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. When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Sections inactive for over three days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search) Start a new discussion

Redirected page in Wiki

Hello, I would like to make a redirection from the page Tasmeem to the wiki page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tasmeem_(software)

Could you please add: #REDIRECT[[1]]to the Tasmeem page (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&search=tasmeem&go=Go)

Thanks in advance, Best regards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Winsoft38 (talk • contribs) 15:17, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Problem with recurring sock puppetry.

• Huntdowntheconpiracists (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Cs32en (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• IrFactor (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Counteraction (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Redandgraychips (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• No Time Toulouse (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Locewtus (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Ynda20 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Kameelyun (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• ScholarTruthJustice (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) (and another — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:52, 16 April 2009 (UTC))

The above account is an example of the stead stream of redlink accounts (recycled banned users) coming to disrupt Collapse of the World Trade Center‎ and World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories . Could a checkuser please watchlist those pages. It takes one minute to create an account, and at least ten minutes to file a report at WP:SPI. Obviously, the balance of time if we go that route is not good at all. Jehochman ^Talk 17:51, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

At least one conspiracy theorist with an interest in that article has recently been banned on other grounds. I'm wondering if she might be behind some of these socks. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:54, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Anything is possible. Here's another sock (added above). Could we get some help here please? We need a clueful admin, or a checkuser, to start blocking the socks until the user gives up. Jehochman ^Talk 20:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The two accounts listed as possible socks were both newly created on April 9. Semiprotection would keep them from editing the WTC articles. EdJohnston (talk) 21:10, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Great would somebody help please with this. I am not using my bit in this topic. Jehochman ^Talk 01:39, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Let me be clear. HELP FROM UNINVOLVED ADMINISTRATORS IS NEEDED NOW. WP:UNINVOLVED is a two way street. If you ask administrators to hold back where they are involved, you need to pitch in an help when help is needed. Jehochman ^Talk 01:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I've semi-protected World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories for one month, citing this thread as the reason. Other admins may modify this protection as they think best. Let me know if more abuse is going on. User:Cs32en managed to get himself blocked for 24 hours over an AN3. He also has an account on the German wiki, where he takes an interest in 9/11 matters. He does not have very many contributions in either place. He is at present requesting unblock, so other admins may go check out User talk:Cs32en if they wish. EdJohnston (talk) 03:09, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

User:DawnisuponUS? They have definitely used sockpuppets in the past to promote 9/11 conspiracy theories. Hut 8.5 10:09, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not convinced User:Cs32en is a sockpuppet. de:Benutzer:Cs32 seems to be a long-term editor on de.wikipedia. I suppose we don't know that de:Benutzer:Cs32 is the same editor as User:Cs32en; we'd have to see an acknowledgement there to be sure. If we can find evidence that he isn't the same editor, we should be able to block on a username block basis. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:20, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Both accounts are part of the same SUL account,[2] so it looks like they are the same person. Redandgraychips (talk · contribs) looks like a sockpuppet. Hut 8.5 18:48, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

That seems to be de:Benutzer:Cs32en, not de:Benutzer:Cs32. There was a User:Cs32 with two edits in 2006, so de:Cs32 couldn't just unify with en:Cs32. But I was wrong about sockpuppets in pro se, so I could easily be wrong here. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:21, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm just seeing this here, and checked the contributions from User:Cs32. I have indeed created this account, but I didn't remember that, and I also didn't really bother to check the details of the unification process and thought that either unification was only about the projects, but not the language-based accounts, or that something did not work that would be difficult for me to find out. (The two edits of User:Cs32 have no connection to 9/11 issues.) I have also correctly guessed the password that I used for this account, so I can now close User:Cs32 and rename User:Cs32en, if that would be the correct way to proceed. I don't want to do anything that would be difficult or impossible to reverse, or would be considered suspicious. I welcome your advice on this point. --Cs32en (talk) 23:45, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I have added two more accounts to the list at the top of this report. There appears to be a sustained attack by Truthers, possibly sock or meat puppets at World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories. Could we please have more eyes on the situation, especially a checkuser. The single purpose accounts are coming one after another. It is not scalable to file a sock puppet report for each one. We need uninvolved administrators and at least one checkuser to camp on that page and clear out any sock puppets. Thank you. Please acknowledge if you can help. Jehochman ^Talk 23:52, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Help? Anyone? Jehochman ^Talk 13:20, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I've found a few Truther websites which have recently posted criticism of the article: [3] [4] (note the latter is trying to get people to add some text to an article). I think we're dealing with a load of people who read this and decided to edit the articles, which means this is meatpuppetry not sockpuppetry. Hut 8.5 16:36, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I am watchlisting World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories for a time. Any opposition to indefblocking new SPAs as meatpuppets with reference to this thread?  Sandstein  21:13, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Given the apparent meat puppetry discovered by Hut 8.5, that seems to make sense. I am an involved editor. Jehochman ^Talk 04:21, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Locewtus (talk · contribs) has been adding the content suggested in one of those links to large numbers of articles, including some that have nothing to do with 9/11. Hut 8.5 21:12, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

A lot of "truther", and also some non-"truther" sites (e.g. a blog on Huffington Post) report on these issues at the moment (without reference to WP). I don't think that the majority of new SPA editors have seen the two internet sites that specifically report on WP. A meatpuppet allegation is disturbing for every new editor, as many new editors would consider it legitimate to encourage people to get involved here, if they think the WP article is inaccurate. It's even more disturbing to a new user who has not been encouraged by any such web site or other person (and therefore, is not a meatpuppet). --Cs32en (talk) 21:38, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

The Cs32en account has been arguing to include unverified info. This could be dealt with via WP:AE if it can't be resolved through ordinary dscussion. Hut 8.5, could you file a request at WP:SPI with your evidence of meat puppetry? Jehochman ^Talk 01:16, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I have never argued that unverified info should be included in a Wikipedia article. I have proposed to include info that you may consider being unverified. I have presented sources and reasoning with regard to WP:V. If you do not agree, please use the talk page, so that consensus can be built on whether the info should be included in the article. You have simply deleted my proposal from the talk page. Also, I am neither a sock puppet nor a meat puppet, but have been contributing to de.wikipedia.org since 2006 (my account). --Cs32en (talk) 02:39, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that you are proposing the same stuff that has been discussed and rejected many times before. You are taking the same position as a bunch of meat puppet accounts that may soon get banned. Please, you are the one who needs to slow down and listen to the consensus. As I have said on a few of the other multitude of threads you've started in a very determined effort to get your way, you can request clarification at WP:RFAR. Meanwhile, can we get an administrator to start investigating the meat puppetry that Hut 8.5 has found evidence of? Jehochman ^Talk 06:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I can't see much point in an investigation, we've dealt with most of the problem by protecting the relevant articles and to my knowledge no lasting changes to articles have been made. Hut 8.5 19:38, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Added Locewtus and Ynda20 to the above list of accounts that are adding a similar POV to articles. I have warned both editors that editing highly-contentious articles without a serious effort to find consensus is a bad idea. I believe the warning notices would justify a block for edit warring if we see either of them add the same POV to other articles. EdJohnston (talk) 15:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

How am I not making a "serious effort to find consensus?" Show me where one person is contributing to discussion on any page of the SINGLE article I am trying to include on pages relevant? Claims were made without basis on one discussion that now is placed in "hidden" mode. Show me the evidence that Bentham is not worthy of being on wikipedia. Aside from one blog upset about one action taken by Bentham in their original solicitation of editors, years ago, I have no idea what evidence there is to suggest Bentham is not conducting peer review or what some are describing as "proper" peer review. Tell me what that is and provide the link to prove it. I don't see anyone giving a reason that an article that is generating attention on national news all over Denmark, has been in the news in Utah, and whose exact title ("Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe") on google returns, now, 23,300 hits, in a little over one week, is not a meaningful event in the articles it is being removed from. The english subtitled version of the coverage of the first author now has 59,656 views just over one weekend. At this point, the paper is news for what this topic is about, which supposedly is the "9/11 conspiracy theories". You frame attempts to post the paper as "attacks" which they are not. People are upset that this paper is being hidden and they want it shown. What IS becoming news is the wikipedia editors behavior around this one paper as it is becoming more and more clear that this is simply news you want to hide. Removing the paper from the page which defines it -- the demolition theory -- with handwaving about "extreme claims" and "Bentham isn't reliable" while leaving other Bentham journal articles on the page, is simple transparent and people see through it. From my perspective, the editors are buying time to block a paper they have no scientific rebuttal to. The editors removing the paper are openly conservative, do not have the scientific expertise to evaluate it, and generally have a history of blocking as much relevant postiive "9/11 Truth" information as possible, while inserting as much negative information as they possibly can. As someone said to me the other day, the demolition page is laughable -- it's so transparently defending the official story and trying to deny all the views the page is about that it makes the role of wikipedia clear as day. Locewtus (talk) 17:28, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

(undent) Try a Google search for 'active thermitic material' and wikipedia. You will get 39,300 hits. Notice the number of suggestions (out on the web) that people try to get that information into Wikipedia. Then tell us we don't have reason to be concerned. In your above comment you are repeating the views that have failed to obtain the consensus of regular editors on any page where active discussion occurred. We have our own policies and editorial standards, and we like them the way they are. A majority vote of web-forum commenters is not enough reason to include questionable material in Wikipedia. EdJohnston (talk) 17:59, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually a google of the search you are referring to returns 6,680 hits. Most of those are ABOUT the situation being discussed right now -- the complete censorship of this article from wikipedia. That's what the reason to be concerned is. ScholarTruthJustice (talk) 20:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

"In your above comment you are repeating the views that have failed to obtain the consensus of regular editors" -- Obviously, since most editors who dissent from the "consensus" apparently end up being summarily banned, it doesn't exactly seem fair or balanced. It's not unlike the Walrus and the Carpenter claiming a "consensus", after the oysters have been eaten. No Time Toulouse (talk) 20:21, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

