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

Visual archive cue: 55

Tasks

The following backlogs require the attention of one or more editors.
NPOV disputes, Images on Commons and Overpopulated categories

CAT:NS

CAT:NS among other other image cats are backlogged by five days. Should be directly link these cats from the speedy deletion page to speed things up? It seems lthat a great number of admins are not aware/intimidated by image deletions. Perhaps this is because Orphanbot does the tagging, so people don't touch them until they have to be deleted.Blnguyen | rant-line 02:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

T:DYK

It's been 8 hours now since the last DYK update, and given the updating patterns prevalent in the last days, the next update won't come in the next 6 hours. There is a significant backlog in submitted DYKes, so I believe the DYKes should be refreshed as often as possible, which means every 6 hours. Currently, only one admin at a time takes care of that, and the admins that are interested in doing these tasks live in Canada and Australia, which means that they cannot possibly update DYK every 6 hours if they want to maintain a reasonable sleeping schedule :D

So the result is that only two DYK updates per day take place, and the one that would fall in the middle of the day European time is missing. Thus, European Wikipedians end up seeing the same DYKes all day and the queue is building up! I was wondering whether other admins might be interested in updating DYKes, especially those from the European/African time zone. Moreover, perhaps the DYK queue size and the "time since last update" (with a notice that it is time to update the template) could appear in this fabulous backlog box as seen in this page?

One last thing - what's with Wikipedia:Recent additions? The link on the main page in the DYK section (or more specifically, the link in the DYK template) leads there, but of recent DYKes are being archived in T:DYKT - so somebody who clicks the link to the abovementioned page sees neither recent additions nor a DYK archive.

Sorry for bothering you, but I guess since this is on the main page, it is a fairly important issue. Regards, Bravada, talk - 15:31, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Could some admin on duty take a look at Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors, there is an important issue concerning the DYK. Thanks! Bravada, talk - 01:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

PS. Seems like this isn't generating too much interest - does anybody actually READ that page? I would say it's pretty important... Bravada, talk - 03:26, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

General

Gnetwerker removing archives

Gnetwerker (talk · contribs) has moved his talk page to a subpage, thereby removing links to his archives. In doing so he is concealing previous discussions about ArbCom rulings involving him and warnings against personal attacks and revealing other users' personal information. I have a previous history with this user and do not want to get in another blow up, so would someone else be able to take a look at this? Paul Cyr 02:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure I understand. User_talk:Gnetwerker/hist seems to just be a list to his archives. Is this information not archived, or am I missing something? Cowman109^Talk 04:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Er, the page you linked to does not exist. Nevermind, it was speedied then undeleted. In anycase, that page is not linked to anywhere on the main talk page. Without knowing the specific page name (or looking through the main talk page history) there is no way to find that page. Paul Cyr 01:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

He's now had that page deleted and recreated without any archives. Paul Cyr 18:41, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard vs. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Is there a good reason to have both Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. They both seem to have the same types of notices. Nobody really seems to be able to figure out which one to use. --John Nagle 03:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Ideally AN would be used for (relatively infrequent) messages we really truly wanted "all" (for some value of "all") admins to see, and AN/I would be for the kind of stuff that currently appears there (and here): active crises or issues in need of attention. The only thing that would actually make that happen would be for someone to aggressively start moving messages around, probably. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

AN generally is quieter (most of the time). Thatcher131 (talk) 03:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I figured AN was for things you wanted to notify admins of, like when I blocked an IP for 24 months. ANI is for people to notify admins of *that need action*, rather than simply "this is a heads up". --Golbez 04:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think that's how it works. -- Drini 17:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

And Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard is for threads like these. ~ PseudoSudo 04:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

The instructions at the top of this page are rather confusing. Also the template at the top comes out a bit garbled on IE6 and low res screen. "Admin" is far right and "Noticeboards" is on the left on the line below, but the word "abuse" appears in front of "Noticeboards" on the same line. Tyrenius 06:47, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Beligerant User Blanking his talk page

I have tried to help by setting an archive page up for him per a passing comment he made on an article talk page but anything typed on his talk page is removed. I left a message on WP:OWN and that blanking a talk page is generally frowned on unless you are archiving it. I stopped short of the the 3 Revert rule and decided to come here instead to have this sorted out. I didn't care for the message...STOP EDITING MY PAGE YOU SOCIALIST NAZI PIGS!!!! when I was trying to help...or add the section about vandalism. Talk page is located here. User talk:Dwain — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bschott (talk • contribs)

WP:EGG

What do you think?--Eggplant^WP:EGG 18:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• I think that's a redlink--64.12.116.200 18:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• According to the deletion log, Wikipedia:Eggplant was deleted by Zoe as nonsense. --TeaDrinker 19:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Having looked at the deletion log, it was amusing. Maybe it should be undeleted and moved over to userspace? JoshuaZ 04:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Was this it: User:EggplantParm/Wikipedia:Eggplant? Viridae^Talk 04:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Yes. JoshuaZ 04:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
        • I prefer Aubergine myself, with a couple of lady's fingers for good measure. --Cactus.man ✍ 08:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
      • I have no problem with him keeping it in his user space, although this seems to be a role account. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect APA Citation

On the citation page for articles, the APA format is incorrect. There should be no period after the URL. The period is only there for non electronic sources, so as to not confuse the period as part of the URL. 69.87.155.91 23:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the information, but for further reference, you should only post messages here that require administrative intervention. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 00:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Turns out it does, according to SoccerCore11. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 16:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Here is the message left on my talk page:

I sent this in as a bug, but I was told right away that it was not a bug, rather I should talk to an admin about getting it fixed. robchur@gmail.com forwarded me the link to the admin board, where I reposted it. If you would like to see the bug post, check http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=7024

I guess this is a bug that needs administrative attention. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 16:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Rob accidentally put MediaWiki:Cite-text rather than MediaWiki:Cite_text on the bugzilla page, of which the latter is the actual pagename. I put an {{editprotected}} request on that talk page too.. Kevin_b_er 04:07, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Suspicious user

Quill E. Coyote (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) signed up 5 days ago and has made 20 edits so far but is already quoting WP policy, participating in RfAs and AfDs and using wikipedia lingo like "wikify". Seems very suspicious to me. Could have been an anon user who just signed up after a while editing under an IP but I am not sure. Viridae^Talk 04:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

The user has made a couple of comments (and an Oppose vote) on my RfA, apparently connecting me to some conspiracy with User:Isopropyl to violate the 3RR (as though I can monitor all edits at once). The user's edits to the Slashdot article and fishy quoting of policy have me concerned. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 04:23, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

There's a small chance this is just an experienced anon who finally decided to login? Anyway, I wish the toolserver was replicating enwiki, so someone could run a query to show which users have edited most of the same pages. --Interiot 04:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Experienced, yes, but not in a very positive way. Consider what the user was doing to the Slashdot article. He/she was repeatedly removing something referring to the reason behind the site's name, saying that the only source for that information was the site itself, so it failed WP:OR and WP:RS. Considering that the creators of the website are probably the best and only authority on the website's name, it sounds like complete rubbish. Add in the strange reasoning behind his opposition in my RfA (I am applying for administrator and therefore I must know and deal with everything that's happening on the Wikipedia at all times), and you have pretty good reason for suspicion. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 06:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

And I'm not bitter about the oppose; my e-esteem is doing just fine. I just dislike this uncivil conduct and apparent attempts at provocation. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 06:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Reminds me of an editor that was blocked around the time this user started editing. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-08-16 06:17Z

Sigh, Quill E. Coyote is now repeatedly unstriking a Support vote in my RfA that was added by a banned user (sockpuppet). This banned user seems to have used said support vote in order to illicit my help in a dispute they were having. Coyote also added a test template to my userpage because of my restriking of that support vote. Can someone external please deal with this person? -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 08:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked Quill E. Coyote for 24 hours for a personal attack for the time being. Tyrenius 20:50, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Admin needed for speedy keep

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of basic management topics --Nexus Seven 07:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

In actuality, I think that article can be speedy deleted. I'm tempted to do it. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 07:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Even though I don't fully agree with the speedy keep guideline (especially the first point), it does serve to illustrate some cases where a speedy keep is appropriate. I don't think this AfD necessarily qualifies for a speedy keep. --Deathphoenix ʕ 13:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: User IP 61.68.101.25

I am a member of the RCP who has been reverting edits by this IP. They have vandalised 2 articles, Laminate and Trachea, adding some extremely rude & offensive stuff to the pages, please see the edit history on Laminate for an example. I have skipped the test templates, since this user is obviously blatantly vandalising, not testing, and have gone straight to the {{blatantvandal}} template on the user's talk page. Could the admins please keep an eye on this one, since its on my watchlist, but I am not always on. Thanks Thor Malmjursson 10:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Additional info: - Please add the ip 220.239.93.166 to this as well, they are vandalising same articles as the previous IP. Thor Malmjursson 10:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

This is the kind of stuff that you would want to post on WP:AIV, I'm keeping an eye on these users, though. You can always skip test1 and dip to test2 or test3 if it's severe. I'm looking through their vandalism, and it's pretty average stuff (stupid vandalism). I'm going to warn them and block if they continue. Yanksox 11:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:SOCK violation?

