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

Remove TfD

Hi, requesting any admin to put the keep tag on Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion#Template:User_fil. Thanks! { PMGOMEZ } 08:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Its a nom withdrawn without any delete !votes. The withdrawing nominator can do so themselves. Viridae^Talk 08:12, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Yep - it can be done by the nom, or any other user. As it is, I've done it Martinp23 12:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

The point was directed at PMGOMEZ but oh well :P Viridae^Talk 12:58, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. People are requesting an admin to close the following TfD though... Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_December_16#Template:Infobox_Philippine_High_School. They've reverted what I've closed. Thanks! { PMGOMEZ } 13:35, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah - Viridae, I closed it as an admin :) Martinp23 17:18, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

When a policy is in dispute

I recently submitted User:المستهلك to WP:AIV and was told that we can't block this user because it's disputed policy. This pertains to the disputed policy currently going on at WT:U over non-Latin usernames. However, isn't it still policy until it's no longer disputed? Does this mean that anytime someone disputes a policy it is automatically no longer in function? It should go the other way around. This seems like a really bad idea as any group of people who doesn't like a policy can hold it hostage at any time by declaring it disputed. Please keep in mind, I'm not asking people to respond to the problem itself (we don't want crossposting), but the issue of "it's no longer policy because a group of people disputes it". Patstuart^talk|edits 02:53, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a nonsense to me, should we dispute WP:V and not enforce it in the intervening time? (Yes a weak example WP:V being pretty core, but the principle is their none the less). However, WP:U isn't disputed anyway, the examples of inappropriate usernames is just that, a set of examples. Names covered by the examples maybe perfectly valid and shouldn't be blocked and similarly names not specifically covered may still be inappropriate and blocked (we aren't a bureacracy, "rules is rules" shouldn't be a feature). As WP:AIV states an admin has to make a decision and doesn't have to block just because you list it. I would have hoped the person declining would have done just that, disagree that it's a problem and not block it on that basis rather than the stuff about "disputed policy". I would block this myself but I see they've made a fair number of edits, so at this point such a block would probably be more disruptive than helpful, I suggest you ask the user to consider changing their name if it bothers you particularly. --pgk 09:41, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

• OK, what problem would we be solving by blocking this user? For example, would admins be unable to block, revert or unblock the user because of non-Western characters in the username? I don't believe that would be the case. Guy (Help!) 12:02, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

  The rationale is laid out on the WP:U page, and as noted there is an on going disucssion there about it. But there are two problems which it addresses (1) That the characters don't render properly for many people this means things like looking at an article history and seeing various names consisting of a variable number of ?s or little boxes say. In some browsers/proxies the effect of such characters when edited get badly mangled. (2) The names on the English wikipedia are frequently unpoliceable. For the sake of argument we have some very sad individuals who spend hour upon hour creating usernames along the lines of "Jews did WTC lol". Can you tell me that if the Sinhalese version of that appeared you would know? If that got involved in something picked up by the press is would be good for wikipedia's credibility? --pgk 12:15, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

  Well, since I was the admin who refused to block, let me at least give my reasoning:

  • First, I saw the username, and his contributions. The contributions were all in good faith, so I didn't have any problem not blocking.
  • Second, the policy is under massive fire right now, not just on the talk page, but in all sorts of mailing lists and other places. It is reasonable, at least in my eyes, that while a considerable portion of the community does not agree with a policy, and the policy is undergoing reform, to hold a moratorium to not inflame things further.

  In fact, looking at the policy, Radiant! already took the relevant bit out, due to the dispute. Titoxd^(?!?) 18:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Would endorse block, however this user should be approached politely before blocking and asked to change his username. We don't want to go biting off newbies. — Nearly Headless Nick 12:23, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

It's not even disputed on enwiki proper, as far as I can tell. I think it would be better to be mindful of the issues and have a conversation with the user instead of an initial block. If the user doesn't edit and doesn't respond then we could go ahead and block.. This would address the concern of sleeper accounts yet avoid biting newbies. I can setup a bot to list three-day inactive new accounts with non-latin characters so that they won't be missed. --Gmaxwell 21:04, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Due to english being the defacto universal language at this point in time, I would have hoped that en.wikipedia would be somewhat more sophisticated and sensitive to international issues.

--Kim Bruning 00:52, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

3RR Considered Harmful

There are problems with the 3RR being a strict legalistic approach to revert warring, rather than a situation-dependent one; perhaps we should employ less bureaucratic rules against edit wars? Please comment on Wikipedia_talk:Three-revert_rule#3RR_Considered_Harmful. >Radiant< 14:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

What do you suggest? -- Samuel Wantman 00:55, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

We suggest coming over to Wikipedia_talk:Three-revert_rule#3RR_Considered_Harmful, apparently. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 02:36, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Personal attack intervention noticeboard#Ghirlandajo (talk • contribs)

Hello, I'm hoping for some closure on this matter. The discussion became quite long and went off-topic. Appleseed (Talk) 20:58, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

The principal participants have agreed to let me mediate. Durova^Charge! 15:55, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Durova, if you are referring to your Piotrus-Ghirlandajo mediation, then I'm not sure how that's related to this incident, which involves Ghirlandajo and myself. Appleseed (Talk) 19:21, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Different clash? Okay, apologies. Durova^Charge! 22:48, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, not so different. Please remember that the issue is larger then Piotrus-Ghirla conflict; quite a few other editors have been the target of the same incivility as myself. On the other hand, a civility parole would fix all of such problems, including the one being discussed in the Appleseed's PAIN report.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  00:34, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

The mediation may be necessary, but what is there to negotiate in this example of blatant incivility? How can any editor act this way with impunity? Appleseed (Talk) 02:55, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Mistakes in vandalism notifications

Sometimes we make mistakes (at least I do) in placing a vandalism-related notification on a user's talk page. I did that recently and when my mistake was revealed, I put a retraction on the user's talk page (see User_talk:38.139.36.119#.27United_States_Patent_and_Trademark_Office.27_edit); I also noted in the edit summary that this was a retraction of a vandalism notification. Do you think this is over the top - not the original vandalism notification (that can be debated about whether the notice should have been put and what level it should have been) but rather the response to the revelation of an error. Thanks --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:46, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

What you've done is just fine. Good job. ×Meegs 03:44, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of users' vandal pages

User:Cyde (possibly others, I don't know) has deleted a few users' vandal pages (the two I've noticed are User:Seadog.M.S's and User:Fredil Yupigo's) under CSD G3. The pages are technically "pure vandalism", but I've seen many users, including admins, use them. Was there some recent guideline (or something) added stating that users should not have vandal pages, or did Cyde just start deleting them recently just under G3? –The Great Llama^{sign here} 23:57, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

See WP:DENY. User:Zoe|(talk) 01:50, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

The thing about WP:DENY is that it isn't a policy, in fact it isn't even a guideline, it is a proposed guideline. I would certainly not consider it appropriate to delete things in someones userspace unless it clearly meets a CSD, and a "vandalism page", while not the best idea in my opinion, is just an sandbox, and can't really be deleted as pure vandalism. Prodego ^talk 01:57, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

It's not just a sandbox, it's a sandbox with the express purpose of being vandalized. If you need a guideline, see WP:USER. Policy? Wikipedia is not a blog, webspace provider, or social networking site. A vandalism page honestly doesn't seem to help with collaborating to build the Wikipedia. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 02:07, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

The reason that page has {{proposed}} on it is because we have no box that says "This page is a sensible principle which has already become standard practice; however, the community is dragging its heels over what to call it, which is fine so long as they don't get in the way of those who apply it in order to improve Wikipedia." --Sam Blanning^(talk) 02:14, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I was under the impression that it had proposed on it because it hadn't been adopted, specifically because it's far too general and doesn't have the support of the majority of the community. I for one think it's one of the worst ideas I've ever seen, if for no other reason than it's used to justify things that cause way more problems than they ever solve, like deleting sockpuppet categories that are very useful when tracking banned users who don't stop just because their sock categories were deleted Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Iasson. But then, what do I know? Essjay (Talk) 03:11, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Tracking banned users is useful; creating categories, userpages, etc. about vandals and their sockpuppets is not. A simple long term alerts page for complex vandals seems good enough to me. Ral315 (talk) 08:48, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Ocean's Twelve problem