No, not quite. Editors who dissent often present material that doesn't meet our threshold for inclusion (per WP:N or WP:RS) and cannot find consensus to include it. Rather than finding new sources that do meet those standards, they instead begin persistently insisting the source be included, edit-warring, and generally being disruptive until they get blocked. The folks who actually work within the rules tend to stick around for quite a while. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:43, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

There have been discussions on this paper at Talk:Collapse of the World Trade Center, Talk:September 11 attacks and Talk:World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories. One of those discussions contains links to previous discussions on Bentham Open papers which will answer some of your questions. Hut 8.5 19:32, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi. It's also been covered in the News in New Zealand: [5]. However, Editor Jehochmann has stated that the story may not be considered reliable, until it appears in the New York Times first. Such a high personal standard of reliability as he claims authority to dictate, is utterly unprecedented for wikipedia, also ignoring the fact that there could be any number of other reasons why the NYT won't print it without even addressing or rebutting any of the scientific methods used. No Time Toulouse (talk) 17:49, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

That's not quite what Jehochman said. His point was that if this was generally considered strong evidence that the World Trade Center was destroyed through controlled demolition it would now be front-page news all over the world. Your New Zealand source is some sort of press release (or other user generated content) and doesn't pass WP:RS. Hut 8.5 19:32, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

So now it's "all over the world"... Well I don't know, but aside from Denmark, Utah and NZ, I've also found it spreading to Canada and Italy media now, so far... No Time Toulouse (talk) 20:55, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I would like to complain about this Jehochman character. I only entered the discussion because I had been watching the page for some time, and was wondering why he so vehemently opposed any mention of this report existing. Several other editors asked the same question. His response has been to declare that we were all the same user for wondering this, that we were discussing forbidden topics, and that we were all being disruptive and would be blocked. He is even now seeking to prove that we are all the same person and to block us all for our "disruption" for daring to question his authority. I can almost visualize him coming with the proverbial firebrand in his hand, to persecute everyone who mentions that this report exists. And the only thing close to an explanation I have seen why the report cannot be mentioned in the conspiracy article is: "Because there is no reliable source stating that this report actually exists". I have never seen anything remotely like this from Americans in my entire life, and I am an old man. No Time Toulouse (talk) 00:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

If you've never seen anything like this before then it is reasonable to conclude that you should spend some time familiarising yourself with how Wikipedia works. In particular, you should make sure you understand our guidelines on Reliable sources. It should all make sense then. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:21, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Archive protection

Resolved

 – Doesn't look like this is going anywhere. — Jake Wartenberg 20:49, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I imagine Village Pump would be the place to bring this up but before doing so, it'd be nice to see what, if any, consequences would result from this proposal. It seems that at times, archive pages get vandalized. And who has the thousands of archived pages on their watchlist? Not I. You? So, what about an auto-full-protect of archive pages related to the various notice boards, such as this one, ANI, etc.? And of course archive pages of AfD, MfD, RfA, RfB, etc. This would also do away with the many "This is an archive, don't edit it!" banners on archive pages. Thoughts, opinions, trouts? - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 18:45, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not too sure. I think there are probably times when it is appropriate to edit talk pages - see my relevant proposal at WP:VPR for adding {{Reflist}}s to them. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 19:03, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Our huggle army probably catches most of it. –xeno (talk) 19:04, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

The admin archive pages do get vandalized. I've found it useful to watchlist a few of them: one long term vandal tends to edit his own ban discussion when he returns on new socks. That archive page is a useful honeypot. Durova^Charge! 19:57, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

@Jerry1250: that couldn't be done via {{editprotected}} on the archive page's talk page? For example, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive189 would be fully protected and any changes needing made to it could be brought up on Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive189 with the editprotected template. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 20:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

There are several reasons why archive pages might one day need to be edited (updating redirects that have been retargeted, for example). Forcing people to use edit protected requests in these cases to stop vandalism once in a while doesn't strike me as a net benefit. –xeno (talk) 20:04, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (I'm assuming you mean me!) Yes, but the currently proposal is for clearing the backlog i.e. the equivalent of hundreds of PERs. I'm not sure that's going to pass anyway (I was merely testing the water, as you are here), but it's just one point to be considered. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 20:06, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this would create a huge backlog but I guess it could add to the work in a sense. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 20:09, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Couldn't we have a bot that watches all archives and update one page that we can watch? That should ease detecting vandals. — Edokter • Talk • 20:12, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

• Is a useful honepot. Moreover, they get edited on occasion for legitimate uses. Since they are all NOINDEXED vandalism is not a serious concern. Net benefit is negative. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
• Archive pages are often edited en-masse by people removing old signatures when they do not want their name/pseudonym associated with an account any more. I don't like the idea of people having to bug admins to do that (but, to be honest, the fact they do it bugs me anyway). I would support such a proposal. Shouldn't be too hard to get a bot to do all the protecting. J Milburn (talk) 22:55, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I would strongly support such a proposal, too. This is a problem with an easy, common sense solution. In fact, if we made the archive bots adminbots, full protection could be applied to article talk and user talk archives, too. — Jake Wartenberg 00:58, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
• I'd like to think that one doesn't have to gain administrator privileges merely in order to be a WikiGnome. Uncle G (talk) 01:13, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
  • One probably shouldn't be wikignoming talkpage archives, if I understand you correctly. Can you elaborate a little bit? — Jake Wartenberg 01:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
    • I've done WikiGnoming in archives a few times. For example, I removed confusing TFD notices which came with Template:Smile (before I became an admin), and I retargetted links in very old signatures, such as changing links to LMS so they point to User:LMS. Sometimes, bad subpage links need to be fixed, such as this edit to an RFA talk page archive, or discussions need to be moved to or from an archive page, such as my edits to Talk:Astrology/Archive 1. I've even moved around discussions in noticeboard archives for readability, like Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive27 and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive29,. Having said all that, I've found that most edits to archive pages are unhelpful, but are usually made in good faith (e.g. spelling fixes). I don't think that we should deny non-admins the ability to tweak archive pages, if they find that it's necessary. Graham87 09:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
      • I regularly gnome Talk archives to add better templates, such as Template:atn, which provides much easier navigation of multiple archives. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
• Hmm. You both make really good points, though we still have {{editprotected}}. I would say that giving the bots the ability to edit protected pages still makes sense though, as there are times when full protection is appropriate. We just might not want to indiscriminately FP all talk page archives, and instead do so on an as needed basis. The changes that would be made to the protection policy as a result of this proposals implementation should probably reflect that. — Jake Wartenberg 18:29, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback all. I guess I'll let this one rest, as some valid points for not implementing this have been raised. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 01:07, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Spam template

Is it just me or is this a spam template? {{Modelref}}. It links to a load of arbitrarily selected sites including at least one that was previously blacklisted. Should we really be encouraging this kind of thing? Guy (Help!) 17:06, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Well if the sites are legit, I don't see a problem. Anything blacklisted should be removed from the template of couse. There is at least one precedent with geographic coordinates that link to a truckload of map sites. If that worked, I'm sure the people editing movie articles would gladly have a template that links to imdb, rotten tomatoes, metacritics and whatever reference sites are commonly in use... Equendil Talk 17:18, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Links are not supposed to eb decorative, though. This amounts to an official endorsement of sites that are in some cases just paparazzi twaddle. Guy (Help!) 19:52, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Further, does this template just link to the site, rather than to the article subject's listing on the site? If so, I would be very much inclined to agree with Guy. J Milburn (talk) 20:30, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

The template docs say that it links to specific model info if the necessary id's are given as parameters. Looie496 (talk) 02:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I think that is clearly an inappropriate use of external links. If the links are useful for references they should be present at at WikiProject Fashion, but not in a template like this. ThemFromSpace 21:32, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Open Proxy that needs to be blocked

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

As seen here, the IP states that it is an open proxy owned by some company. Per our policy regarding open proxies, and the vandalism we've been getting from it, it needs to be blocked.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 03:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Port 80 is open, so blocked. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 03:08, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

While the diff is certainly evidence enough, who doesn't have port 80 open? Chillum 03:12, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Its actually a CGI proxy in this case, [6]. Mr.Z-man 03:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

You can report open proxies at WP:WPOP BTW. Hut 8.5 19:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Long-term, very slow vandalism

I received a very cryptic message from Maine Is 28th (talk · contribs) today, which led me to check out his/her contributions. I found an editing pattern consisting primarily of inserting nonsense words into various articles, including some related to professional wrestling. The editing pattern is similar to blocked vandal User:Tip Ipp Ipp and his suspected sock puppets (although, notably, Maine Is 28th hasn't yet used the telltale "ba-limp" phrase). However, the fact that he/she messaged me in particular without my having reverted any of Maine's vandalism is suspicious, since I did have some interactions with Tip Ipp Ipp and his puppets.

(A little background: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/63.164.47.2 (2nd), Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive321#User:XusSatyrtn, disruptive edits, possible sock of blocked user, User:EyeSerene/Archive7#Thank You!)

Maine Is 28th's vandalism is very slow, but even so, much of it had gone unreverted before I took a look. Powers ^T 11:52, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

-- Powers ^T 11:52, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Whoever it is, based on this comment removal on Gwen Gale's talkpage a few months back, they maybe a sock of The27thmaine (talk · contribs). D.M.N. (talk) 11:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I've blocked indefinitely. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:05, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

There's definitely a connection; the user whose talk page was being discussed there, Watermelon Eet Choo Weets (talk · contribs), is listed as a sock of 63.164.47.2 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), who appears to be the designated puppeteer. My guess would be that the Maine Is 28th username was created as a parody of The27thMaine, but I might be wrong and The27thMaine might be involved. The27thMaine certainly seems legit, though, based on his/her editing history and user page. Our friend the vandal doesn't go to the trouble of trying to look legitimate. Is it time for a long-term abuse entry on this person? Powers ^T 13:15, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

• My Teeth Itch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is the newest incarnation. See also User talk:63.164.47.2, which My Teeth Itch has edited. Powers ^T 11:55, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

My Teeth Itch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) = Blocked indef. Cirt (talk) 12:18, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Is WP:LTA the most appropriate place to compile information on this vandal? Powers ^T 13:13, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Image violates law?

