (talk) 20:59, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

OMGZ Teh Wiki will collapse!!!111!! New policy to be enforced starting yesterday(Cabal decree# 35478B): Administrators must never go more than 3 hours without an edit or admin action! Mr.Z-man 19:51, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

So just write a bot that runs every 2.5 hours which edits the sandbox. Xclamation point 20:17, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

This seems like an incredibly silly idea. Why not instead of having everyone take the day off, we work to make this place more enjoyable for everyone? You can start by eliminating the troll-fest that is AN/I. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:57, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

One simple thing that I think would help reduce the admin workload, would be if "create new pages" was only available to accounts that had been around for 24 hours. Far too often, I see people create a new account, and then within minutes they're creating absolute garbage pages which fill up CSD. If we could put a speed-brake on page creation, I think it would free up admins to work on other things. --Elonka 20:19, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Why not close Wikipedia for editing by non-admins for one 24-hour period? That way, if you want to take a day off, you can be sure no vandalism will occur. If you don't, you can engage in a lot of quiet backlog addressing. I think we should do that one day a month. bd2412 T 20:23, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, I fully endorse Elonka's suggestion that new accounts should have to wait 24 hours before creating a new page. bd2412 T 20:26, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Ditto, but it got shot down at the village pump recently, will put off too many new users apparently--Jac16888 (talk) 20:41, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

A ton of our new pages come from new editors sure a bunch of them are bands i've never heard of, but a lot of the remainder is Wikipedia's growth. Slowing down new page creation rates through time limits would make more sense.--Tznkai (talk) 20:59, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to make of this thread... –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 20:26, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

The idea of blocking all non admins from editing for a day is the worst I have heard in my years here, it violates our w"wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit" ethos, divides wikipedia editors into admins and non-admions and postulates that admins are the superior editors. That sucks. Admins as a group do not need a day off anyway as individuals can take days off whenever they choose. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:49, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I am suggesting that admins should voluntarily take a break and that nothing should be done to make it easier or harder for them to do so. The whole point is to disengage and realize that the wiki will survive, not to change the wiki around admin desires.--Tznkai (talk) 21:05, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Or we could just give people credit for being self-responsible enough to manage their own time to take breaks when they need it for the durations that they need it. If you really wanted to enforce vacations, make it for everyone and put the server in view-only mode for 24 hours - or better yet, unplug the servers. Both of which make almost as much sense to me as an admin vacation day. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:57, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't at all intending to "enforce" a vacation day - this is entirely voluntary. The very real problem here is that Wikipedians in general, but administrators especially tend to end up with blinders - we spend a lot of time on Wikipedia dealing with disputes and cleaning the backlog. The wiki will not collapse without any one of us, even any hundred of us for a day.--Tznkai (talk) 21:03, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Let's just shut down editing for a day! No vandals can attack Wikipedia if they can't edit...let's all just take a day off, put the thing on read-only and sit back and relax :-D SoWhy 21:33, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Page move cleanup

Resolved

Will somebody take a look at L07chleo2's contributions and do a little page move cleanup? S/he seems to have made several copy/paste moves, and my BlackBerry craps out every time I try to fix them. Thanks, - auburnpilot's sock 18:16, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

This looks to be a good-faith editor who is trying to improve railway-station articles, but has made a couple of newbie mistakes. I've left them a notice of this discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 19:38, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. I just couldn't reverse the copy/paste moves because the BlackBerry browser cuts pages in half if you edit more than section-by-section. The last time I tried,[51] I blanked half of the GWBush article. Thanks to everyone who corrected the moves. - auburnpilot's sock 20:25, 13 December 2008 (UTC)