I don't know where else to go with this, so I'll try here. I clicked a link to the Ocean's Twelve article and when I got there I found this. I had to revert back to October 8th, which as of 22:13EDT is the current revision, in order to clear it from my screen. I don't know or why that was there, but I dont' know why it wasn't spotted before unless it was an issue on my end and nobody else sees it. It was downright disturbing. If it's just me and I need to take a screen shot to show, let me know. --MPD (T / C) 03:15, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

It was a template that was included in the page that had been vandalised. It appears to have been fixed now. Sorry about that. Naconkantari 03:19, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

What template was it? We ought to protect it. -- Renesis (talk) 19:03, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

It was {{Rating-5}}, and it's been done. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 12:59, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Hunting for linkspam

Is there a simple way to check Wikipedia for outgoing links to a particular website? Akhilleus suggested that our Joan of Arc vandal was using Wikipedia to Googlebomb for his personal website based on the discovery of one of his hidden sockpuppets User:Maintenance[1], most of whose user space was written in an unknown constructed language (yes I know this is really really weird). After I removed the Williamson external link from Joan of Arc his website dropped from #1 to #2 on a "Joan of Arc" Google search.[2] So I'd like to see whether he has other linkspam hidden away on our site. Any tips? Durova^Charge! 15:51, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I think Special:Linksearch is what you're looking for. Cheers, FreplySpang 15:55, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Durova^Charge! 22:47, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

What is the precedence on userpages?

Hello, User:GabrielF/ConspiracyNoticeboard is currently up for deletion.

My question:

I am wondering what the precedence is on deleting userpages which encourage others to comment a certain way in AfDs and on wikipolicy.

Wikipedia:Spam#Canvassing and Wikipedia:User page don't seem to address this particular issue.

Thus far, no one has shared any precedence. By precedence I mean, a history of other userpages similar to User:GabrielF/ConspiracyNoticeboard which have survived or been deleted in AfDs. Merry Christmas, Thanks in advance. Happy holidays, Travb (talk) 18:08, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Pardon my already-indicated bias on the relevant MfD page, but is this a campaign poster? --²¹⁰physicq (c) 18:44, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Here's some precedence for 'ya Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:LGBT notice board, which was a 'Snowball Keep'. Morton Devonshire^Yo 18:49, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to get involved, but wasn't this page the subject of a previous MFD? Why is it being run through again? Thatcher131 20:19, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

The short answer is 'axe grinding'. Morton Devonshire^Yo 22:05, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

It was inappropriately closed after one day, with a decision of 18-5 to keep.

Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies/Notice board is different than User:GabrielF/ConspiracyNoticeboard, as you stated yourself User:Morton_devonshire:

"..."Projects" are Wiki projects, and therefore take on some sort of official mantle. Userpages are just userpages, and carry no community policy weight, just one user's opinion."

Why are you differenating User:GabrielF/ConspiracyNoticeboard on the deletion page, as not being a wikiproject, but comparing User:GabrielF/ConspiracyNoticeboard to a wikiproject here? You can't have it both ways, it is either a wikiproject, which should have "some sort of official mantle" or it is a userpage which "carry no community policy weight".

I suggest a comprimise, which has been brought up on both AfD's: move this userpage to a wikiproject page, which will avoid the obvious vote stacking and off topic subjects that this userpage has been involved with. Merry Christmas Travb (talk) 20:22, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Striver put it up for AfD because his Muslim board was guilty of vote stacking, this is simply lashing out and I am surprised it hasnt been closed yet as such. The fact that Travb would come here while the AfD is leaning in the same direction as the last, after putting AfD notices on article talk pages that have been noted on the noticeboard (which Travb admitted to being vote stacking), and marking them as minor edits, is all a bit fishy. This is another attempt to go around the forming concensus, much like last time with the article deletion review, which also ended in keeping the snowball keep verdict. Also oddly Travb isnt even linking to anything related to this articles MfD in his link above, its about the "allegations of terrorism by the US" article, perhaps Travb is getting his many arguements confused, or again made a post wasting peoples time in a WP:POINT violation, I will assume he is just confused. You can see Strivers remarks here where he wants to put it back up about a week after the last MfD because what happened to his project, even admitting to looking for other articles/items to harrass. --NuclearZer0 23:50, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:NPA "perhaps Travb is getting his many arguements confused, or again made a post wasting peoples time in a WP:POINT violation, I will assume he is just confused." How many times in the past two days have I told you not to do this Nuclear?

I can't comment for Striver, but he addresses all of these issues on the AfD.

Here is the full comment:

"I may be guilty of "vote stacking" but is this any different from what User:GabrielF/ConspiracyNoticeboard does?"

NuclearUmpf has ignored this question, repeatedly.

When I wrote "I may be guilty of "vote stacking"" (notice it is in quotes, what I meant was canvassing, which is often called canvassing) I have been very careful to follow all wikipedia rules. WP:SPAM#If_you_canvass states: "Don't attempt to sway consensus by encouraging participation in a discussion by people that you already know have a certain point of view. "

I did not violate WP:SPAM#If_you_canvass in these simple messages, as User:Morton_devonshire did repeatedly. Where is Nuclear's condemnation of User:Morton_devonshire for WP:SPAM#If_you_canvass violations, and for Morton's own votestacking/canvassing?

If Nuclear wants to condemn me for what he calls "votestacking"/canvanssing then what about Morton's own boot for votestacking, which was quickly overturned? I have not read what led up to Morton's own "votestacking"/canvanssing. But I wonder if these comments were as neutral as my own [3][4][5]:

==AfD== FYI: The User:GabrielF/ConspiracyNoticeboard page is up for deletion right now. This article was listed on User:GabrielF/ConspiracyNoticeboard during the last AfD. Best wishes, Travb (talk) 17:23, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

My canvassing clearly follows wikipedia rules, Mortons violates WP:SPAM#If_you_canvass I quote: "Don't attempt to sway consensus by encouraging participation in a discussion by people that you already know have a certain point of view."

Again Nuclear, for the second time I ask you this (modified) question: "I may be guilty of "vote stacking" canvassing but is this any different from what User:GabrielF/ConspiracyNoticeboard does?"

And Nuclear and Morton, let me ask the question for the third time:

Why are you differenating User:GabrielF/ConspiracyNoticeboard on the deletion page, as not being a wikiproject, but comparing User:GabrielF/ConspiracyNoticeboard to a wikiproject here? You can't have it both ways, it is either a wikiproject, which should have "some sort of official mantle" or it is a userpage which "carry no community policy weight".

Please answer the question gentlemen.

I came here for an answer to this question:

My question: I have read previous AfDs of userpages which join other wikipedians to push their own agenda are deleted Snowball delete. I recall reading an AfD about a year ago for an abortion group and a church group which was deleted for this reason.

I am wondering what the precedence is on deletion of pages such as User:GabrielF/ConspiracyNoticeboard ? Does anyone recall the deletion of these abortion groups and a church groups? Thanks in advance. I welcome all of your opinions on User:GabrielF/ConspiracyNoticeboard. Here, I am simply asking what the AfD precedent is.

And instead I get WP:NPA attacks. I feel because of this, no third party has answered this question.