 Done File:G839.jpg may be in violation of Counterfeit Detection Act of 1992 as it depicts both sides of a 500 dollar but Template:Money-US (which it uses) states that one of the requirements of this law is that "The illustration is one-sided;" (If this is the wrong place for this then oops but I don't know where else to put it) --Wanders1 (talk) 13:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

The illustration is one-sided, but depicts both sides of the note. Given the objects of that legislation, I doubt there's a problem, and anyone who tried to use it as real currency would deserve all they got. Rodhullandemu 13:56, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not American, but there's no current $500 note that is legal tender anyway is there? Black Kite 13:57, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

They're still legal tender, but you'd get very funny looks if you tried to use one. – iridescent 14:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

It is a one sided representation. If you printed it out with each side of the bill on both sides of the same piece of paper then that would be an issue. Nobody is going to accept that picture as money, so I don't see how it could be seen as a counterfeit. Chillum 14:08, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Heh, this type of discussion shows up how obsolete that law is. It's fairly simple to bring into clear and full compliance: split into two images, rotate and crop so it displays better, and resize so it is absolutely positively more than 1.5 times the size of an actual $500 bill. Now in compliance with Act of 1992, Public Law 102-550, in Section 411 of Title 31 of the Code of Federal Regulations, I am deleting all files used in creation of the following images. Suggest deleting File:G839.jpg per the above, and since it isn't really needed anymore. Durova^Charge! 14:37, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

• File:500 bill front.jpg
• File:500 bill back.jpg

image deleted as replaced by the two above Gnangarra 14:45, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Alastair Haines

Alastair Haines (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been blocked several times for legal posturing, most recently indefinitely. I have looked through this and I think that the best way to avoid a repeat of the source of the OTRS complaint #2009040310049955 which triggered this request to the arbitrators is to protect AH's talk page to prevent recurrence of defamatory comments, and leave a note there to enable him to contact OTRS if there is a need for courtesy blanking of any debate pages he feels are problematic. I am just off to do that.

As an aside, there is a question as to whether we should interpret WP:BLP as covering comments made on a talk page of a user who is publicly identifiable. I would say that this is consistent with a small-c conservative interpretation of that policy, along with the more widely accepted policies on user-to-user interaction. In other words, I would suggest we should accede without fuss to any request to courtesy blank in meta-discussion any material which references a readily-identifiable real world identity and which we would consider problematic in a biography. That's just a statement of my POV here, and a justification for protecting the page to prevent further problems.

Not quite how I expected to spend my day off :-) Guy (Help!) 16:12, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with this method to cope with the problem, offhand. — Coren ^(talk) 18:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:BLP states in pertinent part that it applies to "any Wikipedia page" (italics in original), and Wikipedia:BLP#Non-article space says the same thing at greater length. It would thus seem that we should treat unsourced derogatory statements about editors who use their real name the same as we would treat such statements about any other person in an article. Against this, one could argue that, as opposed to the proverbial man on the street, Wikipedia users who contribute identifiable information do so voluntarily, knowing the risks associated with reading one's name on a very high-profile website. But that argument would be unpersuasive: We explicitly extend BLP protection to all living persons, including public figures who make their living by throwing their name around as widely as possible, such as celebrities. It would make no sense to protect these, but not our own contributors, who are generelly far less avid self-promoters.

Accordingly, I agree with Guy. But I would make an exception for:

• ongoing discussions about the conduct of the user at issue, and
• discussions to which the user at issue has contributed, which can be construed as implicit consent to the association of his name with the discussion.

In such discussions, only patently derogatory material, such as insults, should be removed (as it would if directed against any other user), and then only to the extent that the discussion itself remains understandable.  Sandstein  20:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

hmmmm... I was rather hoping the talk page would actually be unprotected to allow Alastair a sensible means of communication - I still think that's the best idea. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#gigantic_boobs for my, and others' thoughts. Privatemusings (talk) 21:39, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Given past legal threats, questions of baiting and failure to identify the supposed locus of other complaints, I think directing him to OTRS is the best course. You're flogging a dead horse at RFAR, they are extremely unlikely to take action based on the complaint you make there, especially as there do not seem to be any prior attempts at resolution. Guy (Help!) 21:49, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Let's be kind to the fellow and courtesy blank the material that offends him. It doesn't seem to be vital to the encyclopedia's functioning and we have other things to work on that are more central to our project's mission. Durova^Charge! 22:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

yeah - I'm very glad to see material removed which was causing offense - I think the important issue of the block remains - clearly you were able to help out before, Durova, and Alistair posted this following that help. Quite why Alistair was subsequently blocked for an email someone else sent to someone else a couple of days before that diff is the remaining question mark.... Privatemusings (talk) 03:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC)oh, and I think this is being discussed by the arbcom, but I could be wrong

It appears that the problem was this: having been warned and blocked numerous times for legal threats,rather than using something other than legal threats he engaged a colleague to make the threats on his behalf. It's rather like the difference between requesting an unblock and creating a sockpuppet: the former is acceptable, the latter not. Guy (Help!) 07:39, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

"A couple of days" is inaccurate; try a couple of hours, namely 8 of them. Daniel (talk) 09:57, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

The unblock request containing the cut-and-paste of Durova's statement was on April 8th. Was User:Daniel the OTRS agent who dealt with the ticket on April 3rd? Mathsci (talk) 13:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

NYB's suggestion of a username change plus a strict agreement by User:Alastair Haines not to use the words "defamation", "slander", etc, even when baited, might be one way forward. Mathsci (talk) 08:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Huzzah?! Daniel (talk) 09:58, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Mais oui, exactement !! That is an unresolved left-over from the Alistair Haines ArbCom case, one of the loose threads that I think Cailil has been talking about. But Newyorkbrad's idea of a change of username and the anonymity that comes with it is the key here - insults, trolling or baiting then just become water off a duck's back (or should that be duck-billed platypus?) Mathsci (talk) 14:10, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

The final determination of the OTRS email and its significance belongs to other people: I am not on the queue that grants access. About the best that's possible is to organize the other issues and attempt to clarify them:

1. Courtesy blanking things outside of article space that give Mr. Haines particular distress should be easy to do. People who know where and what that is are urged to do it.
2. Multiple factors contributed to the recent unblock of another editor. That unblock was fully justified without a consensus answer to the question of whether the OTRS email constituted a threat.
3. The rationale for the current block on Mr. Haines appears to be a belief that Mr. Haines renewed problematic behavior by proxy, by having a third party send an email on his behalf after his most recent disavowal of legal threats.
4. Although both blocks derived from the same OTRS ticket, the blocking rationales were different and the blocked editors' disavowals of legal threat intentions occurred at different times: one before the email and one afterward. Crucially, the blocking administrator acknowledged with apologies that the second editor had been mistakenly identified as the sender of the email. So it does not necessarily follow that both editors should be unblocked at this time.

The core concept of WP:NLT is to prevent behaviors that stifle open discussion. So it might be arguable that a statement in legalese made by (or proxied on behalf of) an editor who has a long history of legal threats, should be read and understood differently than an equivalent statement by someone who does not have such a history. The reasoning for this interpretation parallels the discretionary latitude in the WP:3RR policy: habitual edit warriors who game policy by going right up to (but not over) the 'electric fence' may nonetheless be blocked because their actions were intentionally disruptive. Although this is conjecture based in part upon material to which I have no firsthand access, this seems to be the outstanding problem? Durova^Charge! 17:54, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

The chronology in point 3 doesn't seem right. The third party sent the email on April 3rd; the disavowal of legal threats in the 2nd unblock request was posted on April 8th. Mathsci (talk) 21:48, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

yeah - the alleged proxy threatening email seems to be several days before alistair's explicit disavowal of legal action (I'm not sure where Daneil gets '8 hours' from, but I think he's agreeing it's before regardless). Oh, and I just had a moan at the blocking admin about this. We're slipping below par in clearing this up, and it's not that hard. cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 21:55, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that. Bowing out in deference to people who are sysops on the right project and have access to the right OTRS queue. This certainly gets confusing! Durova^Charge! 23:28, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

This is where I got 8 hours from: "I think the important issue of the block remains - clearly you were able to help out before, Durova, and Alistair posted this following that help. Quite why Alistair was subsequently blocked for an email someone else sent to someone else a couple of days before that diff [ie presumably referring to the diff previously linked in the sentence] is the remaining question mark.... " - given the email was sent April 3 18:00 UTC and the diff you linked to was posted April 4 02:00 UTC, that's by my reckoning 8 hours, not "a couple of days". Daniel (talk) 23:43, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

ah - got ya! (this time I'm the boob ;-) - so we can see clearly now that 8 hours after the email from a third party, Alastair began disavowing legal action clearly, and has continued to do so since that time, despite being blocked, t'would seem. That's clearer now - but why is he blocked? Privatemusings (talk) 04:03, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

(uindent) On the other hand the correct chronology has already been pointed out more than once, here and in the RfAr. User:Daniel, as the OTRS agent who apparently dealt with the ticket and discussed it later with Coren (when?), was aware more than anybody else of the timing. Although I did not request it, I have been forwarded a copy of Daniel's email reply to the person who submitted the ticket: in the email Daniel refers to User:Alastair Haines as a "banned user" because of repeated and continual complaints about being being defamed. [Note: the email has also been discussed and passed on to ArbCom.] How so? Mathsci (talk) 05:10, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Policy question

Resolved

 – No worries here. –xeno (talk) 17:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Could someone clarify the policy on moving an article space page WHILE it is in an ongoing AfD discussion? I can't seem to find anything on it. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 16:14, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Unless it is the location of the page that is at issue, I don't see a huge problem with it... Is there a specific case you're talking about? –xeno (talk) 16:39, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I can't see a problem unless it's an attempt to avoid the AfD outcome. – Toon^(talk) 16:47, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

The location isn't the issue but someone's vote! for a renaming option prompted the page to be moved by the original creator. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barack Obama (disambiguation). - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 16:48, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I see the problem. The AfD still links to the article. If you feel that it was a bad move, you can always move it back. Be the R in BRD, as it were. But it looks like an improvement to me and we certainly shouldn't stop improving an article because it is at AfD. Quite the opposite. -Chunky Rice (talk) 17:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This is perfectly fine and a more accurate name. Barack Obama (disambiguation) should really be used to disambiguate between notable Barack Obama's, but I think there's only one at present. –xeno (talk) 17:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Redirection request

Resolved

Hello everybody. Im not sure if this is the right place for my request. Now, you will surely tell me, if this is the case. I write this, because I need the help of an administrator. It has to do with the following article: Jacob Westervelt. Actually the common/usal name of the person, which is described in this article is Jacob Aaron Westervelt. I cant move the article, because the article Jacob Aaron Westervelt already exists (redirection to Jacob Westervelt).