User:Dwain has been actively editing from 2 accounts: User:Dwain [1] & User:Pitchka [2]. User:Pitchka redirects to User:Dwain and you can see his reasoning for using 2 accounts here, but I don't think his reason meets the definition for acceptable use of 2 accounts under WP:SOCK. I didn't take this to SOCK reporting because the user is not engaging in any abusive use of these 2 counts, but it should probably be suggested to him that he pick one account and edit from that one, while the other is locked. He could use the userpage of whichever account is active to link back to the history of the other account if he wants "credit" for his earlier work. I'd suggest this to him myself, but as can be seen from the AfD link above (as well as the message left here earlier by User:Bschott, it is reasonable to assume that my suggestion would not be welcomed coming from me...--Isotope23 13:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:SOCK has indeed been recently changed (I think mainly from a blacklist of disallowed uses to a whitelist of allowed uses). (Also, I personally disagree with the change on the basis that listing all the legit uses is impossible.) Dwain doesn't say any reason why he is still editing from his old account, though, I'd keep suggesting he use one account. —AySz88\^-^ 14:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

"pitchka" is an offensive term for "vagina" in Slavic languages. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-08-16 17:06Z

Eteled

The very first edit of Eteled (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was to nominate an AFD discussion page for deletion. Further edits have included vandalizing userboxes, nominating Te Atairangikaahu for deletion the day that she died, and random vandalism. There does not appear to be a single useful edit in the contributions history. The username is, of course, "delete" spelled backwards. I suspect that this account was created to make a point of some kind, rather than to make any actual contributions to the encyclopaedia. Uncle G 15:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 15:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

AFD templates

There's been discussion on the AFD talk page about reducing the size of closed discussions on the daily log page by removing the discussion section and just leaving a summary of the result. The suggestion met with a fairly negative reaction due to the fact that it was seen as more work for the admins in an already tedious process. I've had a play around with the template and think I've got a solution that would mostly involve less work while achieving the desired effect. I wondered if any regular AFD closers would take a look and give their opinion on these possible replacements to the AFD top and bottom templates. The discussion is here: Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion#voodoo. Cheers, Yomangani^talk 16:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pudgenet

This arbitration case is closed. The full decision is at the link above.

• -Barry- (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is banned from Perl and Talk:Perl indefinitely.
• All parties are warned that status elsewhere does not grant status on Wikipedia and that all editors must be civil and refrain from disruption.
• Pudgenet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is placed on personal attack parole. If he makes personal attacks he may be briefly banned, up to a week in the event of repeat offenses. After 5 bans the maximum ban shall increase to one year. All bans to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pudgenet#Log of blocks and bans.
• Pudgenet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is placed on Probation for one year. He may be banned by any administrator from any page which he disrupts by tendentious editing, edit warring, or incivility. All bans are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pudgenet#Log of blocks and bans.

For the Arbitration Committee. --Tony Sidaway 16:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I might be dense... (UFO Article)

There is a dispute going on over at Talk:UFO about a proposed move. I'm beginning to think the move request was in bad faith. Could someone review whats going on and tell me if A. I'm right or B. I'm an idiot.?

The user basically wants to move UFO to Alien Spacecraft because they believe the UFO article only deals with Alien Spacecraft. The fact that Aliens are not even mentioned for the first quarter of the page hasn't deterred this user one bit. :( ---J.S (t|c) 22:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

There are 6 votes for "delete" Vs. nil. There's nothing to worry about. Don't forget to assume good faith. Good luck. -- Szvest 22:27, 16 August 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up™}

Ugg... looks like he slapped the rewrite tag on the page and is demanding all mentions of aliens be removed from the page. ---J.S (t|c) 23:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppet vandal

Brandnewuser (talk · contribs) is making changes to signatures on an enormous number of talk pages: [for example]. Apparently a puppet of "wonderfool", whom I am not familiar with. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 23:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

See User talk:Brandnewuser#Editing sigs?. Thanks for bringing that to light, whatever it is. Luna Santin 00:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, lemme know if you figure out whatever it is :) (I didn't want to ask on the talk, as it looks like a wikistalker, and I don't need one of those). --SB_Johnny | ^talk 01:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Administrator recall

We need more eyes and comments at Wikipedia talk:Administrator recall. User:Zoe|(talk) 01:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Transwiki problems...

Wasn't sure where to ask this, so I asked it here. I won't go into the whole thing again, but I need admin help to get the contrib histories from a few now-deleted articles so I can copy it over to wikibooks. SB_Johnny | ^talk 02:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Benzmit - false picture info

This user has added dozens of pictures with seemingly false licence/copyright info - he seems to claim that all is his work when it clearly isn't - is there some bot or suchlike that can sweep and delete his multiple entries - I ahve removed some manually but it takes ages Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! ^(Whisper...) 07:19, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

FYI, Closed AFDs

I misread the section on non-administrators closing AFD discussions and marked a few discussions as closed with a "DELETE" result, I see now that non-admins are only supposed to do that for "KEEP" or "RENAME" outcomes, sorry about that. I'll avoid doing it in the future. RainbowCrane 07:46, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

No problem. I've reviewed the delete-closed AfDs and have deleted the relevant articles. Please continue to help with the obvious keeps; we appreciate it. Thanks -- Samir धर्म 07:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Notability of guitars

Admins with more knowledge and time than I have at the moment may be interested to have a look at ESP Guitars and go through the list of guitar models in the article. Most of the articles linked (50+) are one-line substubs with an infobox. My guess is that most of those should be outright deleted, but if there are some truly notable models then these could be merged in a single article. Regards -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 12:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

• What administrative actions are required here? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't think this is an admin issue (at best, it is a mass prod or AfD which anyone can initiate) but I have left a message for the user inviting him to participate in WikiProject Guitarists so we can open a dialog with him about notability for guitar articles. --Aguerriero (talk) 17:31, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
    • The thing is I saw some of the models the other day tagged as CSDs. Since I don't have much knowledge of the guitar world I thought I would give interested admins a heads up. Sorry for not explaining myself better. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 09:47, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

question about new media wiki block software

Is it possible to block account creation from an AOL range, but still allow IP edits? Everytime an AOL creates a stupid name just to bait a username block, it winds up creating collateral damage for AOL IPs, rather than the other way around. can this be avoided?--152.163.100.200 16:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

• On a side note, the current un-official policy of "If someone using AOL complains about an autoblock, they must be a vandal and should be blocked" could use some work as well--152.163.100.200 17:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

  An example of this? I've unblocked 1000's of AOL autoblocks --pgk^(talk) 19:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

• I would think the point is that if there were a way to disable autoblocks, then you wouldn't need to unblock 1000's of AOL autoblocks in the first place--172.129.113.165 21:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Erm I'm not sure how you get from that question about some "un-official policy", to it being a point about not having to unblock autoblocks. Autoblocks serve a useful purpose, since unfortunately there are a few idiots in this world who seek merely to make an annoyance of themselves. --pgk^(talk) 21:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

• On a similar, yet 100% unrelated note, is the autoblock feature, now used in dozens of templates, such as {{Userblocked}}, capable of handling this many frequent hits without using up server resources? I notice that it's been lagging a lot lately, probably from severe over use--172.129.113.165 23:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  • The lagging is due to the hundreds of thousands of people acessing the site right now. No particular page should be hit worse than that others to my knowledge with the current implementation. Sasquatch t|c 03:03, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Well according to the stats I have it is barely in the top 50 of page hits on the toolserver for August and has transferred around 25mb of data, that's pretty trivial. I can't imagine that the page is that popular as if only has an appeal to a narrow audience when compared to something like the edit counter. Regarding lag, it isn't (and by the looks currently never will be) totally up to date, it should generally be within 5 minutes. --pgk^(talk) 06:53, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Immortal Black Metal band.

Someone has decided to temper and include certain facts and Jokes about the band on thier page, calling them satanist, ect.

I imagine you mean Immortal (band)? Yes, that spoof photo that makes them look like constipated badgers is really a terrible joke. I'm shocked, shocked. Middenface 18:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I reverted today's edit saying that the drummer would be replaced by a goat. If there's anything else that isn't true, feel free to remove it. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 21:50, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Creator of a speedy delete canadate removed tag

User:Funsand, created a page with the same name as his username. Another wikipedian added a speedy delete template and he removed it when told not to. "do not remove this notice from pages that you have created yourself.". I readded it, and he deleted it agian. -- Selmo 19:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Friday whacked it already. :) Syrthiss 19:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Avoid personal remarks, eh? Oooooh, nevermind *blush* Friday (talk) 19:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

You did that and still had time to delete the page? Syrthiss 19:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

For general info in the future: {{drmspeedy}}. --Kevin_b_er 04:46, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Multiple user accounts

I came across these when doing CFD: Acacix (talk · contribs) and Acaciz (talk · contribs)

They have virtually identical userpages. Looking at the contribs, it seems that one account was only used in March. Any ideas on what to do with them? --Kbdank71 20:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

They haven't done anything wrong - they appear to simply be harmless sockpuppets. Unless the user is using the sockpuppet abusively, there's no real reason to do anything. They seem to have been inactive for a few months anyway. Cowman109^Talk 20:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I figured as much, just wanted to make sure. Thanks. --Kbdank71 21:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Public Tendering