Happy Holidays, Travb (talk) 01:21, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

• The precedent is to keep this page, per the previous MfD :-) Guy (Help!) 10:55, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

The relevant guidelines are Wikipedia:Spam#Canvassing and Wikipedia:User page. The first makes it clear that "votestacking" is not acceptable, and may, at the extreme, lead to banning the responsible user. The second quideline states that if you do not cooperate in removing inappropriate content, "In excessive cases, your user subpage may be deleted, following a listing on Miscellany for deletion, subject to deletion policy." -- Donald Albury 02:10, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

• There are plenty of experienced editors advocating Keep on that particular page, on the grounds that it serves an encyclopaedic purpose in managing the morass of 9/11 conspiracycruft. It's been nominated before, and in both cases the nominator has a history of argumentative behaviour in respect of this kind of content. I have no problem with the page myself, and I would not mind seeing it moved to project space as a project to monitor neutrality (and especially undue weight) in the legion of 9/11 articles. We don't actually need an article on each and every minor variation of "gubmint evil, therefore conspiracy". A lot of the articles on the 9/11 "truth" movement are systematically biased, even in trivial ways like saying the truthers have "concluded" that there is a coverup, whereas actually that was their starting point. Every single explanation offered by the truthers violates Occam's razor, of course. NPOV is non-negotiable and articles which appear to advocate conspiracy theories are not neutral, so having some kind of task force to clean them up is entirely reasonable. Guy (Help!) 10:28, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Team Carbon

This AfD has descended into chaos, mainly because of the large number of individual pages included in the multiple listing, and the nature of the pages listed, being to do with online gaming. I've suggested an immediate procedural closure as no consensus and individual relisting of all nominated pages, struck-through or not. I don't see any way an admin can close this one out normally. I voted in the debate so can't really take any action myself. Deizio talk 19:31, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

As the creator, I would like this also. I will submit these seperately. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 20:26, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, this seems sensible, and several contributors on the AfD have suggested this as well. I'll do it. Sandstein 20:31, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I gave him a warning not to edit the AfD and striking out my initialy post as he did before you closed it. Should I go and remove those strikes as they're not my own comments? :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 20:41, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Who is the "he" you are talking about, and what strikeouts? At any rate, the AfD is closed and soon-to-be forgotten, please don't edit it. But do please take care of the now-redundant AfD tags in the articles. Sandstein 21:19, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I was talking about the creator of the said articles, Arrashju (talk · contribs) sorry. I have gone ahead and removed them, and now I will be resubmitting. Thanks for taking care of this, and I will refrain from large AfDs like this again. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 21:30, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

"The nominator is kindly requested to remove the AfD tags from the articles." Eh? It's the closer's job to remove tags from articles. Colin can do it if he wishes, but it is not his responsibility as the closing summary implies; we do it that way because to do otherwise would be "punishing" people for nominating an article for deletion. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 00:50, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

You are generally correct; however, in abortive mass AfDs such as this one, it appears appropriate to me that the nominator clean up after themselves, as it were. I'd not have said this had there been a "keep" result or had this been a single article AfD. Sandstein 07:47, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

An AfD nomination is not filth, and nominators are not required to "clean up after themselves", whatever the outcome. You closed it; it's your responsibility to complete the process. (That wasn't exactly clear - the process has been completed by someone else, but he didn't have to.) --Sam Blanning^(talk) 12:43, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

ALLtheTrue and filmography external link dispute

After noticing a comment by at the Village Pump I introduced myself into a dispute between 2 users and ALLtheTrue who has been adding an external link to 'dreamingwith.com' to several porn bio articles, a site containing the filmography for the actresses/actors. I tried to come across the point that IMDB is far more reliable source rather than the site he/she provides, which appears as a personal website, hoping that my input added upon the other users would pursue ALLtheTrue to stop reintroducing the external link. ALLtheTrue view on the situation is that IMDB filmography is wrong and the external link he/she provides is far more reliable/better. The extent of my conversation with the user is located at Talk:Kelle Marie and he continues to hold his/her point of view on the situation. I would like to get a suggestion on how to resolve this dispute or another user to try solve this conflict of opinion. - Tutmosis 02:52, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

You might want to try the Mediation Cabal or other means of dispute resolution. He/She is entitled to her opinion, no matter how...controversial it is. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 02:56, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Well I dont wish to go to such measures for such a small dispute, they are already busy as it is. I do understand the user is entitled to their opinion, I came here since he/she is not really clearly violating any policy therefore I would wish to see more eyes on the matter, taking in account that I may be wrong. If all else fails and the dispute escalates I would consider mediation and RFC. For now this seems solvable through discussion. - Tutmosis 03:04, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

The site clearly fails the unverifiable research and confilct of interest qualifiers at WP:EL, and therefore should be removed. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:27, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Indeed I tried to explain as well as others to the user but he fails to listen and re-reverts the site. Would warning the user of a possible disruption block if he continues be best at this point? - Tutmosis 03:40, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps a request for mediation? User:Zoe|(talk) 03:42, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

mediation cabal case created. - Tutmosis 04:16, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

The question is Wikipedia have rules for big websites and others rules for small websites, isn't it ??ALLtheTrue 12:24, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

• Wikipedia has a guideline on linking at WP:EL. In general, we don't link minor porn sites. Guy (Help!) 20:32, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

By this way you say Wikipedia links reserved only for big websites ? Then, why is free encyclopedia ?

I think what the main problem here is the fact that it contains porn, not the fact that it is a smaller website. That's what I gather from this discussion. --KindGoat 03:29, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin harassment

SlimVirgin has been harassing CJCurrie for almost violating the three revert rule: [6] -- DLH

• So CJCurrie should stop edit warring? Guy (Help!) 08:31, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
  • • Would you like me to point out to you the standards of behavior that your clever remark here has almost violated? -- DLH
  • CJCurrie was cognitive of an edit war and tried to diffuse by using the talk page and accepting the disputed interpretation with a "dispute" template: [7] and [8] Others persisted [9] and looks like he was successfully chased from the page after others turned the content dispute into a user misconduct dispute.[10] ·maclean 09:15, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
    • How exactly does warning someone to stop revert warring count as "harassment"? >Radiant< 00:04, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
      • It counts as harassment when it includes mistaken accusations of violations of bright-line rules, and when, after it becomes painfully apparent that these accusations have been made in error, the perpetrator persists in accusing the victim of violating the "spirit" of the rule, and of "gaming" the system, rather than apologizing for her own mistake and her own vindictive and inappropriate behavior. And it counts as harassment when, after it has become painfully apparent that the accusation of the bright-line violation was made in error, the perpetrator goes along as though the victim has nevertheless committed a punishable offense, and indeed is joined in this witch-hunt by other people who have difficulty respecting processes that protect those who disagree with them. That, Radiant!, is when "warning someone to stop revert warring" counts as harassment. -- DLH —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.82.9.91 (talk) 01:26, 25 December 2006 (UTC).

I'm glad that others can see this situation for what it is.

On a related matter, isn't it a violation of Wikipedia policy to remove a disputed notice that's been put up in good faith? CJCurrie 06:53, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Jacob Peters

I have noted that User:Jacob Peters has been deleting huge swaths of articles, moving/renaming articles and battling over POV issues [11]. I am hoping that some other admins would take a look at his/her body of work, especially the most recent moves. I am having trouble parcing the changes out for what is appropriate and what is not. Thanks, --Kukini 04:07, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Please see thread started on talk:Holodomor by me, one of articles user:Jacob Peters had so to say "attacked". He has already been blocked for repeated abuse and for being an abusive sockpuppetmaster, please see his block log and talk page. Perhaps these blocks have not been enough? Please advise... —dima/s-ko/ 05:24, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

3RR noticeboard

Many of the reports there have not been acted on within 23 hours. Shouldn't someone be acting on them? Hbdragon88 07:20, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I was just coming in here to say the same thing. The backlog is significant. I hope those reports aren't going stale to the point that no one is going to ever act on them. It's time-consuming to fill those things out! Help! We're drowning in backlog! — coelacan talk — 13:37, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Copyright violation block

I've blocked Rubayat Habib (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for 48 hours as a serial copyright violator (see the actress images in his upload log). However, I'm leaving on a long trip in the morning and will not be able to follow up. Would others keep an eye on this? Thanks. Chick Bowen 07:53, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Translation

Hello,

I am the main author of Wikipedia:Translation, and while putting this in place, I changed my mind on the naming convention and on how the project should be organized.

For this reason, I have a lot of pages that are not needed anymore, too much to put a speedy deletion template on them all.