I wrote a huge article (60kb - 150 hours of work) about Jacob Aaron Westervelt, that I would like to upload as soon as the old article is moved. I also wrote an article about Jacob Westervelt (a sheriff and Assistant Alderman, who lived in the same period as Jacob Aaron). There is even a third man called Jacob Westervelt, but I have not written an article about him yet.

My idea: making a disambiguation page from the current Jacob Westervelt-page, and creating a new page for Jacob Westervelt (Sheriff). Could anybody help me? With kind regards --Rectilinium'♥' 19:19, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

The best place to request this is WP:Requested moves. – ukexpat (talk) 19:26, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Oops looks like someone is working on it already. – ukexpat (talk) 19:27, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I've moved it to Jacob Aaron Westervelt over the redirect - leaving Jacob Westervelt yet to be created. Go forth and disambiguate! In future the best place is, as Ukexpat states, WP:RM. – Toon^(talk) 19:28, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Wow, that was fast! Thank you very much Toon05 and Ukexpat... :)--Rectilinium'♥' 19:30, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Did it... I hope it is ok like that...--Rectilinium'♥' 19:44, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

IP vandal

Resolved

I just reverted the last four contributions from this IP user. Because it's a shared IP and it's been blocked before, but it doesn't look like the IP is currently engaged in a vandalism spree this instant, I really wasn't sure where to report it. If you've got future guidance for where I should ask about these (or if I shouldn't bother at all), please let me know - thanks. Townlake (talk) 20:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, not much to do with that IP anymore (no vandalism in about the last hour as of time stamp). In the future, if you see that it had resumed vandalism about now after a break, report it to WP:AIV. If you had caught it ongoing, same place. If you notice it after the editing has ceased, leave a strongly worded warning on the talk page just in case. We aren't prone to blocking if the disruption has ceased. Thanks, Townlake. Keegan^talk 20:27, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Sure thing - and thanks for the helpful response. Townlake (talk) 20:30, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Userpage redirect to article?

Resolved

Hi, not sure if this is something worthy of anyone's attention. I noticed that User:Phdmaven redirects to an article authored by that editor. I was wondering about the appropriateness of that, and whether it would lead to confusion from people who try to navigate to this editor's talk page. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:23, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

• Looks like he wrote the article on his userpage, and then moved it into articlespace, leaving a redirect behind. I've simply removed the redirect. Black Kite 22:26, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

nudie pics on user pages

Resolved

 – Free license confirmed.

G'day all - I recently had this chat with User:WebHamster, whose userpage features a nudie pic. I'm unaware of the practice / guidelines / policy in this area (nudie pics on userpages) so thought I'd come here for a pointer - is there some sort of generally accepted practice in this regard? cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 22:28, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

ps. I generally think that we urgently need to tighten up policy and practice concerning sexual content on wikipedia - I've written an essay about it, if anyone's interested (this is not safe for work, and I'm advised to note that you shouldn't follow that link unless you are over 18, or the age of majority in your neighbourhood). Privatemusings (talk) 22:30, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

W8, but I thought that wikipedia is not censored? (not that I look at porn anything). I think that they should be free to do anything harmless on their userpages. --Montgomery' 39 (talk) 22:36, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

On what basis should it be removed? Editors of the encyclopedia are already familiar with the broad scope of the project, which includes articles on matters of a sexual nature (with images) and should have the sense to simply avoid pages that have material they find distasteful - and it isn't as if anyone need go to a userpage to contact the editor. Readers of the encyclopedia are extremely unlikely to go to an editors page, even if they know such things exist - and those that do know are likely as familiar as editors on the range of subjects and images provided on these pages and should be able to handle them. So, why does it need to be trimmed? LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

gotta commend you on the use of the word 'trimmed' in this context :-) - I'm just genuinely after any pointers to current practice is all - is it fair to say that there's no problem with any pictures on userpages or in userspace? Seems so...... Privatemusings (talk) 22:52, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

You tried to do this before and it didnt work. repeat after me: wikipedia is not censored. deal with it. //roux   22:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

First they came... Gwen Gale (talk) 22:43, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec*lots)I've seen this come up before, and the general consensus has always seemed to be that they're ok since Wikipedia is not censored. However I'm not sure I agree with this since there is a difference between not censoring ourselves from showing images that are relevant and simply hosting pictures, many or which are probably copyrighted anyway, a lot look professionally done, and several that don't are of people who most likely don't know there image has ended up here. Added to this the fact that most of these images are used nowhere outside of userspace, and there doesn't seem to be much logic behind keeping these. Having said that, are they actually hurting anyone? The whole 18 thing is a bit of a moot point since even the most innocuous of google image searches can have unexpected results(I'm reminded of a time back in college in a computer room lesson the results of an image search for a picture of some historical figure included a naked transexual man) and the internet is filled with easily accesible porn. Also, many of these images are on commons, who we have no control over--Jac16888^Talk 22:47, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

(EC) I recall your ramblings about censorship before and as you were told then and above Wiki is NOT censored. BigDunc^Talk 22:49, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I think we can mark this thread as resolved for no violation of any policies and thus no reason for admin intervention. If you think it should be removed, ask the user nicely or use WP:MFD but no policy forbids using such images in userspace like it does not forbid them elsewhere. If it violates WP:NOT#WEBHOST, WP:MFD is the way to go. Regards SoWhy 22:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Unless there's a copyright issue, I'm not sure why we should care. -Chunky Rice (talk) 22:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Privatemusings's conversation with the user acknowledges that it's a political statement of opposition to the former president of the United States. So while it's a crude pun, It's arguably defensible. Stumbled across this conversation shortly after dropping a few boobies and tits on PM's own user talk (unrelated discussion, serendipitous coincidence). And Privatemusings seemed to enjoy the sight of them--so who are we to judge? Best, Durova^Charge! 22:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I do wish that people who leap to cite WP:NOTCENSORED would pause to reflect for a minute on what it says, and why. The explicit wording of the policy clearly emphasizes that it's about article content. The purpose of the policy is to prevent political, moral, or religious outrage from hindering our ability to present accurate, detailed, informative articles. Our goal of building an encyclopedia is paramount.

WP:NOTCENSORED doesn't say – and has never meant – that you can slap whatever you want up on your userpage. Note that the very same policy page, four sections down, addresses this point explicitly: WP:NOTFREESPEECH. While I don't know if it's written down somewhere, we ought to be applying a Principle of Least Astonishment to potentially shocking or salacious content. We don't offend unless it benefits the project. Pictures of boobies belong in our article on the breast — they have a valid educational purpose there, and our coverage would be incomplete (ha ha) without them. It is reasonable to expect such images in such articles. On the other hand, titillating photos on user pages don't serve to improve or enhance the project. They're no more appropriate than centerfold photos tacked up on your cubicle wall at work, and they have to potential to be similarly discomfiting to your coworkers. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:57, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I just don't think it's a good idea to get into the area of determining what is and isn't offensive for user pages. If you want to say no pictures at all, that's one thing. But to say, "This picture is okay, but this one isn't because I don't like it," well, I just don't see that going anywhere good. -Chunky Rice (talk) 00:17, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Chunky Rice. It's not our place to decide where that line gets drawn. That seems to go way past our remit as an encyclopedia. If it causes a disruption, then let's address that. Otherwise, let's live and let live. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:24, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

At the same time, I think we would be abdicating our responsibility to say that since there are likely to be some gray areas, we cannot choose to draw any lines at all. Once upon a time, Wikipedia was the side project of a couple of guys funded by an internet porn magnate. Now we're one of the most widely-read sites on the Internet. We're trying to be at least moderately respectable, and we're trying to recruit subject matter experts in areas beyond our traditional fields of pop music and Pokemon. At some point, that requires a bit of a review of our online 'offices'.

The stuff we could get away with as a (metaphorical) handful of buddies in a garage may no longer be suitable for a larger, broader organization — even one that remains volunteer-driven. There's a bit of a psychological disjoint that works against us here. Even though the Internet comes into our living rooms, dens, and home offices, it's essential to be aware that our actions have effects which extend far beyond the confines of our own homes. Our own personal standards for what is acceptable decoration on our own walls don't apply to (and shouldn't be imposed on) every other person who visits Wikipedia.

We are using the project's servers to maintain our user pages. The bills are paid largely by charitable donations. What does it say about us – and how might it affect our reputation or our ability to recruit experts – when some of our users feel that the best way to introduce themselves is with a front-and-center picture of a shaved pussy?

Editors who might be uncomfortable with nudity or profanity can still contribute to Wikipedia articles; we exercise sufficient good sense and restraint that it is obvious which articles they ought to avoid (vagina, fuck, fellatio...). Should they ever want – or need – to communicate or collaborate with another editor, we shouldn't be throwing them into a minefield. Why should I have to worry every time I click on a user's name that I'm going to end up having to explain something to my boss/girlfriend/teacher/sensitive coworker? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:06, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure why your boss, teacher, or sensitive coworker is watching you edit Wikipedia. As for your girlfriend, I would hope that your relationship is strong enough that you could get past a situation where she walks in just as you click on a certain user's name...