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Public_Tendering Request for deletion review. The tally does not appear to be a consensus. Votes changed and the majority seems to be a tie if the comments are read carefully. A merger was also suggested as a way of avoiding censorship of interesting and important information.--Wiki The Humble Woo 23:22, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Not to be one of those admins who says snarky things, but WP:DRV is that a way. Syrthiss 23:40, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Renaming of RfD

Redirects for Deletion has recently been renamed Redirects for Discussion, apparently in keeping with the same change being made to CfD. Unfortunately, that doesn't make sense. Since category moves and renames are nominated on CfD the broader "Discussion" is appropriate. This is not the case with RfD. Anything aside from a deletion can and should be discussed on the redirect's talk page and/or enacted by a suitably bold editor. RfD only concerns whether or not a redirect should be deleted, regardless of what happens to the redirect afterwards. This new name could potentially gum up RfD with fuzzy redirect "discussions" that belong on talk pages. I have brought this up on the RfD talk page, the Village Pump, and the talk page of the admin who made the change, and have heard no reason it should stay. Seeking an admin to change it back. --Nscheffey^(T/C) 01:07, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

You have a point. Mind you, part of the motivation for these name-changes seems to be a continued attempt to get away from the idea that XfD is a deletion vote – as happened when VfD became AfD – because of the whole "voting is evil" thing. However, the truth (at least for now) is that all of these pages continue to be, essentially, votes of some kind; usually for deletion, though as you correctly pointed out, CfD caters for a broader range of things. Anyway, my point is that I don't think the name change will actually affect the way the page is used, at least not significantly. People will most likely continue to use it as they did under the old name – Gurch 11:30, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Double jeopardy? (Note: as of now the issues below are resolved)

Despite his having been blocked yesterday relative to a report filed against me Deuterium (talk · contribs) has again filed the same twice reviewed report with hopes that an inexperienced administrator will block me. Would someone take action against this editor's bad faith demonstrations? Thanks. (→Netscott) 01:44, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• He has been warned by several admins. Note as per Blocking policy, blocking is not meant to be punative but preventative.--Arktos ^talk 02:02, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• His display of this report on his user page is just a furtherance of his POINT violation. Even his report is false, "but they all amount to inserting OR tags or commenting out a widely accepted section". The section in question is not widely accepted. (→Netscott) 02:05, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• He actually toned down his claim of "Consensus". Total nonsense. (→Netscott) 02:07, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

This has been resolved. (→Netscott) 03:09, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Bliss ninny

Can somebody help me? I deleted this article as nonsense, but then I found out that only the last edit was vandalistic nonsense. I undeleted all of the previous versions, but the article says there is no history. What did I do wrong? User:Zoe|(talk) 03:43, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah. Never mind, it was a cache issue. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:43, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Zmanm407

I'm concerned about Zmanm407 (talk · contribs). A quick look at his talk page, I think, makes it clear the cause of my worry. Despite several editors attempting to talk to him about his image use, he seems to have made only minor corrections to his modus operandi and OrphanBot continues to notify him about images he's uploaded. He also has not written one word to another editor that I can tell, be it on his talk page, our talk pages, or article/image talk pages. Not even a single edit summary, as far as I can see.

It's not that I want to see him blocked or anything. It'd just be nice if he acknowledged the presence of other editors beyond token attempts to modify his behavior, and started actually following procedure for fair-use images (that is, providing a fair use rationale so OrphanBot stops bugging him).

Any ideas how we can get through to him? Powers ^T 13:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Email? ForestH2 t/c

Zeq banned from Wikipedia for one week

Motion to ban Zeq for a week for creating an attack article regarding User:Homeontherange (article has been deleted) diff will be available to Arbitration Committee members. Fred Bauder 21:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Enacted (6-0) at 13:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

For the Arbitration Committee. --Tony Sidaway 13:19, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Clock Crew

• There's been quite a bit of nonsense at Talk:Clock Crew lately, the talk page of a deleted article. Its mostly poorly written nonsense about bringing the article back, despite no new evidence or anything meeting WP's standards. Would it be appropriate to delete the talk page and protect it? Wickethewok 13:25, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Also, its on WP:DRV#Clock_Crew right now, with only endorses so far. Wickethewok 13:29, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• It's probably better on Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense. --TheM62Manchester 20:46, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• Talk pages of deleted articles should be deleted. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:28, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• So, how come nobody did delete it? CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 00:10, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

  Technically talk pages are exempt if "they contain deletion discussion that isn't logged elsewhere" (WP:CSD). So it depends if you consider "If there is a real contemporary art, that appeals to the young people and that is made by young people, the CLOCK CREW surely take part on it and are certainly worth of a great article and further study" to be "deletion discussion". --Sam Blanning^(talk) 22:02, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Copyvio - to history or not to history

I have now read in one place that we leave copyvio history in place unless the copyright holder requests that we remove it, and in another place that I should delete the article and restore the non-copyvio history. Which is correct? --Aguerriero (talk) 17:15, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

The latter. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 21:05, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

confirmed copyvios should always be removed. Although I guess an article with 5000 revisions... makes not easy to remove it ;) -- Drini 21:57, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Personal attack

On http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Stockholm#Stockholm_is_not_the_biggest_in_Nordic and on my talk page with fake accusing.

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Stockholm&diff=70481523&oldid=70480687
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Stockholm&diff=70479511&oldid=70477045

This (User:Magore) seems to have a very immature way to discuss on. The user has also fake accused me, on my talk page. --Comanche cph 22:02, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Since I seem to engage in personal attacks, I would like to add a couple of comments, along with a few questions. First of all, I have not called this user a 14-year old. I pointed out that discussing things with him is a bit like arguing with a 14-year old, since he refuses to accept that we build Wikipedia on a foundation of facts, and not personal views, opinions or assumptions. (Arguments presented by me and other editors, along with undisputable facts was obviously not good enough, as they conflicted with this users view on things.) I also asked this user to refrain from editing certain pages if he couldn't bring himself to understand or accept why we don't put opinions before facts. (That is what all this is about, essentially.) Now, I have a couple of questions. What fake accusations are we talking about here? What fake charges or accusations have I brought up? /M.O (u) (t) 22:48, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

This seems to be a really silly argument. If your that mad Magore, you can take it to arbitration but really it seems as though Magore has a point. No, he doesn't have a very immature way to talk on and I agree with Magore; if you haven't settled a dispute you need to stop editing the pages. Both of you, I should say. Let other editors take care of it. I'm going to post this on both of your talkpages. ForestH2 t/c 03:06, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Coordinated Vandalism at Rutgers University

A series of editors have been targetting the alma mater section of the Rutgers University article (now protected), violating the three revert rule, altering information that is cited with information that is uncited and unverifiable, and interrupting wikipedia to make a point (albeit a feminist/political correctness agenda). The edit history at Rutgers University shows that the page has altered the official, cited lyrics of the alma mater, to those inserting words that are not official, as shown by citation, and practically every other site on the web discussing the lyrics of the alma mater... and while not vulgar, these parenthetical insertions are annoying and disingenuously perpetuating an inaccuracy.

The following individual users have been warned repeatedly of their conduct and have continued over the past few days in this conduct with blatant disregard for warnings or referring them to Wikipedia policies governing their conduct. Blocking their accounts from editing, along with their IPs, may be the only recourse to prevent such defiant insubordination.

• User:Thumbelina
• User:Bubba ditto
• User:FLWfan
• User:FairHair
• IP: 204.52.215.70

I further suspect that these individual user accounts may be a coordinated sockpuppet effort, and request a CheckUser to be conducted on their accounts. ExplorerCDT 23:28, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

You'll need to file the request for checkuser at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser. There are instructions on how to do it on that page. -- Vary | Talk 00:18, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I am moving this to RFCU.Voice-of-All 00:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

200.121.200.200

User 200.121.200.200 has been removing tags and thereby in essence vandalizing the following 2 pages: Wrestling Spirit, Extreme Warfare. In doing so, they've also violated 3RR. For reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/200.121.200.200 . Please take appropriate action. Thank you.JB196 02:14, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

You've both violated 3RR, and good. It'd be nice if you two could stop the reverting, and come to some sort of agreement, please. Otherwise, you both may be blocked. Also, don't call edits made in good faith vandalism, because they're not. Let's just be nice, mmkay? --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 03:01, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Other established users such as Yanksox and James Kemp seem to consider it vandalism judging by their past edit summaries on the pages.JB196 14:01, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

This user continues to be belligerent in their edits to these two pages, disregarding points made on the talk page and continually removing tags even after compromises have been made. They claim that sources they are giving are valid and establish notability yet the sources they cite generally fall under the exceptions given in WP:SOFTWARE.JB196 19:37, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I left them a message telling them to stop revert warring, to discuss on talk pages, and also to see this discussion. Hopefully they open their eyes and come to some sort of agreement. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 19:52, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the assistance, Mr. Lefty. I just added a report a few moments ago to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism right before I saw that you had responded here.JB196 19:59, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Vandals gaming blocks

An important warning about a vandal getting his IP unblocked to continue creating abusive accounts. Accounts User:Scareslamfist and User:Sakura Avalon both have no actual contributions, and both were repeatedly able to get an IP unblocked that created dozens of vandalizing and bad-username accounts. Sometimes these accounts would even vandalize or attack the "nice" accounts, perhaps in an attempt to make it look legit. The vandal accounts would be blocked, then either of these two accounts would post an {{unblock}} request saying they were the victim of collateral damage from an IP autoblock. An admin would come along and unblock them, and the cycle would continue; the IP would invariably be autoblocked again for creating vandal accounts and a couple hours later, sometimes even minutes, they would post another unblock request; again they would be unblocked, etc. These are just the couple accounts that I know about.