The pages I want someone to delete are those on http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AAllpages&from=Translation%2F+**&namespace=4

• all the pages of the form Wikipedia:Translation/_fr/XXXX (including Wikipedia:Translation/_fr)
• all the pages of the form Wikipedia:Translation/_ja/XXXX (idem)
• all the pages of the form Wikipedia:Translation/_de/XXXX (idem)
• all the redirects of the form Wikipedia:Translation/_lang/XXXX (redirect now to a subpage of Wikipedia:Translation/*/Lang)
• all the pages of the form Wikipedia:Translation/_**/XXXX (even those pages which are not redirects but have October 2006 or Before November 2006 in their names are not needed anymore)

Thank you,

Jmfayard 13:52, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Main Page vandalism

OK, I don't usually come here, but this has gone too far. Today, there was a picture of a penis on the Main Page. This should not be possible, yet it happens.

I have neither the time nor the desire to check every last template myself, and I don't see why I should have to. It's not an area I have any involvement with. It is, however, an area that several other people contribute regularly to. While I hold nothing against any one of them, this is a page that is viewed millions of times a day, and people have got to start taking some kind of responsibility for it. Featured articles and pictured are scheduled, ITN and DYK are updated; these tasks require administrative action and an essential part of such duties is making sure all these pages, and any transcluded onto them, are protected, before they go "live". Same goes for any and all pictures appearing on the page.

In other words, those of you who do this stuff, get your act together. I don't want to see it again. – Gurch 16:44, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Being rude makes people ignore you. --Deskana (talk) 16:45, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

See WP:ANI#Vandalism on Main Page. For what it's worth, this is a responsibility for everyone, especially admins. (Non-admins, if you see an unprotected image or template on the Main Page, please drop a note on a currently active admin's user talk page and alert them.) Please don't blame any one group of users for not doing their "job"; I regularly protected and unprotected Main Page images and pages for a few months a couple of months ago before other administrators started helping out. Things will indubitably slip by, even with our best efforts, and there's no point in chastizing those who regularly help out. They've given their best effort, and the lesson has been learned; we'll all be more vigilant with each instance. Thanks. Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:52, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

The ad hoc approach to the main page and the featured article is broken. There needs to be an organised effort now so that before any image or template is included on the main page or today's featured article they are protected. Catchpole 16:56, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm hoping that this bot request will go through and we will get a centralised list of all the pages that are going on the Main Page tomorrow, and whether they've been protected yet or not. That would make it far harder for pages to slip through. (This post also posted to the similar thread at Talk:Main Page.) --Sam Blanning^(talk) 19:06, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Why can't the main page have a static(not transluced from anywhere) version? All local wikicode, all special copies of images? A simple bot can scan it for images that aren't protected and any templates, and confirm it is static. An automated system can subst all the templates once it is built the conventional way. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:02, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh. If you see it as rudeness, I apologize. I saw it as telling people they need to do better. That's not rudeness; criticism, maybe, incivility, possibly, but not rudeness – Gurch 18:42, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, my rough calculations say that somewhere in the vicinity of 16,000 people saw the images on the main page. And that's on a Sunday afternoon. It really is something we should be keeping up on, and people should have absolutely no qualms about protecting potentially high-risk templates. Shimgray | talk | 19:12, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

16,000 people? That's terrible. I've written and posted something on this here. Please comment on how to tighten up the checks and balances we need to have in place. Carcharoth 22:31, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm revising it down to maybe closer to 12,000 - but, yes, I agree with you. Not good at all. (We got 15 emails to OTRS about it; an interesting detail.) Shimgray | talk | 01:05, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Mistake in my calculations - not twelve to sixteen, more like the lower end of sixteen to twenty. (Average pageviews would have been ~25,000 in that timeframe, but Sunday plus Christmas Eve makes for pretty quiet readership...) Shimgray | talk | 01:21, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Userwarning templates sock attack

I've semi-protected Template:Test1a, Template:Test2a, Template:Test3a, Template:Blank, Template:Blank2, Template:Blank3, Template:Blank4, Template:Blank5, Template:Test5i due to a recent sock attack. I'm more or less signing off now, someone else please handle any long-term issues if necessary (such as either adding proper protection notes or unprotecting and keep watch etc.) Femto 16:54, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Such template should be protected. If people want to change one they can discuss it or make a userpage version. But somebody should not be able to make a change that effects what hundreds of vandal fighters are saying to the new users. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:08, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Az haris & UserAz84haris

I have blocked both of these users for a month for posting copyvios. I know this is a big jump from the 24 hour block they had before but take a look at the list on User talk:Az haris. Those were the only ones I found and there may be others. After their block they returned and posted more copyrighted material. I did notice that the user has not responded on their talk page or commented on any talk page. So they may not uderstand the messages. If you feel the block is too long please reduce. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 18:02, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I just saw this come over the recent changes page. Is this some sort of upside down world?

This was posted at the user's page:

What's up with the block, User:Yanksox? Isn't it odd when the administrators are doing the vandalism and then blocking someone else trying to fix it? See the histories for Somatopleure and Splanchnopleure. --NotYetFree 20:20, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Any thoughts what could be going on? --NotYetFree 20:20, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmmmm, "spiteful vandal," take your choice of vandal or sock. Case closed, thanks for playing. Yanksox 20:23, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand. Are you saying you decided to support a vandal over a sockpuppet? This just raises more questions. --WeAreTheOnes 20:59, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

This one's blocked. --Deskana (talk) 21:02, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I blocked a whole sockfarm, and two IPs. If it continues, let me know. Essjay (Talk) 21:34, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

This has actually been going on a long time since you did the 2 December checkuser, Essjay. Every day another half dozen usernames get added to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Cplot.--Kchase T 21:40, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Oy, Cplot. How lovely. Keep them coming to the RFCU and we'll keep blocking. Essjay (Talk) 21:44, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Forgive me, because I don't mean to stir the pot. The matter has been settled, and I have no wish to re-open it. However, if I could get some clarification on the issues it raised (I haven't looked at the user's history), it would be helpful to me. My understanding is that sockpuppetry per se isn't an actionable offense as long as the sockpuppet is not abusive. I know that it can't be used to evade a block or ban, but isn't kind of a poor man's "right to disappear"? I understand wanting to nip problems in the bud, but if a user appears to be editing constructively, even on articles he/she has edited in the past, what's the harm in letting them go on for a bit just watch them? I ask because I have seen a couple of these questionable calls lately, and I don't really understand. NinaEliza (talk • contribs • logs) 16:07, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I mean block the sockpuppet if necessary. But why go vandalize the constructive edits the sockpuppet made? -- User:Tbeatty:Tbeatty 17:21, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

And then comments from this very thread get deleted. To what end? --ShakItOnDown 04:25, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

See the policy on Banned users. Banned users are not welcome here, period, and all their edits may be reverted on sight. Waterboarder (talk · contribs) first two edits were not trolling, but then he goes right back to where he left off the day before with Listen to the music now (talk · contribs). We've had enough, and he's not welcome. Thatcher131 23:31, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, except if you look, Cplot is not a banned user. Instead some desysopped admin protected the page and placed abanned user template on the pate. So that doesn't really explain this stuff either. --ShakItOnDown 04:25, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Follow-up to Vandalism on Main Page

This post is a follow-up to the vandalism recently seen on the Main page. Unlike the other template vandalism seen recently, this one was because a page transcluded onto the Main page was left unprotected when it shouldn't have been. Discussion of this seems to have taken place mostly at the following three locations:

• Talk:Main_Page#Vandalism
• WP:AN#Main_Page_vandalism
• WP:ANI#Vandalism on Main Page

Following the vandalism and discussions described and linked above, I thought I'd look ahead through the templates and see how far ahead the protection extends for the content of the five templates with changing content, I've come up with the following regarding protection status:

• Wikipedia:POTD row is transcluded in the form of a page with the title[[Wikipedia:POTD row/{{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTDAY}}, {{CURRENTYEAR}}]]. These pages are created for each day, and have currently been created up to and including 24th January. They seem to be edited for a bit and then protected. The current status is that they are protected up to and including 11 January 2007. Pages have been created for 12-24th January, but haven't been protected yet. I've left a note at Wikipedia_talk:Picture_of_the_day#Protection_of_PotD_row.
• Wikipedia:Selected_anniversaries is transcluded in the form of a page with the title [[Wikipedia:Selected_anniversaries/{{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTDAY}}]]. It looks like these pages already exist for the entire year and are reused each year (ie. they do not need to be created). They are currently protected up until 31 December. As this is a cyclic system (unlike the POTD and FA systems), the pages seem to be unprotected as soon as they leave the main page, so they can be edited for the next appearance and for where-ever else they appear (other pages and via the random featured content generator).
• Wikipedia:Today's featured article is transcluded in the form of a page with the title[[Wikipedia:Today's featured article/{{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTDAY}}, {{CURRENTYEAR}}]]. These pages are created for each day, and have currently been created up to 31 March. They have been selected up to and including 27 December, and are protected up to 31 December.
• Wikipedia:Did you know and Wikipedia:In the news are collections of short items that are added directly to a template, and so there is not a succesWikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Shadowbot2sion of pages to protect in the same way as is done for the other three sections. The main concern here is remembering to protect images used in those templates, just as for the images used in the other three sections.