I agree that we mustn't abdicate all responsibility, but I suggest that we draw the line based on a practical consideration rather than a moral one. I refuse to agree, for example, that explicit images of sex are more objectionable than explicit images of violence. (Thus, the comparison of a space with nude pictures to a "minefield" doesn't sit well with me.) This is not the kind of argument in which Wikipedia needs to take a stand. If an image is actually disruptive, then we've got encyclopedic reasons to remove it. Until then...

I have a lot of sympathy with what you're saying, but who gets to decide? If you leave it to community consensus, then we get what we have now. If you don't, then who gets to decide? The most sensitive? Those living in a certain jurisdiction? How do we draw these lines, once we decide to be arbiters of taste? Who says that a naked human body is obscene, while something else isn't? -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:54, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

And yet I had userboxes related to masturbation, deleted not once but twice. Nice. It all depends on "who" you get at the particular moment, as to whether or not such content will be deemed unacceptable or not. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 00:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

As with all user page material, I support the inclusion of material that helps to understand the user, in the sense that it reflects their views, attitudes, interests, biases, or allows one to predict their behavior. These are all important for deciding how to interact with them and view their contributions to the project. User page images, even nude ones, frequently fall into this category. Dcoetzee 00:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Not quite, Allstarecho. Principles do apply. This past week I advocated deletion of a breast cleavage userbox because it demeaned a segment of the population and served no encyclopedic purpose. If the image under discussion here had been part of an equivalent user box then it would have merited removal on similar grounds. Context matters: a photograph of breast cleavage would be appropriate in a userbox about breast cancer, and the political statement here merits broader latitude too. Barely passes the threshold, but makes it; poor taste though. Durova^Charge! 01:48, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Just as my userbox and its variations with an image of a man masturbating was appropriate about masturbation. They were originally deleted (by someone who has since had his adminship taken away via Arbcom for such controversial deletions) as being csd t1 but that only applies to templates so shouldn't have been deleted. Someone brought this fact up at DRV - but the fact is, it shouldn't have ever went to DRV because it shouldn't have been deleted in the first place, procedurally or otherwise. And I hate arguments about controversial userboxes that use the "it's not encyclopedic!" rhetoric. Of course it's not! Userspace isn't an encyclopedia! Duh! But I digress. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 02:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Your "duh" seems to imply that anyone who believes we should maintain an encyclopedic environment, even in userspace, is stupid. Do you really believe that? I've seen some pretty damned intelligent arguments against various kinds of userboxes, and I would not characterize the dispute as "duh", from either side. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:12, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not totally up the whole discussion here, but on these pictures that involve nudes, do we have anything resembling a confirmation that the subjects gave their images up freely for indiscriminate use on Wikipedia?--Tznkai (talk) 03:19, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

heh... course not! - I'd invite you to read my outrageous essay (full of nudie pics) and my proposal for good measure, Tzn, if you're interested in this stuff... cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 03:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

If the image is properly licensed, in this case GDFL, then such a thing doesn't really seem necessary. Tarc (talk) 03:29, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

If I take a photograph of a random nude person and post it online, I can license it to GDFL or CC-SA-BY (or whatever it was) all I like. I can put it into the public domain. This doesn't immunize me from the moral or legal responsibility. Living subjects deserve protection.--Tznkai (talk) 03:45, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I think that I've seen what are basically creepy voyeur photos deleted from Commons for exactly that reason. Wikimedia doesn't need photos of random nude women sitting on beaches taken and posted online without their permission. Nick-D (talk) 08:52, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

actually, Nick - commons currently hosts tens, perhaps hundreds of such images. Images taken in a public place with appropriate copyright status are routinely uploaded, or copied across from other sites. I don't think they're a good fit here either, and mention this in my essay, cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 06:29, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

• Can we suspend any discussion regarding Good Taste; I do not care for anyone tell me that a picture celebrating the human form is of lesser "taste" than My Little Pony images. For fuck's sake, can we treat each other as human beings capable of making their own judgements - and that includes the readership too. LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:22, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Call it a "soft objection" then: nearly everyone at this discussion has seen how user space can fan the flames of content disputes. Even innocuous boxes such as This user is a Christian get mined for argumentation by people who construe That user is probably an evangelical fundamentalist Christian and that's why he disagrees with me! and saunter over to the admin boards to complain. Remember the big userbox debates of 2005? Politics is a hot button issue and this political statement is intentionally provocative. I don't try to shut down IRC but I never use it, I don't try to abolish all userboxes but I don't use any on this project, and I won't try to force WebHamster to stop using this image but I will speak my opinion and call it unwise. And if your opinion differs, please express it in civil language that demonstrates your professed respect for other people's judgments. Durova^Charge! 17:09, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
• Although it's a resolved discussion I'd like to put one little bit of my opinion forth. I would have no problem with my children (at any age) seeing this picture. It's a perfectly tasteful picture of a perfectly healthy woman. If other people have a problem with their children seeing it then I suggest that they don't put it on their user page. That way they can continue to circulate the stupidly asinine view that seeing naked people (whether in images or the flesh) is in some way harmful. I don't see it as harmful in any way and as such I will refuse to remove the picture until such time as I get bored with it or the rules are changed. --WebHamster 11:16, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

WebHamster, some people think this image is inappropriate. Your only stated reason for keeping it is that you like it there. Why are you placing more value on your whims than on the opinions of other people? If you want to make a statement, do it on your own homepage. Your user page doesn't belong to you. Frankly, you're behaving like a spoiled child, and if this is your attitude, maybe Wikipedia is not for you. Friday (talk) 12:57, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

{ec}I refer you to the penultimate userbox on my user page, use it in response to both your opinion of me and your opinion of my preferred usage of the picture. What "some people" do or don't think is inappropriate is irrelevant to me as "inappropriate" is a subjective term. I have my own criteria for what is or isn't "inappropriate", this criteria is based on what I consider to be an enlightened attitude that has not been indoctrinated by sensibilities that have a basis in religious dogma (this is the basis of all nudity/sex censorship). What right do others have to contradict my opinion? To use your argument, why do their opinions matter more than mine? Regardless, the contents of my user page effectively describe me and what I'm about without all the self-congratulatory bollocks seen on most editor's pages. --WebHamster 13:11, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

And Friday some people think it isn't. Everything you stated can be said to you too. If it is against policy then it should be removed, but at present and I'm sure someone will correct me if I am wrong it is not. BigDunc^Talk 13:03, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Friday, the majority of respondees do not think it is inappropriate - and other than personal opinion there has been no reference to WP policy that says the image is disallowable. Now, if you are unable to discern consensus, have no interest in citing policy and are in the habit of believing that your opinion outweighs that of other contributors - with no basis for that belief advanced - then perhaps you should take your own advice. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:04, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

We don't need to reach for policies and behave like lawyers. Gratuitous nudity on a user page? How does it look to the public? Is this what people expect from a reputable encyclopedia, or is this what people expect from some kid on myspace? The best answer here is clear; no policies needed. Friday (talk) 13:07, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

A user page, any user page, is not a part of the encyclopaedia. That's why it's called user space. The majority of user pages are non-encyclopaedic. If you don't like that then perhaps "maybe Wikipedia is not for you". --WebHamster 13:15, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Gratuitous? The image has a clear political message, which indicates to the readership not only WebHamster's political leanings but also gives some indication on how they choose to publicise it. It helps the reader understand the editor better - as such it is totally in compliance with WP:USER. "No policies needed"? How convenient, why bother with what is allowed when dealing with what is RIGHT. Why allow any other expression of opinion, indeed? LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

• Have we ever considered an optional filter for images such as this? I don't have a problem with it, but I'm sure if I clicked on the userpage at an inopportune moment I might have some 'splaining to do. –xeno (talk) 13:06, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Aren't images like this supposed to be included in WP:BADIMAGES? I'm not involved in images a lot, so can an expert clarify? Chamal ^talk 13:15, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:BADIMAGES is there to prevent vandalism by way of image use. It's not there for purposes of censorship or making subjective decisions on what is or isn't a "bad image". --WebHamster 13:19, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Images only normally get blacklisted when they have been used for vandalism. If it was included on the list, an exemption for this userpage would normally be included with it. In answer to Xeno, Wikipedia:Options to not see an image is the best we have right now. I tend to think an optional user-contributed list could be set up with javascript. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

LHvU has it exactly right - userpages which help readers understand contributors better are a good thing - they enable readers to read contributions critically, to identify and allow for possible biases (which all editors have) and also give an idea of what modes of discourse will be productive when communicating with the contributor. The image appears to be legal, is not sexually explicit (nudity is not inherently sexual), and enhances the information available to readers and contributors about WebHamster's political beliefs. Therefore it should not be forcibly removed. DuncanHill (talk) 13:47, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Segue to copyright

• • Xeno, shuffling the posts slightly so the unresolved copyright issue doesn't get buried. Hope you don't mind. Durova^Charge! 19:46, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

This has got to be the tamest image I have ever seen anyone get upset about, on Wikipedia or off. Chillum 13:52, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. I will add that when a thread is active here, it is not (in my opinion) helpful or particularly ethical for an admin to fragment the discussion by commenting both here and on the user talk page of the editor in question, when that editor has been participating constructively here. I hope that he is not considering unilateral action. DuncanHill (talk) 13:56, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

May I also say, I also think that image is tame (even if it does look like a sneaky copyvio), happy, way heedfully cared-for kids see stronger stuff than that in European and American art museums every day. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Interesting observation. Camera data is missing from the metadata, which is indicative of possible copyvio. WebHamster's upload notes state that it is a modified version of another file, but does not provide the filename of the previous upload. The previous uploader's username turns up no contributions on en:wiki, Commons, or the German Wikipedia. On the chance of a possible typographical error, I tried capitalization and hypenation variations--still with no results. No similar images turned up on a search of related Commons categories; adult volunteers whose orientations would find the search pleasant rather than cumbersome are invited to double check. Left a query at WebHamster's user talk page. Durova^Charge! 18:20, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