This happened several times for each; unblocking administrators seriously need to look more carefully at such unblock requests. These user's "contributions" were just User talk edits, mostly to their own pages, and one even had some screed about being a reformed vandal. There is no reason to remove an autoblock when the user that purports to be adversely affected is not going to do anything related to the encyclopedia anyway. This should not be happening. —Centrx→talk • 04:01, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Why can't we block the IP from creating accounts, instead of the username? Isn't this what the IP-only "account creation blocked" feature is supposed to eliminate? Kimchi.sg 13:08, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

The behavior of the two accounts named shows that they are the accounts of banned users who have continued to disrupt Wikipedia. At best, these particular accounts would continue to be annoying and disruptive; at worst, they are just two of many sleeper accounts from that IP that would flare up into blatant vandalism. The IP has been highly disruptive, and there have been no complaints about the block from legitimate users, but it is blocked for 18 days because it may not be static. —Centrx→talk • 15:42, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

"The behavior of the two accounts named shows that they are the accounts of banned users..." I cannot speak for Scareslamfist (not reviewed contribs) but in the case of Sakura Avalon, in which of these diffs (all made to [template/user/project] talk pages not his own) showed behaviour similar to Bobby Boulders or any of his sockpuppets? (For completeness' sake) Can't we wait until they shoot themselves in the foot? Would there be grave, severe and irrepairable consequences if we allowed the guy more than just 34 hours and 43 minutes of editing? And at the end of it, I'm not even sure your (auto)block will end the creation of BB socks. Kimchi.sg 16:14, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I specifically blocked the associated IP Special:Contributions/151.196.186.191 Block log, which had similar behavior (most of which in now-deleted pages) and was mentioned in the unblock requests. The Sakura account has had 4 days to make any sort of contribution, he is an admitted previous vandal, the IP was used to create vandal accounts. I think since this last post you have seen some of the strange behavior. He would be, at best, a previously blocked/banned user trying to play a joke, but there is no reason to believe that he is not the very same person who created the vandal/sock accounts, and there isn't an exception to the blocking policy for having a pseudo-legit, but totally non-contributing, account in the foreground, while vandalizing in the background. Perhaps we could migrate the Sakura socks back to their own category (which I moved into BB), but whether the name is correct doesn't change the person's actions. —Centrx→talk • 02:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Transwiki needed

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Constructionism and reductionism (wiki). I closed that debate as transwiki. I, unfortunately don't know how to transwiki articles. Could someone who is more knowledgeable in this regard do this? Thanks, ~ c. tales \\tk// 04:40, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

There isn't a whole lot to it actually. Create an account (unless you already have one) at the Wiki where you are going to be sending the article. At the new Wiki, create an article called "Transwiki:Constructionism and reductionism (wiki)" without the quotes. Paste the Wikipedia article into the new article on the new Wiki. Then, go back to Wikipedia and copy the history of the article. Then go back to the new wiki, go to the talk page and then paste the history of the article in. Then just delete the article from Wikipedia. Simple as that. I'd do it but I think you should give it a whirl. :) It's easy. --Woohookitty^(meow) 05:08, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm also new to this type of move. How do you copy and paste the history? Do you have to individually add each of the revisions to the other wiki? alphaChimp ^laudare 05:12, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

No, it simply means copying the list of reversions and pasting them into the talk page of the new article, as has been done here. m:Transwiki should give you any more help you need. Raven4x4x 06:10, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah, now I understand transwiki. Thanks Woohookitty. -goes to do it- ~ c. tales \\tk// 20:15, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Done. I think I did it right.... m:transwiki:constructionism and reductionism (wiki) ~ c. tales \\tk// 20:26, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't see it showing up at the other end of that link User:Pedant 21:28, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

m:Transwiki:Constructionism and reductionism (wiki) (case sensitivity!). You did it right as far as I can see :) --james^(talk) 13:27, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

A serious problem with transwiki (illegal?)

I didn't know how to do that either, but actually I'm rather shocked that that's how it is done, since that is not GFDL compliant. The cut and paste history shows who has worked on the article, but it does not show who is responsible for which bit of text - any of the editors mentions could be the substantial writer (and thus copyright holder) of the text. I'd like some reassurance here that I'm missing something. --Doc 08:41, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I think that since all authors are credited it is not required to point out who did exactly what. However yes in terms of the GFDL our current transwiki process sucks.Geni 11:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

What do we mean by credited. This method can't distinguish between the substantive creator, the guy who tags it, the pedant who fixes a comma, and the vandal who blanks it with some obsenity. No way does that comply with the GFDL's accreditation. I'm no proces wonk, but if we can't comply with the legal requirements, then all transwikis should be stopped immediately. --Doc 11:32, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Doc on this one. An ideal solution would be if the software allowed a page to be exported together with it's history from one wiki and imported to another. Now this however may pose attribution problems (missing/colliding usernames) unless the Grand Unified Login is implemented. Misza13 11:47, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately a lot are moved without pagehistory at all... I recently had to have WP admin open up a series of deleted files to copy the histories to the WB pages.

There is a tool available for moving things wholesale (currently enabled for Wikiversity, which is moveing things from wikibooks and meta), but for whatever reason not available for "plain old everyday transwikis". It a conversatin gets started somewhere, please let me know because it's been bothering me for months. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 11:51, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

If an external body chooses to use wiki material, I understand they have to show GFDL licensing, but not the whole page history in the way it can be accessed on wikpedia, so in a transwiki process, couldn't/wouldn't the same conditions apply? Tyrenius 12:03, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Not sure, but if the external user credits wikipedia - then the actually history can be found here. But with a transwiki, the actual history is deleted. --Doc 12:14, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

That's not necessarily so... plenty of things get tw'd to wikia and other wikis, then deleted. I try to watch AfD for how-to material for wikibooks, but I might be the only one doing that, and don't always have time, so I suspect a lot of it ends up in non-foundation wikis rather than wikibooks. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 12:29, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

It might be good to hear from a lawyer (never though I'd say that) --Doc 12:42, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Or just ask FSF? --SB_Johnny | ^talk 13:06, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Special:Import/Special:Export is the best way to do transwikis but a) you need to be a sysop on the destination wiki and b) I think it's disabled on most WMF wikis (it's enabled on the English Wiktionary and Wikiversity as far as I'm aware). I also think it was broken at one stage, not sure if that's still true. Either way, this does need a good looking in to. --james^(talk) 13:25, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Text of the GNU Free Documentation License. The legal requirement is to list principal authors (at least 5) plus a list of previous versions (by title and author). There simply is no legal requirement to explain what different people contributed to the work. I agree that it is better to have the full history (both more useful and ethically superior by ensuring complete attribution), but the existing transwiki process is not illegal provided the complete author list is used. Dragons flight 20:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Advertising

Is Parc wiki researcher advertising? I feel he is-trying to get more people to do his little survey; and he's spammed about 100 talkpages. ForestH2 t/c 14:11, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

He's been inactive for some hours now. I've posted a cease and desist notice on his talk page. Let's hope he hets the message. --Doc 14:29, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. ForestH2 t/c 14:44, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Survey content

User:Pedant:I looked over the survey, thought others might want to know what I wanted to know, so:

The project is a surveymonkey survey, participants are asked to rate 14 wikipedia pages from (7 options) low to high, 3 categories: 'conflict' 'vandalism' and 'quality', with comments/feedback text. the text of the survey:

====1====
 
Thank you for agreeing to participate in our research survey.
 Our goal is to understand how conflict arises and is resolved
 in Wikipedia articles. To achieve this we need the help of expert
 Wikipedians like you in identifying the types of conflict that
 arise and the degree of severity of those conflicts.

On the following pages you will be provided links to current
 Wikipedia entries and will be asked to rate the degree of conflict
 that the page is in, as well as the amount of vandalism and the quality of the page.

You will be asked to rate 15 Wikipedia pages in total. Thank you
 again for helping us collect this vital information.
 Next >>
====2====
Please read the consent form below and check the box at the
 bottom to indicate your agreement.

----------------------

DESCRIPTION: You are invited to participate in a research study
 that evaluates the effect of conflicts and controversies on
 Wikipedia. We’re interested in the degree of conflicts and how
 they are resolved on Wikipedia. The experiment involves surveying
 and asking you questions about various conflicts that exists on
 Wikipedia and your opinions of them.

RISK: There are no known risks associated with participating with
 this study.

TIME INVOLVEMENT: The total time for this experiment will be less
 than 1 hour. The survey will first ask some simple non-identifying
 demographic questions about your computer and internet use
 (just a few minutes). The primary portion of the survey will ask
 you to look at various topics in Wikipedia and estimate the degree
 and type of conflict that existed on these pages. We estimate that
 this will take about 40 minutes, depending on how much material you
 examine to arrive at your answers. You are free to take a break any time you like.

PAYMENT: You will receive no payment for your participation in the experiment.