So, following all this, what is the best way to make it less likely that one of these images or one of these pages is not left unprotected again in the future?

The current systems seem to operate in three ways:

• (1) A team of people working on it. The team then has to have a way of indicating to others on the team that a protection has been done, but when protection is not done and no-one notices, then vandals notice instead.
• (2) One person takes primary responsibility, as with the Featured Article. From what I can see, Raul, as Featured Article Director, selects the featured article for a particular day and updates the template and protects it. As long as the person responsible doesn't forget, this works fine.
• (3) Anyone adding an image to a page or template that will appear on the Main page is expected to remember to protect it. Not sure what fail-safes are in place here.

One proposal at the moment is to have a bot generate a list of transcluded items on the Main Page (and the featured article) and say whether or not they are protected, and then alert someone if they are not protected. See Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Shadowbot2.

I posted this here, because I don't think Talk:Main page is appropriate. If there is a more suitable location for this to be discussed, please copy this there and direct discussion there. Thanks. Carcharoth 22:28, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, and I don't know how to even check to see if a template is protected, but if there is any grunt work to be done that I can help with I'd be happy to, reply here or on my talkpage. I can do a bit each day or whatever. Anchoress 22:34, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

A few other administrators and myself used to take responsibility for this; I usually logged in right after the day changed in UTC and protected the next day's images and templates and unprotected those now off the Main Page. After a few months, the other administrators had taken some of the slack, per se, and I stopped my routine of protecting and unprotecting. This method of having a few people taking care of doing protection and unprotection worked well, as it was rare that one of us wouldn't be able to do the job. I think this method would be still be acceptable and should continue: human oversight would always be there. (Anchoress and other non-admins: if you ever notice a template or image not protected, you can notify an administrator immediately, hopefully in a non-discreet manner.) However, a bot assisting us in this capacity would make the process easier and more failproof. While I'm not too sure having the bot actually protect the page is a good idea, given vulnerabilities for technical mistakes, etc., a bot could easily double-check the work and alert certain whitelisted administrators via email if a current image or template was not protected. (See the bot's proposal page.) On a related note, I will also attempt to help out more often now and return to my routine of protection and unprotection; the more eyes, the better it is. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:48, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Flcelloguy: Thanks for posting the 'hopefully in a non-discreet manner' comment, because I have a (general) response. When, early this morning Pacific time, I saw the first warning about the image, I had been watching my watchlist (which lists most of the major admin pages) and had noticed that there were almost no admins posting, so in the interest of getting the word out as quickly as possible, I posted in several places, including the talkpage of the admin who'd most recently posted anywhere (that I could see), and also to the AIV page, an action which resulted in this gentle scolding, in the edit summary. I'm not hurt or offended by the comment, but I think it should be agreed-upon that, when these vandals strike (especially when it's early Sunday + Xmas eve morning and not a creature is stirring, not even a mouse), it is of not only primary importance, but almost sole importance, to get the giant diseased scrotum or whatever removed ASAP. Particularly since this is an unique type of vandalism, where just knowing where it is isn't enough, just knowing that it exists isn't enough, the more help the merrier is the remedy until the second the image is found and removed. I might not have been so quick to post there (AIV) at 6pm on a Wednesday night (although I probably would have after a few minutes if the image wasn't gone), but I don't think such actions should be looked upon as a misuse of the project pages, not in this specific type of instance. Anchoress 04:21, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Voice of All has a bot on RFP that checks for protections/unprotections; perhaps it would be possible for the same code to be used and pointed at anything transcluded to the main page. Is there a staging ground where the next day's main page is prepared, where the bot could scan the day ahead and there would be 24 hours for all the pages/images to be protected? Essjay (Talk) 23:03, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

The closest thing to a "staging area" is {{Main Page toolbox}}; it links the current, previous, and next templates of all the Main Page-transcluded templates that change. Perhaps Voice of All and Shadow1 could work together in coding the bot? (Although my impression is that the Shadowbot2 is already coded and programmed, though I could be wrong.) Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:16, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

There is Main Page/Tomorrow which transcludes the next day's templates, as its name describes. Kimchi.sg 00:22, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Great idea! I've suggested this over at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/Shadowbot2, and the bot reports are running already. I won't link to them though. Carcharoth 00:42, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

The main problem with a team system is when people drift away or move on. It needs to be made clear to whatever small team does this that there is a short, simple checklist to follow and once you have done it, you tick a list somewhere to confirm that you have done it. And the key is to make sure that if you can't do it, that you pass the baton on to someone else. Probably a buddy system would help as well. Two people marked down to do this everyday, and if one is ill or whatever, the other one should be able to step in to the breach. The bot would be good as this fail-safe system, but really needs to alert people before the pages are transcluded onto the Main page, so it should be given a 'future' list to work with, plus a bot to scan image links more frequently than daily. Carcharoth 22:59, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that images used on the main page, especially for 'In the news', are changed quite regularly, maybe every couple of hours, not just every day. The regulars at the moment know that protecting the images is essential, but you have to try and have a warning system that still works when humans make mistakes, forget things, or move on without training a replacement. There are really, though, only three pages that need checking 24 hours before:

• TFA - tomorrow's featured article section
• SA - tomorrow's selected anniversaries section
• POTD - tomorrow's featured picture of the day section

Which codes as:

• [[Wikipedia:Today's featured article/{{tomorrow}}, {{#switch:{{{{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTDAY}}}}|December 31={{#expr:{{CURRENTYEAR}}+1}}|#default={{CURRENTYEAR}}}}|TFA]]
• [[Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/{{tomorrow}}|SA]]
• [[Wikipedia:POTD row/{{tomorrow}}, {{#switch:{{{{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTDAY}}}}|December 31={{#expr:{{CURRENTYEAR}}+1}}|#default={{CURRENTYEAR}}}}|POTD]]

The other main page transclusions are watched and edited actively, but these sections are: (a) created in advance; (b) sometimes edited before protection; (c) sometimes prepared days or weeks in advance; (d) because they are prepared in advance, double-checking for protection is not always done. Carcharoth 00:30, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

If it's possible to detect what is protected on the page, would it be technically possible to prevent the page or any subsidiary template from saving if anything in it was unprotected, similar to the url spam blacklist?--Kchase T 00:46, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

A flubup on my part, demonstrating the point.

Good analysis Carcharoth. Just as a note, the vandals do watch this stuff. I updated DYK a bit ago and bobbled the image protection. Image:US National Christmas Tree 1923.jpg was protected on commons but I forgot to protect it here on en:wp... the updating admin for DYK is supposed to make sure that gets done properly, and in this case, I didn't do that. My apologies for that. Thanks to user:Mark for being on the ball though, and taking quick action. ++Lar: t/c 11:01, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah. You mean this and this? We are all human and such slips will happen. That is the the important point here. The bot that has been written to check protections should be able to catch such human mistakes and forgetfulness in future. I think that is preferable to putting pressure on the admins responsible to not forget, and to hoping that vandals won't twig about how they can do stuff like this. The bot can check the templates that change on the Main Page, but the images (which can change anytime) are more of a problem. I wonder if there is a technical tweak that can be done so that a page can be marked to only display protected images and ignore unprotected images. Possibly something like a new namespace like Protected image:example? Carcharoth 02:31, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Way to avoid spam blacklist

I saw this on WikiWatch:

Most recently, resourceful vandals (and spammers) have begun embedding commented text within the URL in order to throw off the blacklist. For example, instead of:

http://www.myspace.com/ one enters this:

http://www.my<!-- ABC123XYZ -->space.com/ which completely bypasses the Wikipedia URL blacklist and reconstructs the URL into a clickable link.