It's not at all easy to get that kind of foreground lighting, of that high colour temperature, in front of an already bright background, without big reflectors bouncing daylight back onto the subject. Shoots with setups like that aren't wontedly released under CC or GFDL. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:55, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the original seems to be File:Brazilian Waxing.jpg. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

The true original is here for folks who like bare breasts as well as bare mons venerii --WebHamster 23:21, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Gimped. Thanks. I don't think it's a copyvio anymore. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:07, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually it was Photoshopped, and was originally an exterior shot (for those that haven't tracked down or seen the original) ;) --WebHamster 23:19, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I use Gimping as a catch-all verb for photo-manipulation. Only so you know, I always thought it was an outdoor shot, from the light, but the photo manipulation brought about a lighting which could only otherwise have been done with reflectors, or very high colour temperature, expensive (and dangerous) movie lights. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:17, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the link. No more reason to doubt the license; full metadata there. Durova^Charge! 20:09, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

And the reason you doubted the license and didn't assume good faith in the first place was...? --WebHamster 23:19, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Please don't worry about that, WebHamster. Almost any image that winds up being talked about on a project page will sooner or later have its licensing glommed at, en.Wikipedia is way stern about image licensing and copyright. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:24, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Good job it wasn't a "sneaky copyvio" then wasn't it? ;) --WebHamster 00:58, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The Gimping was deft enough to make it look (as I said) like it came from a budgeted shoot, hence maybe a copyvio. Moreover, the lenses on some digital cameras these days can yield very sharp images (one can see pores in the skin) which, only 3 or 4 years ago, would be seen mostly in professional work. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

WebHamster, WP:AGF does not mean we assume adequate compliance with copyright law--only the intention to comply. The absence of adequate metadata or a contribution history for the username suggested the prior uploader's history may have been nuked. Uploaders have a proactive responsibility to demonstrate legality by providing adequate documentation. In the future you can avoid this sort of question by supplying the earlier version filename in the upload notes. Without that, there wasn't much to go by. Durova^Charge! 23:40, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

It's just as well that I didn't AGF to your motives for looking in the first place then, otherwise my innate cynicism would have had nowhere to go now would it? --WebHamster 00:56, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Heehee, if more males realized how often Commons admins get tasked with confirming the license and personality rights for this sort of thing, they'd be lining up to volunteer for ops. As you might imagine, a lot of the people who upload this stuff are shaky on the technicalities. Cheers, Durova^Charge! 04:36, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

• If people want to plaster their pages with naked photos of themselves, their friends and relations then let them, so long as they are not against the law, I don't see a problem - anything that brightens the gloom is welcome. Perhaps, you Durova coulp place the triple crowns over strategic parts? I may even upload one of myself, seated at my desk, quill in hand. Giano (talk) 06:43, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Not here to work collaboratively

• It may not have been Hamster's intention, but by employing a custom sig that links only to his userpage, and not his user talk page, he is essentially forcing people to "walk past" the image while heading to his talk page (unless they take the time to manually key it into the address bar or search box). I have asked the user to amend his signature to provide a link to his talk page. –xeno (talk) 18:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

No luck there... I must say this trend of users using lines such as "I don't want to be contact by other users" alarming, but "I'm not here to work "collaboratively" sends a pretty strong message, and it has nothing to do with the female anatomy. –xeno (talk) 02:05, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

That is a concern. Also Jimbo has twice personally deleted full nude shots of women who put full body nude poses of themselves on their userpages. One was PublicGirlUK and I forget the other's username. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:13, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec) You two may see WP as being a virtual open plan office with chest level partitions where one can talk to fellow 'workers' and "collaborate". I don't. I see an entry on my talk page as the annoying telephone call one gets when one is busy concentrating and doing something that is useful. This whole palaver, for example, came about after a user left an unsolicited comment on my talk page whilst trying to do some 'telemarketing' of his "essay" and then not liking the answer he got. If he'd never left that comment then several of us would never have wasted irreplaceable minutes of our lives on something that is truly inconsequential. --WebHamster 02:26, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that not being here to collaborate puts you at odds with the nature of this project. That might or might not cause trouble for you down the line. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:39, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Well I've been here for 6 years already, so that's probably a long line you are referring to. --WebHamster 08:55, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Like I said, it might or might not. -GTBacchus^(talk) 13:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter one way or the other. The project doesn't need me and I don't need the project, either way neither will be missed. --WebHamster 14:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure they'll come after you - particularly now you have scored a little victory. The "bush" episode, and your comments about collaboration, will be dragged up whenever certain people feel they have a chance of getting their own back. DuncanHill (talk) 10:56, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I think you may be referring to User:Mcrazychick. Tiptoety ^talk 02:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

• eh, if there's a positive to this whole situation, this Adblock with element hider is freaking great! No more shorn beavers, no more "peeking jimbo" (I mean he's handsome and all, but that peeking is just creepy). See Wikipedia:Options to not see an image I love it, thanks for pointing me to it zzuzzzzzzzz. –xeno ^talk 14:55, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

This is a problem. Now he's ruleslawyering to explain why he's intentionally making his signature less useful to others? Again, this demonstrates a disregard for others that is fundamentally incompatible with a collaborative project like Wikipedia. Is there some reason we're still tolerating this guy? Nothing good can ever come from trying to appease people whose approach is "Unless you can show me a specific rule saying I can't do this specific thing, I'll do whatever I want, regardless of the effect it has on others." We've all seen this a thousand times before, right? Years of experience have shown that people like this do more harm than good at a project like Wikipedia. Friday (talk) 14:58, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Friday, you are clearly out to get WebHamster, why not stop making it so bleeding obvious? DuncanHill (talk) 15:00, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm "out" to try to get people to wrap their brains around the idea that we should expect editors to behave like reasonable adults. Whoever's unwilling or unable should be shown the door. A simple expectation of reasonable behavior would make everything we do work better. Friday (talk) 15:03, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

So by "reasonable behaviour" what you really mean is for people to do what YOU want them to do. For clarity I did NOT deliberately make my sig less "useful", I simply didn't give it any thought when I customised it. Which, incidentally, was long before I added the photo to my user page. Now I suggest you toddle off and do something much more useful like nabbing a true vandal or disruptive user. --WebHamster 15:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I thought about indefinitely blocking in order to assist him in his goal not to collaborate, but I didn't feel like wearing my shit-storm goggles. –xeno ^talk 15:06, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Now that would truly be a misuse of the buttons given to you. It's a shame that people in this thread don't see that the real disruption was caused by the troll who instigated this thread. Ho-hum. --WebHamster 15:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec reply to Friday)Unfortunately, that would only work if those we entrust to enforce policy could be expected (better, required) to behave reasonably too. You have decided that WebHamster is "the sort of person" that you don't like to have editing Wikipedia, and I am certain that you will proceed to find fault with him whenever and wherever you can. I do not find your behaviour in this matter (including, as I mentioned above) your fragmentation of the debate to be indicative of collaborative working or a good ethical practice. DuncanHill (talk) 15:08, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

It could be worse... he could be called Monday, and we all know what Mondays are like! --WebHamster 15:16, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it'd be helpful if WebHamster would put a talk page link in his sig and I do wonder if the lack of it's meant to lead more readers through that image, which I'd think of as untowards. As for the image, I'd rather it wasn't there but am wary of the kind of image content restriction which would be needed to get rid of this image. I do think consensus should have sway on something which has stirred this much kerfuffle. How about an MfD? Gwen Gale (talk) 15:13, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

If it was up to me, all custom signatures would be dumped. That said, as long as they are allowed then I see no real problem with it - just a single extra click is no big deal. As for the image - to go to MfD at this stage would look a lot like forum shopping. DuncanHill (talk) 15:16, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Let's assume we went to MFD. Let's assume the user page was deleted. Look at his ruleslawyerish tendencies and disregard for others. All he'd do is make another user page with the same or similar image. The problem here is one of temperament. He thinks it's amusing to bring the project into disrepute. An MFD cannot solve that problem. Friday (talk) 15:17, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec) 1. I'm not wikilawyering, I'm defending my actions and my 'rights'. 2. You are attributing emotions to my actions that you are guessing at yet stating it as fact. What does that say about YOU as an editor? 3. You're just pissed that you aren't getting your own way. --WebHamster 15:23, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence whatsoever that he has brought the project into disrepute? Or did you just make that up? Please cite reliable sources when making such allegations against an editor. DuncanHill (talk) 15:19, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

It's the Wikipedia version of "think of the children". Pedophiles pushing a pro-pedophile POV would bring the project in disrepute. Shaven vagina would not. Sceptre ^(talk) 15:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Redirect for Simpson Criteria/Simpson Grade

Hi there, please excuse my ignorance...but why can I not create a redirect page for "Simpson Grade" and "Simpson Criteria" to redirect to the relevant section in the Meningioma article?