SUBJECT'S RIGHTS: If you have read this form and have decided to
 participate in this experiment, please understand your participation
 is voluntary and you have the right to withdraw your consent or
 discontinue participation at any time without penalty. You have
 the right to refuse to answer particular questions. Your individual
 privacy will be maintained in all published and written data resulting
 from the study. You may report any objections or concerns about the
 conduct of the study to Peter Pirolli, Chair of the Human Subjects
 Committee, PARC, (650) 812-4483.

If delivered on paper, the extra copy of this consent form is for you
 to keep.

If delivered digitally over the Internet, you should keep an extra
 copy of this consent form for your own records. Clicking on the
 Agree button below constitute your agreement to participate in this study.
 
*  
1. Please check to indicate you have read and agreed to this consent form:
 I agree
 << PrevNext >>
====3====
 
2. Wikipedia username
 
   
3. How long have you been active on Wikipedia?
 
   
4. On average, how many hours do you spend on Wikipedia-related
 activities each week?
 
   
5. What are the major types of activities that you participate 
in on Wikipedia?
 
   
6. Please check if you would like to receive a "PARC Research"
 star on your user page in appreciation for your help
 
 << PrevNext >>
====4====
 
On the following page you will see 15 links to Wikipedia articles.
 Clicking on a link will open the relevant article in a new browser window.

For each entry, please examine the page history, discussion history,
 and anything else you deem relevant for deciding about the degree
 of conflict, vandalism, and quality of the page. Then rate it
 according to the scales provided.

To get an idea of what constitutes high vs. low conflict, please
 examine the following two pages. Pet skunk has been rated by other
 Wikipedians in the past as a very low conflict article, while
 Intelligent design has been rated as an extremely high conflict
 article. These pages will open in new browser windows; when you
 are finished examining them please continue to the next page.
 << PrevNext >>
====5====
 Note: You can save your progress and resume it later, but
 if you choose to do so you need to click on the "Prev" button for
 any changes you made on this page to be saved. Otherwise if you
 just close the browser window without clicking "Prev" any changes
 you made will be lost. You can resume your progress by following
 the link you were originally provided (you must use the same computer however).
 
 
*  
7. Looking at the history of each article below, please rate the following:
 Conflict Vandalism Quality  
2005 Atlantic hurricane season  
Capitalism  
Transhumanism  
Islamofascism  
Hinduism  
Germany  
Noam Chomsky  
Ayn Rand  
Iran  
American and British English differences  
William A. Dembski  
Canadian English  
KaDee Strickland  
United States Navy  
 
   
8. Please provide any comments you feel were not captured in
 the above ratings here
 << PrevNext >>
====6====
   
10. Please describe the process by which you made your decisions
 about the ratings in this survey

 
   
11. What kinds of tools or research do you think would be most
 helpful in understanding and dealing with conflict in Wikipedia?

 
   
12. Please let us know any other feedback you might have:
 
   
13. How much time did this survey take you?
 << PrevNext >>
====7====
Thank you for participating in this survey. Your answers are a
 vital component in our continuing research. The results will
 be in an academic paper, which means when it is published, it
 will be essentially freely available. We will also put it on
 our website. To find out more about our work or to get more
 involved, please email us at wikiresearch@parc.com.
 << PrevDone >>

comments

Personally, it looks real fishy to me, like someone is out for material for another exposé on wikipedia. I think the user Parc wiki researcher should be permabanned, but I haven't a clue what actual policies are being broken besides WP:JERK, and even that might not be considered true by someone else. User:Pedant 21:50, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

• Why would the user be banned, assuming he stops spamming talk pages? Christopher Parham (talk) 22:01, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Um, shouldn't this be on an RfC or something rather than taking up huge amounts of space on AN? --SB_Johnny | ^talk 22:10, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
    • You need have no fear about "another exposé". No journalist would ever bother doing this, and the info requested is not anything any journalist would ever be interested in. Tyrenius 22:14, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
      • I would disagree with a perm-ban. What reason? I've participated in the survey, which is to gain an understanding on mediation/dispute resolution. Although it borders on spam to talk pages, this was not the intention. SynergeticMaggot 23:14, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

• I also disagree with the idea of a perm-ban, and to the fearmongering over-reaction. This is NOT the sort of information gathering any journalist I can imagine would be doing -- WAY too inefficient and diffuse data for any kind of "exposé" story -- and exactly the sort of research data a sociologist might gather.

• And, notice, that the researcher is being completely transparent about the process. And, as far as I'm concerned, if a transparent process requires using multiple talk pages to solicit a wide range of opinions/data sources, then it ain't spam and they ought to go ahead and do so, policy nitpickers and process queens be damned. I also took the survey and I have absolutely no second thoughts about doing so. --Calton | Talk 01:47, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

• yet another researcher. While some of the questions are marinarly original I feel that they would benifited from more work. Other than that non issue as long as they stay within the rules.Geni 17:47, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

• We should take a positive view of this, work with it, and see if there are helpful insights from the survey that could benefit our practice. Let's treat it as a gratis consultancy and ask for feedback. We can ask for verification of the individuals concerned if necessary. Tyrenius 19:08, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

• rather a lot of past experience suggests we will never see the results. I'm not quite certian why but these things always appear to go extreamly quite after the initial period.Geni 23:26, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

• I appreciate all of your concerns and thanks to the admins who have supported the study. I have just posted a request on this noticeboard with more information on our research, our preliminary results (which are online now from our first study), and our request. Thank you! Parc wiki researcher 01:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

An AfD bot to hide closed discussions

Discussion began here and here, prompting me to concider bot request, in which I brought it up for discussion here. I'd like a further consensus before posting to WP:BRFA since discussion has almost died down.

• Summary: Bot would pick up on a closed AfD, remove discussion from the log, only leaving behind a link or template to the discussion. It would run anywhere from 1-6 hours, or so discussion is showing.

Opinions would be appreciated on AfD talk. Thank you. SynergeticMaggot 20:34, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

How are you planning on removing the discussion from the log without being an admin? And admin bots are forbidden. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:34, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Umm, the log page can be edited by anyone, so I don't see why the bot would need admin access; it's not actually closing the AFDs themselves, so even that's not an issue.

Having said that, I'm not sure how useful this would be in practice. Kirill Lokshin 01:06, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd actually like to reserve the comments for the AfD talk page, as to not fill AN with this, but oh well. What were the actual objections to the bot? And no, it wouldnt be an admin bot. The bot would just remove the uneeded words from your screen, but allow to to view the AfD discussion so long as you wish to, by clicking the link. SynergeticMaggot 01:19, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I misunderstood. I thought you were trying to get the comments deleted. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:37, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Never! And no need to apologize. :) SynergeticMaggot 22:20, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Thankless job - NOT anymore

I'm awarding this award to the Admins here, considering WHAT they have to deal with. This is MY way of thanking them. They have also been of GREAT assisstance to me as well.

The da Vinci Barnstar This is awarded to the Admins here for their outstanding work on WP:AN.

Martial Law 21:11, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Ditto. I know some of you find the job of admin rewarding. Well, thank goodness for that. It is not everybody's cup of tea. Wikipedia will be better when there is less need for hundreds of people to spend their time doing some of what admins now do (because more sophisticated means of ensuring quality are in place); but until then, thank you for "keeping down the fort". WAS 4.250 01:18, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

If you have some idea of how to get to where we don't need to expend that kind of time and effort, please do let us know. Jkelly 06:52, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I did a bit of research into that exact thing a few months ago and discovered that User:Eloquence (and others) are literally years ahead of me in terms of thinking through the various options. Stable versioning systems, trust metrics, and other validation schemes of varying degrees of automation are discussed at articles here. WAS 4.250 08:52, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

And are, in general, rejected as not in the keeping with the purpose of Wikipedia. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:38, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

No. But valid concerns are making sure that progress is slow and careful, as it shoud be. The Cite program, whose article is listed on the page I indicated is doing great; and Jimbo himself is pushing for progress this year on stable versioning. We are progressing thoughtfully in the direction of being MORE open to encyclopedic contributions and LESS open to unencyclopedic contributions and we are characterizing this as Wikipedia becoming MORE open. WAS 4.250 21:43, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

CenturyTel range block

I've blocked 72.160.0.0/16 in an attempt to slow Blu Aardvark down and perhaps give him an opportunity to go outside or something. The block should only affect anons and account creation. Having scanned the whole range, I don't think this is going to cause much if any collateral damage. The block is set for one week. Mackensen (talk) 03:26, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Karmafist

Has anyone seen his post on wikipedia review [3] ? I used the search function on wikipedia and couln't find past reports about it so I am reporting it now. Karmafist basically tells how he is sneakily adding tons of intentional misinformation as some planned attempt to destroy wikipedia. He states:

"Best case scenario -- several new Siegenthaler Crises are made, thus destroying the credibility of Wikipedia, and its funding, forcing it to either become a corporate shill or charging users for an account(thus removing any pretense of being a "free and unbiased encyclopedia") or forcing them to reform."

Then he says: "Worst case scenario -- the majority of articles on Wikipedia are either protected or abandoned(again, removing the "free" pretense), and all new users are seen as potential suspects, creating an atmosphere where they are unlikely to become wiki-addicts and possibly spread the word of the poor behavior of the Cabalists."