Has anything been done to correct this?--Azer Red Si? 23:59, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

This was already fixed in a previous revision (see bugzilla and the trunk) and shouldn't be technically possible anymore. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:01, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Santa on Sleigh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

In brief, user considers him/herself a bringer of humor per this former edition of the talk page. The user's only edits have been to promote holiday humor or bemoan the lack thereof, through last February, reappearing (appropriately) today; not a single constructive edit to the encyclopedia can be found among the user's edits. Therefore, to me, this user epitomizes WP:TROLL. Comments welcome. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 04:03, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I know it is supposed to be a play on Willy on Wheels, but he posted once today and mentioned that he won't be doing the same stuff as he did last year due to the lack of AGF shown by the community. I won't do the blocking, but I will not be upset if he is. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:11, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

While this block might evoke images of Scrooge I completely agree with it. This is a perfect example of trollery. (→Netscott) 04:13, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Endorse the block, given the lack of constructive edits. --Coredesat 04:15, 25 December 2006 (UTC) No longer endorse the block. --Coredesat 06:29, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Endorse the block. No point in letting Santa get around this Christmas :). In all seriousness, though, accounts doing nothing to contribute to Wikipedia should be blocked. alphachimp. 04:29, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Hoping that Santa is listening, here are my thoughts: If he's not causing any disruption, and is spreading good will, then there is no cause for blocking. Leaving positive messages for other users does benefit the encyclopedia, and does so much more so than some of the other holiday antics around here, like the things that many people do on April Fool's Day. If the user has become disenchanted due to last year, then I would advise that the person responsible for the account leave it dormant, rather than spreading any ill will. If Santa would like to go and leave users presents (I would suggest limiting himself to those who he gave presents to last year and who expressed appreciation, either on his or thier own talk pages), then more power to him. If not, as I said before, the account should just go dormant, rather than stirring up any kind of disharmony. I think blocking the account will do exactly the same, and would encourage those thinking about doing so to ask themselves "Am I really doing Wikipedia a favor in doing this, since I know how much discord doing so will bring?" Essjay (Talk) 04:41, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

"Santa" was blocked about an hour ago. From what I can see, other than a couple of messages on the noticeboards, he (I'll deem the Santa character to be male) was in the process of responding (with tailored and measured responses) to 5 users who had posted "wishes" on his userpage. I think leaving this go would have been harmless, though I will admit that I wasn't around last year and can only get a sense of what happened through reading the contribs log.

It's obvious that "Santa" was being played by a regular user, who knows many of us here, and that the "lack of constructive edits" pertains to this special-occasion account and not the user as a person. I would urge unblocking now, not so much because I want a present, but so as not to embarrass whoever might otherwise get caught behind the autoblock. Newyorkbrad 04:48, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I've released the resulting autoblock, as there is no reason to think someone who is obviously a regular (and dedicated, to have been here at least a year) contributor will cause any problems necessitating an autoblock. While I won't unblock Santa, I will say I'm deeply disappointed at the decision to place the block. Essjay (Talk) 04:57, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

From what I remember of last year's incidents I think he's (Santa on Sleigh) right - we need to assume good faith a bit more, and would support an unblock. – Chacor 05:03, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think his comments were trolling; bad attempt at humour perhaps, but not trolling. Kimchi.sg 05:02, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

How does it benefit us to have accounts that do nothing to contribute to our articles? alphachimp. 05:05, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

The same way, how does having WP:EA, or user autograph pages, benefit the encyclopedia? You might be interested in Jimbo's comment on WP:EA and user autograph pages... – Chacor 05:13, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not unwilling to suppose that Santa is a bona fide alternate account. Kimchi.sg 05:08, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, absolutely the EA thing is a good point. I guess this all really gets back to the debate about the full extent of community that should be allowed to develop on Wikipedia. Quite frankly, I don't really have much of an opinion on it. alphachimp. 05:15, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I see that Santa has now been unblocked, although so far there's no note about it on his talkpage or userpage, so he probably doesn't know it yet. I suspect that the moment has been lost, anyhow. :( Newyorkbrad 05:25, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

My mistake... <|:o) Kimchi.sg 05:35, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I would like User:Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh to explain the unblock with no discussion with me whatsoever; not one single edit to Wikipedia by this editor furthers the encyclopedia in any manner whatsoever, and the user's edits define WP:TROLL. I must also ask User:Essjay to review the edit history of an editor who has "been here at least a year" and, at the same time, explain the 10-month absence. The user was previously blocked, then unblocked per WP:AGF; then, this user failed all manner of the assumption of good faith. Is there an explanation? RadioKirk (u|t|c) 05:43, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you should WP:AGF a little. Did you read Jimbo's comment I linked? If you haven't, please do. I think that based on that comment it's fair to unblock. – Chacor 05:50, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

With all respect, perhaps you should read WP:AGF, which makes clear that the assumption of good faith cannot trump the overwhelming evidence to its contrary. Not one edit by this user is productive in any way; every edit is intended to be either humorous or damning of its lack by Wikipedia editors; if there is a more obvious example of WP:TROLL, I've not seen it. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 05:57, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Since I'm being called out by name here, I'll respond. First, I don't think any of us believe that this is the only account this user is using; to have come in all of a sudden and picked the list of people that were messaged last year is far beyond the scope of coincidence. There is obviously an established user behind this account, one who knows many people, and who makes regular contributions to the site. The fact that this seasonal sockpuppet does not edit in the non-Christmas season is irrelevant; the editor responsible for it obviously does. Beyond that, I see no evidence that the unblocks were a result of AGF; they pretty clearly state they are reversing unjustified blocks made outside of policy. (We don't block to enfore wikibreaks, see WP:BLOCK.) I'd suggest everybody step back at this point, as this has already caused far more discord than the edits of the user, and it will only cause more if it continues. Essjay (Talk) 05:54, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree, though I note that the account is reblocked as of now, so I guess this now qualifies as something of a wheel-war over Santa Claus. Newyorkbrad 06:00, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

The blocks may or may not have been attributed to the correct policy, based on the history of this particular, as you put it, "sockpuppet", and yet, with every respect to everyone involved, including those named within this discussion, they remain no less correct, and remain no less improperly unblocked (not a wheel war, an improper unblock) sans discussion. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 06:02, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Reblocking someone who's been unblocked (both the unblock and reblock without discussion) most certainly is wheel-warring. – Chacor 06:04, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

You assume that the reblock is done sans discussion. That is incorrect, the unblock required discussion in the first place; the reblock restores the issue prior to the lack of discussion thereof. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 06:08, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Please don't attempt to wikilawyer. While the unblock was not discussed you should not have restored the block without further discussion either. Admins have been sanctioned in the past for this. – Chacor 06:15, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Then I'll be "sanctioned" here. I'm correct, and the other editor was incorrect, in my view. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 06:37, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

If he posts on the talkpages of people who actually want him there, by all means let him do so, as I see no harm. If he's posting with wild abandon, however, then I would impose a block. This is my opinion. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 06:04, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Not a single edit to the encyclopedia, and annual, Christmas-themed edits to those who do (and do not) embody this user's definition of its "spirit"? What else, if not this, defines WP:TROLL? RadioKirk (u|t|c) 06:10, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Do the talk pages he posts on belong to editors that want him there? Most importantly, is he disrupting Wikipedia? --²¹⁰physicq (c) 06:12, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm lost; this is even up for debate? RadioKirk (u|t|c) 06:18, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

You submitted this report, people disagree with your actions, you defended said actions, so technically yes, this is a debate. Merry Christmas! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Physicq210 (talk • contribs) 06:22, 25 December 2006 (UTC).