Anyway, please create two new redirect pages, one for Simpson Grade and one for Simpson Criteria, with the following text:

"#REDIRECT Meningioma#Treatment"

Russthomas1515 (talk) 01:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, it was actually stupidity on my part - I entered the wrong syntax to create the Redirect. Egg, and my face, now in alignment! Russthomas1515 (talk) 01:11, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Reverting in the midsts of article creation

I run into a problem I haven't seen in my 4+ years of wiki experience, and in none of the ~1500 articles I've created. While creating this article (movie) from a redirect, I was reverted by a user who stated in the edit summary that the article is not-notable ([9]). I recreated the article, expanding it, assuming that it had not enough content, only to have the same thing happen two more times: [10], [11] (the links I've added here have also been reverted three times...). Needless to say, even through I have more material to add to this article I can hardly edit the page in what has to much of my surprise turned out to be a strange edit war: my experience was that a possibly unnotable article gets tagged by {{notability}}, perhaps prodded, perhaps debated by the community on WP:AFD, where all sides plus an influx of neutral editors can discuss notability for a few days; what to do in the face of "revert to redirect", with 3 reverts within ~2 hours - I am not sure. RfC? AfD the redirect (which was, btw, my initial plan, per WP:RED, than I decided to stub it...). Movies are not my usual subject of expertise, so perhaps I am wrong and this is indeed not notable (What puzzles me is that the article in my latest version looked as notable (sources, top 10 box office, etc.) than the prequel: here) but I'd like to generate at least some discussion, somehow (at least one other user suggested this article should be created, see article's talk). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:12, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Piotrus is, of course, completely miscategorizing this. The film was merged, by consensus, months ago as unnotable. It is still unnotable and he simply reverted the merging. He was reverted, on good faith. He continues, however, edit warring with multiple editors instead of following proper WP:BRD and starting a discussion. Nor has he attempted to actually get details from any of the reverting editors, nor taken this to the project. He was, however, given a 3RR warning for the edit warring, which he removed claiming it was "harassment." The main Bleach article contains all of the same information, there is nothing else to add. As is, the film is still not notable enough to warrant a spin out. It is also fully in compliance with WP:MOS-AM to have it in the same article. Box office alone is not a valid reason to resplit it from the main article (and the "sources" couldn't even agree what kind of Box Office placing it had). The first two movies have separate articles because they have been released in English and so there is significant coverage on both in reliable sources, including reviews. Both were, however, considered for merging recently. There is no need to AfD the redirect as it is a valid redirect. Obviously, this is not a legitimate AN/I issue. Piotrus should actually attempt to discuss, as was suggested to him in the revert summaries (which he obviously read). He has also left a false and retaliatory edit warring warning on my page, when he is the one who has reverted 3 times (and he spefically states he left it purely as "tic for tat".[12]-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea why Collectonian is so hostile to me and to this film, also I see he has reverted the creation of this article in the first place. I've removed the 3RR warning as I've not reverted thrice anywhere, just twice; on the other hand, Collectionian has indeed done three reverts on Bleach (manga). As I've pointed out on article's talk page (where Collectionian is yet to reply), the two previous movie installment of this franchise (none of which is significantly more referenced than my lastest version of the 3rd) had articles created few months before the movie even aired, none were ever challenged as unnotable. A movie which had hold a top 10 position in a national box office for 5 weeks seems rather notable, and I am sure there are non-English (Japanese) reviews and such. I am still assuming good faith, and I would hate to invoke WP:IDONTLIKEIT / WP:OWN seriously here... PS. I can't find any discussion of merge on the talk pages of two other mentioned movies, despite Colectonian's claim to the contrary. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Since Collectonian Rd232 restored the article and opened a proper discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bleach: Fade to Black, I Call Your Name, I consider this issue resolved, no need to fan the flames any more :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

(EC) I am not hostile towards the film at all. The create of the article, and many other versions, have been reverted by almost every editor in the anime/manga project at one time or another on agreement it shouldn't exist. The name isn't even real, its the presumed translation. I will invoke WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Just because the other two did not get properly challenged when created is not a reason to try to claim this one is valid. They also were challenged late last year, but sources showed they have received enough reviews to justify the article. If there are Japanese reviews, please find them and point them out in the AfD since you have demanded it be taken there. And by mentioning you are invoking and neither applies. I am NOT the only one who reverted you, nor am I the only one who has said it previously. IDONTLIKEIT obviously is ridiculous as I am a heavily active editor in both the Anime/manga and Films projects (unlike you, by your own admission, indicating more of WP:ILIKEIT situation). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Gay nigger Association of america

I've just salted Gay nigger Association of america per the precedent at Gay Nigger Association of America. It's been created and deleted as A7 twice by me today. Bringing it here for transparency and discussion. Hiding T 12:20, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I have indef blocked the former article creator so might be considered as having a bias, but I don't think there is much likelihood of there being an encylopedic article of under these titles. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:47, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, having looked I can see that the articles do refer to an organisation - having briefly looked at the articles and AfD discussion on the latter title I consider that HidingT is following consensus, since the two titles have much the same content. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:56, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Were there any new sources in the latest version? The topic has been deemed borderline notable, so we ought not be prejudiced against recreation if the glove fits. Skomorokh 18:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Not so much new, as none. It is, however, very similar to the last version that I could find of the original article. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:45, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I understand how one might speedy an article about a troll org which has done harm to Wikipedia and other websites but I must say, the topic may be notable. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:48, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec) There are no sources whatsoever. Disclosure: I deleted Gay nigger association of america two days ago. The contents of that one were a logo, a section title and a link so a straightforward speedy deletion in my view. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:53, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, no worries about the speedy. I was only thinking, if a sourced article ever showed up, it might be helpful to some readers. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:57, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

A "self-aggrandizing troll organization" as per one of the mentions here with, so far as I can see, not even any appearance of real world notability, although it does have articles in Encyclopedia Dramatica and the like. Maybe this sounds bad, but I really hope that even the laziest, most dimwitted reporter out there can find some subject more worthy than this one to write a puff piece about. Maybe if the group actually does anything it might be notable, but to date all it seems to do is troll around and say how wonderful they are. We've still got some salt left for any subsequent creations, right? John Carter (talk) 19:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like most politicians :) Gwen Gale (talk) 19:04, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

And yet it amazingly managed to garner 18 Articles for Deletion discussions. Skomorokh 19:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the swift response, no issues with speedy. Skomorokh 19:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

There's literally no chance that any article on the subject would survive 72 hours without someone deleting it in anger, so I don't see the harm. If someone wants to make a real argument as to its creation we've got a process for that. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:07, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

While not assuming bad faith necessarily, there must be a suspicion that using process was considered and rejected when the article is created with a change of capitalisation to avoid the creation protection on the correctly titled article... Plus the fact the creator happily edit warred and vandalised other pages during their brief existence. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Spot on, I was only thinking aloud about the topic. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Look, if reliable sources showed up, a long time regular editor of Wikipedia would create the article. Heck, give me the sources, and I will create the article. The problem is that a) the sources do not appear to exist and b) Its always some new account which shows up and either demands that the article be created, or makes some half-assed attempt at creating it themselves. Based on that alone, all of these creations quack quite loudly as disruptive attempts to create the article. Until we get some concrete stuff to work with here, I see no reason to not stay the course on this situation, and continue to thwart all attempts at disruption. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:41, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked user is back with a new account

Zoomzoom316 (talk) was indefinitely blocked (as noted on his talk page) and is now back, as Desi15 (talk) (he self-identified as Zoomzoom316 on Talk:Sino-Indian War‎). Bertport (talk) 14:11, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Blocked indef and templated per WP:DUCK. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:56, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Nommagdor and Talk:Smiley face murders

Resolved

 – Blocked, Tiptoety ^talk 17:05, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Nommagdor has been making threats and violating the 3RR rule on the Talk:Smiley face murders page. The user is probably a sock puppet from earlier problems on the page based on his poor English and threats. Angryapathy (talk) 17:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Blocked Sock account. Tiptoety ^talk 17:05, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Some advetising

A couple of days ago, there was some debate about X-Y country relations but we didn't come far with it. Now, a centralized discussion has been opened in order to create some guidelines when to have such articles and when not. Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations Feel free to leave comments. --Tone 17:43, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

To suppress or not to suppress: that is the question

I've hacked together WP:SUPPRESS to help explain when one should suppress redirects, and when one should not. Additions, tweaks, comments, invited. –xeno (talk) 19:55, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

You just got reverted. Unlucky, I thought it made perfect sense myself. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 20:06, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by "suppressing" a redirect. I move a lot of pages, but I've never used that term. What is it? -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:12, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Not leaving a redirect behind, I believe. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 20:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

If anyone has a better word than "suppress", then feel free to edit it. –xeno (talk) 20:20, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I have. Why didn't you clarify the language, when it became clear that it was the problem? Making the same edit repeatedly against opposition is called "edit warring". Please don't do it. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:24, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

As I said on my talk page, I have no patience for someone without a basic grasp of the English language preventing useful information from being conveyed. imo "Suppress" is not a difficult word to understand. Rather than removing the information outright, the editor could have asked for clarification, or edited it himself, rather than simply removing it. Had he given me time, I would have copy edited, but you beat me to it. –xeno (talk) 20:33, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I certainly understand the word suppress. It comes from Latin. I've just never seen it applied to redirects, where it clearly has a specific technical meaning. WP:JARGON, eh? At any rate, it's all settled now. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:47, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Suppress is a term frequently used by POV-pushers to describe removal of text they want included, it is not a helpful term in this context I think. Guy (Help!) 21:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Whereas "POV-pusher" is a term used by some to describe editors who wish to include text that those who use the term don't. Another just as helpful term, in any context. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:58, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Though I can't find it just now, Xeno told me elsewhere that it's actually the term used in the software documentation. None of us in this discussion was responsible for writing that, I suspect. Nevertheless, I think the text at WP:REDIRECT is clear now, after a few rounds of edits. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I may have been wrong on this (you are probably talking about my edit summary here). I believe I picked up the word up from the VPP discussion: Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 57#On moving a page.2C whether or not to leave a redirect behind. I do see Guy's point about negative connotations, but I am having trouble coming up with a better word than "suppress". –xeno (talk) 00:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

"Clear" the redirect? Resolute 00:36, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

LHvU, do you deny that POV-pushers exist, or are you asserting that people other than POV-pushers use heavily loaded words like "suppression" to describe removal of text they don't like? I have seen it very many times in WP:BLP disputes where crap from polemical sources is the subject of edit wars. I don't recall an example of a good faith user describing the removal of genuinely and unambiguously significant text as "suppression" - the use of such terms is generally restricted to trolls and troublemakers, in my experience. Guy (Help!) 08:51, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