I am quoting him in case the forum deletes it. Basically, this type of vandalism is obviously far worse than Willy on Wheels. Willy did stuff easy to discover as vandalism.

The thing is, I see no long term abuse for this. We need a page to help track Karmafist's vandalism so it can be spotted and not left to linger. Anomo 08:19, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Until I see some on-wiki evidence that something is happening, I think we should just look out for it. Ian¹³/t 09:13, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

That was my point, it's hard to track this type of action unless someone finds a pattern to it. Anomo 09:25, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

That is a really sad and disturbing post by Karmafist and a sad thread (I was unaware that Karmafist had started to vandalize Wikipedia, for one thing (assuming that it is really him on the website)). What is especially disturbing is that they take pleasure and find purpose in attempting to destroy the hard work of other people. Hard work that they do not get paid anything for and that they do for the betterment of the world. Another sad thing is that Karmafist has been negatively affected as a person due to his involvement with Wikipedia.

Of course no one on Wikipedia Review realizes that if Wikipedia fails, they and people like them will be at least partly at fault, and depending on the reason it fails, perhaps mostly or even entirely at fault. They complain about the quality of Wikipedia, yet they try to make it worse through systematic vandalism. If they want Wikipedia to be better than it is now, they should stop vandalizing it so that we can concentrate on making it better instead of trying to detect vandalism, reverting vandalism and dealing with vandalizers (talking, blocking, dispute resolution and arbitration). If all forms of vandalism stopped or were significantly reduced, we could make large increases in quality, breadth, neutrality and accuracy.

I have trouble seeing how Wikipedia Review members who vandalize Wikipedia think it is okay. It might be because they think that it is just a website and because it is easier to think that it is a victimless crime, especially since they do not see the victims. I have some hypothetical situations in which they would do what they do to Wikipedia to other entities and whether they think it would be justified. For example, would they burn down the Library of Congress because they disagree with the policy that members of the public cannot check out books (or would they vandalize the books or make books with fake information to insert in the collection)? Would they spray graffiti on a school's buildings because they think one of the textbooks it uses is biased? Would they vandalize pay phones, which are needed for the indigent and for emergencies because they do not like the phone company's policies? Would they kick over a child's sand castle because of its poor quality? Would they hack into the computer of a columnist whose opinion they disagree with and delete all of the articles he or she is working on? Would they steal newspapers from stands because they think some of the stories are biased? -- Kjkolb 10:36, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Uh, yeah, probably. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:56, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

That commentary sort of misses the mark. They've already identified the purported source of Wikipedia's quality problems, to wit, the present power structure of Wikipedia. Since they know tey won't achieve the consensus necessary to make their desired changes to it, it follows that Wikipedia must be destroyed in order to build a new encyclopedia along the correct lines. Not an unfamiliar piece of philosophy... Choess 17:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

He's apparently recanted this particular plan, according to his recently archived talk page, so don't go firing up a lynch mob. Choess 17:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

This plan is no different to any other vandalism, which standard procedures are in place to deal with. Tyrenius 03:07, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Review looks like a complaint board, but there's shady things under the surface there, especially by those who run it (seen most easily if you try to register and don't give them all the personal information they demand). There's lots of criticism of wikipedia that criticizes it to improve it, but this site may not be one of them. I found karmafist's post some time after he made it, though as I very rarely read the forum, and I had assumed it was still current. Anomo 14:26, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

disambiguation page

I have set up a disambiguation page King_George_School_(disambiguation) for links of King George School which redirects to several other schools with similar names. However, I can't get it to redirect and I am not sure how to solve it.

--Cahk 09:38, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I moved the disambiguation page to King George School, with 6 schools having similar names and 3 of them having articles, I thought a disambiguation page at the main page would be better than having it as a redirect to one of the schools and putting up a link to the disambiguation page at the top of that article. I rewrote the disambiguation page using the name of the city the school is in for disambiguation, since that is what Calgary uses (the Hong Kong school link is actually a redirect to King George V School, also the article might need moving if an article is written on the Sutton school, since it has the exact same name, although it is probably much smaller than the Hong Kong school (the town of Sutton has about a thousand people and the HK school has 1,700 students, so a link to the other school might be better). -- Kjkolb 11:02, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Alienus

This arbitration case is closed. The full decision is at the link above.

• Alienus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is banned for one year.

Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 15:25, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

MyWikiBiz (talk · contribs) using AfD to shop for clients

I know that Jimbo Wales has had a "productive phone call" with this user, but is he authorized to vote to delete in AfD and then suggest that the subject would have fared better if it had contacted him? See also [4] [5] [6]

I checked his contribution history and he seems to be visiting AfDs for business subjects, voting delete and suggesting that the article could be saved if written differently, that is when he's not just suggesting they contact MyWikiBiz.com. JChap2007 16:34, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

• Dreadful conflict of interest, just as many people predicted when he appeared. I suggest a strong warning is given to him on his talk page that, in light of his input on AfD, articles written by his company for those companies would be subject to deletion. And strike his contributions to AfD as well? And yes, I know we don't have a rule that says anything about either of these, but it looks like we need one. Time to reawaken Wikipedia:Conflict of interest anyone? ➨ ЯEDVERS 16:44, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

• He did a little Reichstag climbing on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Norman Technologies too. Let me guess who wrote that article. JChap2007 16:50, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
• Also, he seems to be nominating articles for deletion for businesses of borderline notability that he himself did not write. Ever hear of protection money or greenmail? JChap2007 17:56, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

• Although he states that he would never accept business from a company he nominated for deletion, I just find it a little bit alarming that he is involving himself in the deletion process, given the obvious conflict of interest. I'd back the motion for a strong warning against using AfD for advertising, or nomination of companies. alphaChimp ^laudare 18:03, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

• Of course, one fears wheel-warring with Jimbo over this (if you're gonna even appear to wheel-war, don't do it with the guy who owns the shop) so perhaps someone could bring this to his attention? It might be above us and more of an Office thing? ➨ ЯEDVERS 18:17, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

• I fail to see why unless Office explicitly involves itself. I don't think Jimbo's "deal" over MyWikiBiz's writing of articles prohibits us from taking action over other disruptive actions, such as advertising in AfDs. You shouldn't reverse an Office or Jimbo action, but not doing something because you think Jimbo might object to it is another thing entirely. Of course, he's removed the comment suggesting the writer of the spam article should have contacted him following the message on his talk page, so that might be dealt with. Whether his nomination of company articles constitutes a WP:POINT violation will depend on how many of them actually merit deletion. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 21:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

• Lighten up, guys. He did it once, and he made it clear it was a humorous comment. Let's not over-react, eh? Just zis Guy you know? 22:36, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • It's not just one comment though, it's a whole string of the same type of nonsense. I'm inclined to block indefinitely. I see a huge conflict of interest here. He spouts the names of various Wikipedia policies to try and justify his comments but what he's really operating from is a desire to save articles he's been paid to write and delete articles of businesses he hasn't been paid to write. --Cyde Weys 14:15, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Plus the ";)" he puts after statement doesn't negate the content of the statement. It's a bit like saying "I didn't call you a dick, I cited m:DICK." JChap2007 17:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Now with arbitration goodness. --Cyde Weys 17:01, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Moe Epsilon Vs Kingstonjr userpage

Hi Administrators' noticeboard , after a very long time keeping my userpage, user Moe Epsilon has undertaken removing my gallery from my userpage claiming it is a violation of wikipedia policy concernng serpages. I am willing to review the images, removing any of which are demed unfree and thus must be removed. I find the userpage neccesary as a basis for my work and ethics in wikipedia. Moreover, it acts as a synthesis of work which i am a keen contributor to, adding these images to relevant articles, editing images and generally as a workstation for wikipedia. This is not an isolated incodent with userpages such as User:Markaci, User:Cyde, User:Ac1983fan, User:Ewlyahoocom and a seperate project Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wikipedians against censorship/Gallery, where my user-page also features. For these myriad arguments it is important to keep this userpage as it is or if neccesary edit the gallery removing unfree images, otherwise I believe a unjustice will have been served. i take this problem pwith the Administrators' noticeboard with the confidence that it will be resolve fairly in the interest of all.

Thank you KingstonJr 19:26, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I do not agree with you. It is a violation of Wikipedia policy on copyright. Links are acceptable, inclusions are not. --Lord Deskana (talk) 19:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

The issue Kingstonjr wants to bring up for discussion is the censorship of materials on his userpage. The majority of the images are free content. ~ PseudoSudo 19:43, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

We we also need to consider the guideline of WP:USER, I guess at least part of the question is, is trying to make a statement concerning censorship a reasonable use of "his userpage"?. --pgk^(talk) 19:59, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

If he's making a statement about censorhip on wikipedia yes. if he was making a statement about censorhip in Random High School's weekly newspaper. no.--Crossmr 20:49, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

As I understand it, the key issue is that Kinstonjr needs these images for his work on wikipedia. As a user page is intended to provide information about the user, these images don't seem to be appropriate, so the obvious solution is to create a sub-page, where they can be stored (the free images only of course). Tyrenius 04:05, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I would have no problems with these being placed on a sub page per the examples cited by KingstonJr, with links only to the non free images. --Cactus.man ✍ 06:51, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you to all, it seems that the decision would be to create a subpage, which I must say that you have as i believe come to a fair decision. KingstonJr 12:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Sarastro777 banned from posting on ANI and AN until September 20

Sarastro777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been banned from posting on ANI and AN for one month, to run from August 20 to September 20. If he should violate the ban he may be promptly blocked by any admin. It is suggested that such blocks be kept to 12—24 hours, but hoped that they won't be needed at all. Please see this discussion on ANI. Bishonen | talk 19:49, 20 August 2006 (UTC).