An unblock outside policy and guideline is not a "debate". RadioKirk (u|t|c) 06:37, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Should we then get rid of Concordia, and Esperanza, and unencyclopedic user subpages then? Seriously now. WP:TROLL does not seem to be an accepted description of his edits by anyone but yourself and Netscott. – Chacor 06:15, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Seriously, indeed, comparing the unproductive edits of an apparent troll with projects that further the encyclopedia... RadioKirk (u|t|c) 06:18, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

As the only person who's pushing ahead with this, your single opinion that he's been WP:TROLLing doesn't count for much (neither does my opinion that he isn't). Your reblock as such - that his edits are trolling - was clearly misplaced, however, and you should stand up and admit that you were wrong in wheel warring. – Chacor 06:21, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Hardly my "single opinion" per the responses hereto, you should in fact admit that the unblock without prior discussion was the one and only improper action herein. A "wheel war" requires two people acting within policy and guideline; Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh's action fails both. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 06:37, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely not. That fits no definition of wheel warring at all (and there is no such thing as an in-policy wheel war). You don't get a free pass to edit war or wheel war or anything else just because you think you were right, or even if you were. We have ways of dealing with cnflicts other than hitting back, and no administrator should be engaging in combative reversions, even when provoked. If you need a policy, perhaps you should read the same page you linked, beginning with "Block wars, in which a user is repeatedly blocked and unblocked, are extremely harmful...". Wheel warring is what you've done: stale reversions of fellow administrators without talking. You are responsible for escalation and responding with disrespect in kind. Dmcdevit·t 08:02, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely, a perfect description of the unblock. Thank you. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 08:13, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

You are welcome; it was meant to be. The unblock was disrespectful. And, I repeat, you are responsible for escalation by responding with disrespect in kind. Dmcdevit·t 08:51, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

This thread has to be the most un-Christmas conversation on Wikipedia. Merry Christmas to everyone (including trolls, vandals, Santa the whom-RadioKirk-calls-a-troll, IP addresses, editors, administrators, bureaucrats, stewards, developers, Jimbo Wales, and everyone else who have no involvement on Wikipedia)! --²¹⁰physicq (c) 06:32, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Lovely sentiment, Physicq. It appears, however, that our friend Santa is probably too busy to bother with Wikipedia now. According to NORAD, this is where he is at now [12]. Hmmm...NORAD tracks Santa, Wikipedia blocks him...Merry Christmas all. Risker 06:49, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

The NWS claims differently ;P – Chacor 06:52, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I can't believe that there is an argument going on over this. It is harmless. Get a grip. ... and what if it really is santa??? I bet blocking santa gets you double coal.--Gmaxwell 07:54, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. I'm not big into Christmas, but c'mon, this is completely harmless. Who does it hurt? No one if Santa is only posting on people's pages who want him there. And who is he helping? Everyone who's spirits are brightened as a result. Seriously, some editors really need to stop being such kill-joys. Ungovernable Force^{Got something to say?} 08:15, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Trolling is harmless? I'd have sworn we were writing an encyclopedia... RadioKirk (u|t|c) 08:23, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but who is being hurt? You keep citing policies but you are not saying how this is actually harmful. A few years ago you could have cited laws in certain US states that said oral sex between two men was illegal, but you'd be hard-pressed to show how it actually hurt anyone. You are merely referencing policies, but in case you don't know, as an anarchist I don't give a damn about generalized policies; I only care about individual situations. And again I ask, who is hurt by this? Ungovernable Force^{Got something to say?} 08:34, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

The encyclopedia; and, as a libertarian, I find your "anarchist" argument non sequitur at best. The issue remains that, as I brought a block here for discussion, an editor who decides to unblock absent discussion had better have a damned good reason, and it simply didn't exist. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 08:49, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

It's not a non-sequitur. All you are doing is citing policy for policies sake and not giving any reason as to how this individual situation is harmful to the project. You seem to be trying to enforce policy merely because is is policy, but you are not saying why it needs to be enforced. Ungovernable Force^{Got something to say?} 09:31, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I unblocked because there was sentiment by Essjay and Newyorkbrad that the rationale for your block was weak. Whatever... the energy you expend into defending your block is now costing us more time than any disruption the troll cause. EOD. Kimchi.sg 08:57, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Consensus to me looks like we are not in favor of this user's being blocked. There. I have discussed an action I would like to take, that of unblocking this user. I have not seen any example of this user's activity that justifies this block, and the existence of features on Wikipedia designed to build community and cheer up other Wikipedians, as well as Jimbo Wales' comments about autograph books lead me to believe that this user needs to be unblocked. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 09:24, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Most people seem to be in support of unblocking this user as far as I can tell. And as mentioned earlier, there had been discussion and some people felt the block was not needed. Ungovernable Force^{Got something to say?} 09:31, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I have unblocked this user. Does everyone realize how bizarre this situation will look to outsiders? This will probably be picked up by a news source, even if it is some hack columnist in England (Everything negative that I have read about Wikipedia seems to come from newspaper hacks who happen to be English). This is like Miracle on 34th Street: RadioKirk, you need to recognize the mail sacks that these other admins have hauled into the courtroom. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 09:41, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Give me a break... RadioKirk (u|t|c) 17:23, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

The consensus was clearly in favor of unblocking at the time it was performed, no matter what Kirk is trying to say after the fact. I do think his comments, actions, and attitude are mystifying and slightly worrying coming from an administrator. Regards, —bbatsell ¿? 17:38, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

At the time the user was unblocked without discussion, four others endorsed the block; the only one who didn't was the one who performed the unblock. Worry all you want... RadioKirk (u|t|c) 17:41, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Um. You blocked User:Santa on Sleigh. At Christmas. And there was more penis vandalism on the Main Page this morning. This place is going to the dogs... – Gurch 21:13, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

User:IAF

User:IAF, without bad intentions is using Indian Air Force as his user name. I am not aware of the policy, I request that due notice be given to him and the word "Indian Air Force" be removed from everywhere if the usage is contrary to the policy. swadhyayee 10:50, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

The acount name is not bad, since there are many air force organizations that go by IAF. However, what he needs to do is go into his preferences and drop the Indian Air Force as part of his signature, so it just reads User:IAF and the timestamp. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 10:53, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

That is what I feel could be wrong and prevented. Are you admin? Can you remove Indian Air Force from places where he has signed as Indian Air Force? swadhyayee 11:17, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Of course I am an admin, but I want to wait and see first if IAF took the changes that I suggested. If he didn't, it would be pointless to change them if I know more are showing up. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 21:30, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

You mean to say that he will be allowed to use Indian Air Force as his signature if he does not stop and remove earlier signatures? And I couldn't understand your view that there are many air force organisations that go by "IAF". Indian Air Force is only one organisation of Indian Govt. Defence. swadhyayee 02:16, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I think what is more likely is that he will be blocked from editing if he refuses to change his signature, but at least until the matter is disposed there is no special urgency in replacing the old signatures. —Centrx→talk • 02:23, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Major backlog at WP:SSP

Some cases there were from over a month ago, someone needs to go, have a look, and clean it up. ♥ Fredil`

I closed 7 cases yesterday and merged 2 into 1 and closed another 2 today. In all of these, the fate of the users involved have already been sealed. However, some admins are needed over there to get rid of this backlog. MER-C 03:46, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Permanently blocked User:Technajunky