All editors are POV pushers; hopefully most of them subscribe to the neutral POV, though some will push for a "popularist" POV and a few for an unpopular or fringe POV (and one or two will push for a POV that is simply incomprehensible to anyone else). Generally, the NPOV that the majority work toward incorporate all POV's of significant aspect per WP:Due weight - but there are those whose views are not represented, or only poorly, and they may agitate for their appropriate inclusion. Pushing that POV may not be disruptive, if it is found that it is better sourced than previously and may allow for a better NPOV article. Persons whose legitimate efforts to be allowed to engage in discussion may very well feel suppressed when they are summarily ignored, and simply cast as POV pushers. Of course, examining every POV presented means that matters get complicated, and involves much hard work and can be frustrating that as soon as a balance of viewpoints is agreed a new (or an old one again) POV is "pushed" forward. Nobody, however, ever said that building an encylopedia with an editing staff of potentially millions was going to be easy. While trolls and troublemakers may push POV's for their own ends, it does not make POV pushers trolls of themselves. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:58, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

(Unindent) Xeno's initial understanding is correct, "suppression" is the term that shows up on the screen when one, erm, suppresses a redirect or prevents it from creation. It is also, to confuse matters, the name of the log that identifies when someone with Hide Revision permission locks admins out of a particular revision when removing its content/editor/edit summary from public view. (Translation: it's the name of the "new oversight" log.) Plus of course, what Guy and LHvU said. Risker (talk) 00:44, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I could've sworn I saw it in the interface somewhere... I used it below to move a userpage to the proper user, and leave no redirect behind. –xeno (talk) 00:48, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

11:33, 16 April 2009 Xeno (talk | contribs | block) moved User:Ammar to User:Mrammaraskar [redirect suppressed] ‎ (histmerge to proper username) (revert)

I think part of the problem - at least what kept me from understanding you at first, Xeno - is that when the box is ticked, which is its default state, the word suppress appears nowhere on the page. Until you suppress a redirect, you don't find out what it's called. Now I've tried it with my sandbox, and I see that it is the term used by the software itself. Any time I've not wanted to leave a redirect behind previously, I've just deleted it manually after the move. I don't believe the option to suppress has been there that long, has it? -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is fairly new - I would gather not much older than that VPP thread... –xeno (talk) 01:47, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Returned blocked user

• AncientUni (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Is claiming to be

• LOTRrules (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Also known as

• 78.144.236.107 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 78.144.24.146 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Who was indefinately blocked for nasty attacks against users.--Otterathome (talk) 20:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

This is the relevant section of LOTRrules talkpage, the indef block was not overturned and the editor seems more concerned about being able to edit than to resolve the issues. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:45, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Is now back as SonGoku786 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).--Otterathome (talk) 12:49, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

 Deferred Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/LOTRrules, please :) -- lucasbfr ^talk 13:02, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Discussion of potential rangeblock of 70.108.0.0/16 based on major disruption

The range 70.108.0.0/16 has been confirmed to be frequently used by Lilkunta (talk · contribs) per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lilkunta/Archive and by a deafening quacking sound based on the near single-minded disruption caused by it. The pattern is clear. The user shows up at a random address in the range, and starts deleting WHOIS information from IP address talk pages. The WHOIS information is always removed from either one of the numerous 70.108.0.0/16 talk pages, or specifically from the User talk:173.79.58.33 page, or sometimes from other random IP addresses which are assigned to Verizon Washington DC pool. The IP addresses change often enough to be a nuisance that Whack-a-mole blocks are ineffective at stopping. This has been going on for weeks now. A 1-week rangeblock issued on March 31st was effective at stopping this problem. Since this is such a large range, I thought that we should discuss how best to handle this problem. Its been a nuisance for some time now, and I want to know what others think about solving this. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:32, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:ABFIL —Wknight94 (talk) 03:39, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

a) I think the abuse filter is the most wonderful invention since Wikipedia itself, and if it could stop this problem from happening, that would be Most Excellent In Every Way. b) I am a technical moron, and have NO IDEA how to use the abuse filter myself, so any help with doing so would be Most Appreciated. Free Barnstars to whoever makes this work!!!!--Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:44, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

What should 70.108.0.0/16 be stopped from doing? If the answer is all editing then just block it. If you have more a more nuanced set of pages or edit behaviors, then the abuse filter may be useful. Dragons flight (talk) 04:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that it is a large range of addresses in a very active ISP; blocking essentially 65,000 Verizon addresses for a narrow set of disruptive behaviors by a single person may be excessive. A checkuser at the case cited above indicated that the range was "busy" which would seem to me to indicated that a rangeblock should only be considered as a last resort. The abuse filter may be useful, if it could stop ONLY edits by that range which removed WHOIS information from IP addresses, or a similar carefully targeted action to stop only this mess. Since this is really a single, narrowly defined sort of disruption, abuse filter may be the way to go. However, as I stated, I am completely flying blind in this department, so any help would be most appreciated. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Starting with User_talk:70.108.118.234, it basicly all started with 3RR violations at some articles, then it esclated to the IP (User:Lilkunta) removing the whois templates after they were put on after he was blocked for the 3RR violations. Momusufan (talk) 04:34, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

70.108.93.13, Here is clear evidence that he was removing those whois templates from his other IP pages. Momusufan (talk) 04:42, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree, the rangeblock should be instituted again as this user is clearly being disruptive by removing the whois templates, believing that the IP talk pages are his own, and in some instinces, making personal attacks especially to FisherQueen anytime she makes a response on the IP pages, see User_talk:70.108.118.234 and User_talk:70.108.93.13. About him thinking the IP pages are his own, he put a speedy up twice here and here. I do believe there should be an abuse filter made to stop people (mostly IP addresses) from removing whois templates once they are on the page. I think that is worth considering. Momusufan (talk) 03:57, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Also it is believed that Lilkunta is using 173.79.58.33 claiming it belongs to his apartment, see here. But how could it be assigned to an appartment when he is using the 70.108.0.0/16 range? Both are dynamic IP ranges. The whois info for the 173 IP says it's 173.64.0.0/12 but we could just block 173.79.0.0/16 if needed, see here A bit puzzling if I do say so myself. Momusufan (talk) 04:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

There are several possibilities here. One could be that he is editing from a static IP address at work or school, and a dynamic one from home, or visa versa. I have not done any analysis of editing times from the two address sets, but one could make such a correlation based on that. The other possibility, if we take the claims made by 173.79.58.33 and by 70.108.0.0 is that the later range belongs to a different person than the former address; but that they are closely related. My speculation is that the 173.79.58.33 address is assigned to a public figure who does NOT want it known what his activities are at Wikipedia, and that the 70.108 range is used by someone he has asked to clean up his mess, such as a secretary or press agent or something like that. I have no proof of any of that, but it is my gut feeling. That has been my actual belief as to what is going on here since almost the beginning; but regardless the entire enterprise needs to stop. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Well the checkuser case determined that Lilkunta was using 70.108.0.0/16 for his disruption, I seem to think that 173 is either him or one of his comrades wanting to "clean up the mess" like you said. Either way it's got to end. Momusufan (talk) 04:26, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, based on this unblock request, it may appear to be someone else saying "I was asked to delete". Momusufan (talk) 04:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

How about Special:AbuseFilter/145? —Wknight94 (talk) 04:36, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Filter is private so I am unable to see the details of it but "Socks abusing talk page privilege" seems like a good filter. Momusufan (talk) 04:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

It's specialized for the {{whois}} removal but can be adapted. It's only logging now for testing purposes. How about disallowing any 70.108 IP from editing a different 70.108 IP's talk page? —Wknight94 (talk) 04:47, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that a 70.108 should not be allowed to edit another 70.108 page based on 70.108.93.13's contributions. Momusufan (talk) 04:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Special:AbuseFilter/145 looks good, let's wait until it logs something and see if it works alright. Cirt (talk) 11:48, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

While we are waiting to see how Special:AbuseFilter/145 works out, I have instituted another one week rangeblock - other admins please feel free to change it. Cirt (talk) 11:54, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The range is huge and checkuser says it's "busy" though. Perhaps we should wait for the abuse filter first. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, good point, unblocked, let's see how the AbuseFilter does on its own with this. Cirt (talk) 12:23, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Question: Would it be technically possible for the whois information be added automatically to every IP's talk page by wikimedia? Regards, Ben Aveling 12:12, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Typically whois information is only added to IPs who vandalize or are otherwise disruptive. –xeno (talk) 12:29, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

It would be rather simple for a bot to simply track the recent changes for active IP addresses and add WHOIS templates to talk pages where there isn't currently one. However, as a matter of course, it is better for a human to do it as needed. For one thing, a bot would not automatically know whether {{whois}}, {{sharedIP}} or {{sharedIPEDU}} is most appropriate, and each of these would be used in different situations. I think the abuse filter cited abouve has the most potential, once it goes "live". --Jayron32.talk.contribs 12:44, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Thinking aloud here, but could a bot use a 4th template with a (initially) unset parameter? My thinking is: a bot tags the page as being an unreviewed IP address, and lists the basic whois details. A human review would then come along and set the parameter to one of "whois", "sharedIP" or "sharedIPEDU" (automagically marking the template as "reviewed"). A script could list all un-reviewed pages. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 12:49, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Deletion request backlog

There's a big deletion request backlog. Any admins wanna pitch in? [here http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/#Open_requests]. I'm particularly eager for someone with a legal mind and patience to look at this and provide some consistency.

While we'd love to help you, those deletion requests are on wikipedia commons and this is en.wikipedia. Not every admin who has admin access here has admin access on commons as well. User rights are typically restricted to the local project. You would be better off asking the admins at this noticeboard. Also, don't forget to sign your posts! :) Icestorm815 • Talk 05:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Blacklisted redirects to my page

Resolved

Ento-Ag (talk) 05:54, 17 April 2009 (UTC) Hello, I am trying to create redirect pages to a project page I am working on. The page I have is Sarcophaga haemorrhoidalis, I am trying to create redirects from s. haemorrhoidalis and s haemorrhoidalis. It says, "The page title or edit you have tried to create cannot be created or edited by you at this time. It matches an entry on the local or global blacklists, used to prevent vandalism." Thank you.

I posted a message on Talk:Sarcophaga haemorrhoidalis before I saw this post, instructing how to create redirects. After seeing this request I went ahead and did it for them. Killiondude (talk)