Ip posing as a robot

71.134.246.54 is posing as a robot with all of the edits saying "robot ..... interwikilink". This could be a legit robot from another wiki but without an account. So, should this user be blocked and forced to get a bot flag under an account? GeorgeMoney (talk) 22:42, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

It's probably a bot logged out. I've blocked the IP anon only so it can continue when it is logged in. Naconkantari 22:52, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Remove comment from Windows Mobile history

Please remove the comment at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Windows_Mobile&diff=70751273&oldid=70608195 from Bonsai8 - which is me. It simply states a user keeps deleting links. The comment is true, but could be considered a personal attack and therefore should not be there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bonsai8 (talk • contribs)

Usernames

The blockers missed a few:

• User:Pilotgirl
• User:Betachimp
• User:2ne (that was from a while ago)
• User:CD R W
• User:ERECTIONS!!

69.158.48.138 02:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Death threats

I deleted a death threat and an invitation to leave further threats on User:The Fat Man Who Never Came Back.[7] TacoDeposit reverted this as "schoolmarmery".[8] After another couple of reverts, TFMWNCB has restored the threat, but with a discouragement to leave more of the same.[9] He finds it amusing, but other people who have received such threats certainly don't, and leaving it in place can only serve as an example for more elsewhere. I would choose to delete it and enforce that, but, as that has been challenged, I am seeking a wider response. Tyrenius 03:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate you seeking wider response. I will respect consensus and I'm sure TFMWNCB will as well. And I apologize for using the term "schoolmarmery" which you found insulting. But I don't see how the section on TFMWNCB's userpage would encourage others to leave other death threats elsewhere, and believe he should be allowed to keep it if he finds it amusing. TacoDeposit 03:23, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Lots of users display links to vandalism received on their user pages. I think that in most cases, a user should be able to create his/her user page the way he/she sees fit. Perhaps a nice compromise would be to use a numbered link like this, [10], to display examples of user page vandalism? hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 03:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not just simple vandalism, nor merely an insult, and should not be treated as such. A threat to kill someone is an illegal act. The only likely effect of its continued display as humour is to encourage more such threats, by providing the idea to copy and suggesting that action will not be taken against the perpetrator. Tyrenius 08:26, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

What Tyrenius said. Leaving a message like this up only gives users ideas to violate policy (and applicable laws). It's just a bad idea. Or so says the "schoolmarm" in me. I also wouldn't run with scissors. --Firsfron of Ronchester 08:37, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

It is a serious problem for some users, as you can see in this discussion, and its outcome. Tyrenius 09:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I hoped that my compromise would solve the concerns of both parties. The blue link hides the actual vandalism from being prominently featured and the user is allowed to keep track of vandalism to his user page (again, this is a very popular feature on many user pages). The vandalism itself should be dealt with in the appropriate manner, of course, but the user vandalised should not be sanctioned or chastised. I believe Tyrenius is reading a bit too much into the situation, as the user page will not encourage rampant Wikipedia-wide death threats (for one, most individuals possess consciences that prevent them from making such threats). hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 10:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

A person who obviously has a sense of humor has named himself User:The Fat Man Who Never Came Back on a popular site that anyone can edit. So 210.80.185.196 tries to get in on the joke and be funny by saying "u are a fat fuker i kill u bitch" but why he believes a threat against the man's female dog is funny goes right over my head - Whoooosh - None-the-less User:The Fat Man Who Never Came Back does get the joke and thinks its funny enough to put on his user page with the title "Inarticulate death threats (further contributions are officially discouraged)" and S-man finding the hilarity too much to resist adds "Parking lot. 8:00. Be there." Enter Tyrenius who knows unencyclopedic and threatening behavior when he sees it and like the dutiful wikipedian that he is, he tries to improve the situation with a variety of carefully chosen tactics approved by Official Wikipedia Process; the last tactic of which is to create this subsection and involve the rest of us in The Case of The Joke Some of Us Don't Get Because Death Isn't Funny. We are faced with a serious situation in that death threats of female dogs is literally against the law and we should report this to the police, because what if the jokester is actually planning on killing the dog? what then? WHAT THEN? Could we ever live with ourselves if 210.80.185.196 turns out to be a chef with a Chinese cookbook? Oh, the horrors! I suggest we lie in wait and see if he tries to capture the dog for his culinary delights. Let us pretend none of this ever happened and if he goes for the dog we spring our secret trap, hand him over to the police and pet the dog. Shhhhh! Not a word of this to 210.80.185.196. WAS 4.250 12:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

And how exactly do you come to be in possession of the privy information that 210.80.185.196's intention was to refer to a dog and not use the word otherwise — as an abusive term for a woman, for example? Is there something we should know about your connection with 210.80.185.196, or are you merely trolling? Tyrenius 12:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

You might like to check out the illustrious record of the prankster you are so keen to champion, and also explain this edit away. Tyrenius 13:15, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Some people's internet connections seem to come with a built-in filter filtering out all humour, irony, and sarcasm. Lupo 13:37, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The threat looks to be the work of perhaps an immature individual not understanding the gravity in general of such a statement. In my view User:Tyrenius acted properly in this case. Even if there was an understanding between editors regarding such language and their talk pages it would not be acceptable. Realizing that Wikipedia is not an experiment in free speech it is worth noting in this case that this type of speech is not protected. (→Netscott) 14:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I am emailing the IP which appears to be a religious college in Australia. Tyrenius 15:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm starting to regret using the term "death threat." Solipsist3's comment (or that of his supposed "friend") was simply a childish, boneheaded instance of vandalism that made me laugh. Now it seems you are literally getting his schoolmarms involved. I am in no place to question your disciplinary role, but somehow I think wikipedia will get along just fine without ironfisted protection from mishbehaving schoolchildren. "u are a fat fuker i kill u bitch" is hardly the stuff of David Berkowitz, and to think that my immortazliing such a silly statement (in a clearly ironic way) will somehow incite other editors to mayhem is a pathetic underestimation of the average Wikipedian's good sense and maturity. Take a step back and try to appreciate the absurdity of his threat, and then, perhaps, of your reaction to it. Obviously, stupidity and vandalism should not be tolerated on wikipedia, but you shouldn't try to impose your humorless outlook on those who find occasional levity in such nonsense.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 15:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

You've misunderstood the problem. It will not incite average Wikipedians. That is not an issue. It will encourage those who are more easily led or who already have such a propensity, but in the wrong direction. There's enough problems with vandalism and stupidity without displaying it. Furthermore, threats of violence, even apparently in jest should not be taken lightly. You never know which of them are for real. Tyrenius 16:01, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The Fat Man Who Never Came Back laughed at (ridiculed) but otherwise ignored an idiotic post. Tyrenius has chosen a different approach to the same objective. Laughing at and ignoring is sometime more efective at stopping behavior than many competing methods. Laughter can be seriously effective. Tyrenius, you are a good guy. You just need more tools in your toolbox. Not everything is a nail. WAS 4.250 00:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't appreciate your criticism of my sense of humour, which you have no knowledge of. I wasn't using the criterion of whether I find it personally amusing, or there's a lot of vandalism I would leave in place: however, I doubt that doing so would be effective in stopping that behaviour. I was assessing whether it was the proper use of a user page, which is for material helpful to creating an encyclopedia, not for self-expression. You might like to check out WP:User page. I am surprised you are expending so much energy defending the retention of vandalism, which has been already been deleted by 4 editors, including 3 admins. Tyrenius 22:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Irishpunktom

This case is closed. See the decision for more information.

• All of the following remedies for one year:
  • Irishpunktom (talk · contribs) and Dbiv (talk · contribs) banned from Peter Tatchell
  • Irishpunktom and Karl Meier (talk · contribs) are placed on Probation
  • Irishpunktom is placed on revert parole
• Also, Dbiv is desysopped.

Dmcdevit·t 03:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

69.76.206.218 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

This static IP is used by the vandal Randallrobinstine, who has recently resumed vandalism via sockpuppets. Seeing as it is static, I recommend that it be blocked indefinitely, as Wikipedia's blocking policy sllows indefinate blocks of static IPs used only for vandalism. Doing so might put an end to this vandal for good.--67.67.217.220 03:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Straw Poll

Due to the recent turmoil on community pages, a large community straw poll is being conducted. Wikipedia:Communities strawpoll is now open for voting. Despite resolutions made on this page, many others are facing turmoil similar to what this page is, or once did face. In an effor to solve the issue, I invite all Wikipedians to vote there by September 18th on this page following the procedures and ballot instuctions explained there. Thank You. Ericsaindon2 06:05, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Continuing problems on José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero

The arbitration case Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/SqueakBox and Zapatancas (13 April, 2006 to 4 June, 2006) determined that SqueakBox (talk · contribs) and Zapatancas (talk · contribs) (formerly Zapatero (talk · contribs)) had engaged in edit warring, personal attacks, and mutual campaigns of harassment focussed on their dispute on José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero and related articles. Both editors were banned from Wikipedia for one month, banned from editing this and related articles for one year, and put on personal attack parole.