I have permanently blocked User:Technajunky. In his brief edit history he has mostly edit-warred and sockpuppeted. More recently he has been stalking editors for the purpose of reverting them, both as his userid and as an IP. He has been warned about this, been blocked, has his block reviewed, and has taken to blanking his Talk: page, and making insulting edit summaries: [13] I have little patience for editors who exist solely for the purpose of stalking other editors, and I don't see how Wikipedia has benefited, or will benefit, from anything Technajunky might bring to the project. I open this up for further discussion here. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:24, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I first encountered this user when I noticed the edit war he was involved in at Middle Eastern American. Another user asked me to warn Technajunky about stalking, and when I did, I got the response "One warning was enough, kiddo. If you keep messing around with my user page, it could be considered vandalism, or at the very least, a sign that you have too much time on your hands". Last night I saw an anon, 68.5.96.201 (talk · contribs), stalking SlimVirgin and using edit summaries like, "RV'd Vandalism". Finially when Technajunky started to follow Humus sapiens around, reverting all his edits and adding a {{db-nonsense}} tag to an article he started, I blocked him for 24 hours. As I later reviewed the edits of 68.5.96.201, it became apparent that they were the same person, and that he actually used his Technajunky account to circumvent 3RR at Wall of Shame. I asked Dmcdevit to do a check, and he confirmed that it was him, in addition to User:ElectronFlux and User:SockPuppetKing, the former of which he used to evade 3RR on Joe Escalante. All of this simply shows is that we have a user who refuses to abide to Wikipedia policy, and continues to be disruptive despite several warnings. Endorse block. Khoikhoi 19:37, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I support this block. The few encounters I had with this user made me think he was there only to cause disruption. Beit Or 21:40, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

This block will be a relief. I noticed the ill behavior but didn't realize it was a sock. I was preparing to do an RfC. The user came to my talk page and accused me of wikistalking (see User talk:Coelacan#WikiStalking), because I monitor Category:Anti-Islam sentiment, and I require WP:RS citations for new additions. User had a nasty habit of blanking warnings from own talk page. So considering the classic troll behavior of accusing others of harrassment and trolling, I support this block. — coelacan talk — 01:56, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Strong support. Indeed a relief from this disruptive user. Sorry I assumed good faith at first. Won't happen again. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 02:43, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Istok/Istog

Could someone delete Istok/Istog (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ?
Created today in relation to Istok (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), now really serves no purpose as a redirect. - Best regards, Evv 22:54, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Deleted as unlikely typo. Kimchi.sg 00:37, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Discrepancy between WP:COI and Reward Board

I'm confused. Conflict of interest policy states that financial payment to edit should be discouraged. But at the Reward Board, it is encouraged? How does the Wikipedia community resolve this disconnect? --JossBuckle Swami 00:16, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Tasogare51 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

A false-information vandal. Be sure to check all contribs carefully after blocking.--Azer Red Si? 00:59, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

You sure you meant Tasogare51? His contributions look fine to me. —Mets501 (talk) 03:10, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

At first blush his contribs look reasonable to me too, and I don't see any comments on his talkpage. Can you give some specific examples of what you think is the problem? Newyorkbrad 04:19, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Asher Heimermann (talk · contribs)

• Talk page archive A
• Talk page archive B

I'm sorry it's come to this, but he's started up his antics again and I think it's getting to the point where he's exhausting community patience. Some background: Asher, a middle schooler, originally edited under Resources of Sheboygan Club (talk · contribs), creating vanity pages such as The Resources of Sheboygan Club and Asher Heimermann. He switched over to his current Asher Heimermann username and recreated Asher Heimermann. He tried to use a meatpuppet to sway the AfD. For some reason, he decided to go on a welcoming spree, welcoming blatant vandals, non-existent users, and giving blatant vandal warnings to good users. A lot of us tried to help him out (see the talk page archive) but to no avail; he just refused to listen to any of our pleas to stop his welcoming. He also used another account NumLee (talk · contribs) to recreate his autobiography at Asher Luke Heimermann (deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asher Luke Heimermann).

Eventually, he moved on to actually contributing to articles, and he copied and pasted directly from IMDB. I warned not to do it again, but he ignored me and did so again. At that point I gave him a harsh warning to stop his continued disruption, but was accused of WP:BITE.

Finally, User:David Levy gave him a final warning which seemed to work for a while. User:Rockpocket was also kind enough to adopt him. Asher stopped editing for a few weeks, and we all started to move on, but he just started up revert warring on John H. Cox by continuously inserting a vanity sentence into the article: [14] [15]. I don't know what exactly to do; he's exhausted my patience...looking for the wider community for help. Gzkn 01:28, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and he's started welcoming users again... Gzkn 01:29, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Also in the last hour or so, Asher has:

• Recreated Asher Heimermann as a cross-namespace redirect to his user page.
• Requested that his original account be deleted.
• Created Wisconsin Teenage Republicans (of which he is the president apparently).

My patience, too, has worn very, very thin. Metros232 01:32, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

At first glance, I thought it was just another teenager. But given contributions like [16] (threatening not to contribute to the Wikimedia foundation) and the edit summary here: [17] (precisely the kind of edit summary which shows he's not being careful), I would say this user could use a break to realize that he can't contintually run amock of our policies (e.g., creating an article about himself and adding himself to other articles after being asked not to). I support some sort of block. Patstuart^talk|edits 01:52, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I DO NOT a block at all. Asher Heimermann 02:29, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

The user is making vandalism edits like this attempted redirect of a disambiguation page Sheboygan to [[She-boy-gan]]: [18]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hu (talk • contribs)

More disconcerting edits: [19] and [20] Gzkn 02:57, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I gave Asher a final warning for civility for the comment he left at Hu's talk page and reverted the comment. Metros232 02:59, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Blocked. After [21] this edit, I blocked Asher for 3 days for disruption. He was already skating really thin ice and this edit was just another disruptive edit. It forces other users to go to respond to his help-me plea who will only give him the same basic information I just gave him. Metros232 03:06, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm extending the block to a week now after Asher, Jr. (talk · contribs) appeared. Metros232 03:52, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

This is the only person who sweet talked me into removing a speedy delete tag, and this is the only person that I took to AIV twice and both times my request for block were denied, I kept getting told to be patient and not to pick on him. that he would improve. I think not. He has not shown that he learned anything from previous errors, and a week is much too short, something like 50 years would be about right. --ArmadilloFromHellGateBridge 04:00, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Well I'm not going to argue with any admin who chooses to extend the block I placed on him. Metros232 04:03, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

(2 edit conflicts) I have quite a few of the Sheboygan city and area pages on my watchlist (as a former resident), so I'll continue to watch the pages for unusual activity. Asher sure tests everyone's patience. I don't think that Asher has bad intentions. I changed Asher's welcome signature to mine on the welcome pages for the more credible contributors that he welcomed. I wish that he would follow everyone's suggestion to use a username instead of real name. Royalbroil ^T : C 04:04, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

p.s. Cancel comment on intentions. No implications of bad intentions.Royalbroil ^T : C 04:06, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's right to change another user's signature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Resources of Sheboygan Club (talk • contribs) 04:10, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Per this, the above is another sockpuppet being used to evade a block.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:16, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I thank everyone for their prompt attention to this matter. I just added my signature so that a new user wouldn't get blocked user. Royalbroil ^T : C 04:19, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

And now Resources of Sheboygan Club (talk · contribs) has been blocked indefinitely for block evasion by Asher. Metros232 04:20, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

GurchBot 2 messed up our archives!

GurchBot 2 (talk · contribs) moved all archives with non-standard names to standarized names. E.g. changing "Archive12" to "Archive 12" and leaving a redirect behind. By so doing, GurchBot 2 has messed up the archives at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics and probably many others which use Werdnabot to archive their talk pages. It did not change the Werdnabot invocations to show the new file name for the current archive so Werdnabot added the archived material to the redirects which were left behind. Also, a minor point, GurchBot 2 did not change the archive lists to point at the new file names so they are now all going thru the redirects. This is a real mess. JRSpriggs 04:02, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

{{sofixit}}—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:06, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if {{sofixit}} is the appropriate response here. Archive standardization is the approved task for the bot and is probably a necessary task, but if it is conflicting with any other archiving bots, such as Werdnabot, then the latter need to be changed to update this so that the two bots do not keep on conflicting with each other. Problems with Gurchbot 2 should go to Gurch, and if Werdnabot needs to be changed, Werdna needs to be informed. (I've directed both of them to this thread, since it seems like both their bots will need a little modification to avoid the conflict.) Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 04:16, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I apologize, further reading does show a deeper issue here, but I doubt anything on the programming front will change this. This just looks like something that needs to be caught before it happens (unless there is a way for Werdnabot to not ignore the redirect being performed).—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:24, 26 December 2006 (UTC)