Problems continue, however.

A new editor Hagiographer (talk · contribs) started editing on 25 June and on 5 July made edits to Zapatero's early years (1960-2000), Zapatero's years as an opposition leader, Zapatero and the Local and Regional Elections of 2003, Zapatero and the 2004 General Election, all of which had been originally created by Zapatancas and then made into redirects by SqueakBox in May, to recover the article versions. He also edited José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero to refer to those articles.

A strong suspicion exists that this is a sock or meat puppet of Zapatancas, but Checkuser evidence is not conclusive.

More recently a new user Pura Paja (talk · contribs) has edit warred with this editor. Despite strong suspicions, checkuser evidence suggests that this isn't the same as SqueakBox.

But SqueakBox and Hagiographer meanwhile are engaged in mutual campaigns of harassment. There has been little or no significant editing of the subsidiary articles except by SqueakBox, Zapatancas, Hagiographer and Pura Paja and these are the only editors who have ever edit warred on those articles.

A longstanding principle of identification on Wikipedia is that editors who are engaged in similar behavior may sometimes be treated as a single editor with sock puppets. This is expressed as follows in the recently completed arbitration case Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Moby_Dick:

For the purpose of dispute resolution when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sockpuppets or several users with similar behavior, they may be treated as one user with sockpuppets.

So as a matter of enforcement, I seek consensus that editors acting in ways similar to SqueakBox and Zapatancas in this particular context (to wit, Hagiographer and Pura Paja, and anyone else who engages in warring, tendentious edits, personal attacks and harassment related to José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero and related articles) should be treated as subject to the same remedies as SqueakBox and Zapatancas, and that this should be noted on the talk pages of those articles. --Tony Sidaway 14:37, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments

• The principle makes sense but it seems to leave the possibility that it could be broadened too far if used indiscriminately, so whenever this remedy is proposed in the face of inconclusive CU evidence I'd like to see the case made rather strongly that they (the editors in question) are giving a strong appearance of acting in concert. But that should not be taken as opposition to the principle. Support ++Lar: t/c 14:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

• Tony's request is consistent with previous arbitrations, and also with our community standards. Checkuser has never been the only way to identify puppetry, and it kind of doesn't matter who they are. The problem is what they are doing. The editors are acting in the same way, on the same pages. I think applying the same remedy is appropriate. I would be concerned if this were happening on different pages, or if we were trying to broader a particular arbitration into binding policy. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

• Strong agree - I have came across these users before many times and the users that are similar to them are always suspicious. --Kilo-Lima 16:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

• Anybody who reads RFCU and WP:ANI for a few weeks can get a pretty good idea of how to make sockpuppets look unrelated. I agree with Tony's proposal to treat Hagiographer and Pura Paja as sockpuppets, per the "if it quacks like a duck" aspect of the sock policy. Thatcher131 (talk) 16:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

• I blocked indef User:Pura Paja do not unbloc him, if anything due to the username (pure wanking in spanish) -- Drini 20:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

• I guess we have a fairly strong consensus here. --Tony Sidaway 04:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I've implemented this. It has also emerged that SqueakBox evaded his arbcom ban in June by socking as Skanking (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). I have reset his ban, adding it to the one week block I had already applied one another matter. --Tony Sidaway 10:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Copyvio user

For the fourth time (and they've been blocked once already for it), 203.166.232.83 (talk · contribs · count) insists on copy and pasting from the author's web site into Michael White (author). — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 14:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for a week. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 00:10, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

suspected sockpuppet of User:SirIsaacBrock

hi, I wanted to bring your attention to User:What123, who I suspect to be a sockpuppet of User:SirIsaacBrock. User:What123 seems to follow the same pattern of edits to articles around the Israel-Arab conflict, depopulating articles relating to abarigional conflicts for Category:Conflicts in Canada, etc... but the diff here (the use of "Cordially" at the end of his comment) is what makes me sure it's him Mike McGregor (Can) 15:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I've just reviewed What123 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)'s edits and this is an obvious sockpuppet. Editing on Dog, Nazi, Canadian and war related articles as well as the usage of "Cordially" at the end of talk page comments makes this a slam-dunk irrefutable sockpuppet. I recommend immediate indef. blocking on this user as a sockpuppet used to evade a permanent ban. (→Netscott) 15:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 16:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

SSP case been closed. Iolakana•T 16:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the rapid response folks. (→Netscott) 16:29, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Another evil poll: Removing Warnings

The issue of whether or not users should be allowed to remove warning messages from their talk page (and under what circumstances) has been a running dispute for the better part of a year now. In an attempt to bring wider community input to the issue, a poll has been created: Wikipedia:Removing warnings poll. Dragons flight 17:03, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Checking on deleted articles

KRBN (talk • contribs) has speedy delete tagged a number of articles, some of which probably don't meet any speedy criteria. I received a request on my talk page to review his tagged articles to see any that might have been deleted.

However, it appears to me that if an article has been deleted, that any edits would no longer show up in the User's contributions. Is there a way to do such a review without manually checking every entry in the deletion logs?

— ERcheck (talk) 22:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Try this tool out. A disclamer: It is affected by both replication lag and the corrupted toolserver database, so it is not completely accurate. It should help though. Prodego ^talk 23:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks so much. Great tool! — ERcheck (talk) 23:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Charles Knight

(moved from Wikipedia_talk:Administrator's noticeboard, this is probably still not the right place for it, but is more likely where the user was trying to post.) --Nscheffey^(T/C) 02:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I met this user on Leah Remini site. He criticized my edit and got rid of it. My edit was in good faith and friendly and mentions Leah Remini's appearance on MTV's cribs. Charlesknight said it was full of POV in the edit summary and just got rid of it. I mentioned on his talk page it WAS a show that Leah Remini made an appearance on and should be down for television appearances. Charlesknight up and got rid of the info instead of bringing it up on the discussion page so we could talk it over. When I bring this to Charlesknight attention he gives me an example full of curse words and bad language of what I did. He gave me a foul-mouthed example of what was on Leah Remini's talk page. Later on that same day, I also see he went into my history and went on a page that I created. I found this out because the page I created is about a show that he admits to knowing nothing about. He even admitted to going into my history from this incident. So he went on the page I created which is entitled Coral Smith and changed up the entire page. Even though I was kind of frustrated he did that, I was just like I am glad someone bothered to even help out my page. I was getting ready to go put a thank you on his talk page when I looked at his edit summaries and how they were so inappropriate and rude. He even went on the talk page and badmouthed the page. This was out of petty spite for the previous incident. He knew he was badmouthing me because he went into my history and noticed that I had created the page. He was so rude in his edit summaries that I couldn't even stand to be here on wikipedia. Then I brought it to administrator's attention named Tyrenius. He is one of my good friend's but justifued Charlesknight's behavior because he says he is a good editor. I couldn't understand this so I went into Charlesknight's page and found out he had vandalproof and I think that had something to do with Tyrenius' not standing up for me because he is the one that usually encourages polite behavior but didn't this time. I am so put off by this user who has vandalproof no less. When we talked about his rude comments, he just went back to the page and continued. He also now has questions about the show as he is unable to answer them on the discussion page as he has never watched it. I would contribute but I can't until I know that he is punished in some way for his behavior. I am very offended by him. After the entire incident and all of his disrespect, I one of my friend's on HIS talk page how I was having a problem with charlesknight and what a jerk he is behaving to me. Charlesknight had the nerve to write on my talk page, getting in my business, that he was lucky I wasn't going to block me after I had said what I said to my friend about him. This user has driven me crazy and almost to retiring. please help! thank you. By the way after speaking Charlesknight, he mentioned "I can't be all nicey nice because no one gets the point when I'm nice." So he basically admits to being very rude and justifies it by saying it's worked in the past. Tonetare 01:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

This is a content dispute and should not be here - I have explained my actions to Tonetare on his talkpage but he seems unable to grasp what I am talking about. You will notice from his use of the term "my page", he also has issues with WP:OWN. In addition, he talks about my rudeness but strangely forgets to mention that called me a asshole "dickwod" and a "a loser" . A matter I told him I would let slide on that occasion.

My edits speak for themselves - the coral smith article was in a terrible state full of language like smacktalk and pro-active bitches and so on and so on. To be blunt, while assuming good faith, Tonetare seems quite immature and unable to under both the process of creating a good article and the interactions that one will have with fellow editors.

I should also point out to Tonetare, it's considered poor form to quote someone and then make up the words in the quote (as he has done here).

I have done nothing wrong and I stand by both my edits and my comments.

--Charlesknight 08:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I would also suggest that Tonetare refrains from leaving comments like this on the pages of admin who are trying to assist him. --Charlesknight 08:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Tonetare apologized here, noting that he was trying to get himself blocked. Powers ^T 13:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I have exercised a lot of tolerance for Tonetare because he is obviously genuine in his motivations and has worked hard to contribute what he sees as valid material. It is unfortunate that a clash of cultural expectations is in evidence, and that his natural assumptions about behaviour and validity is at odds with those of wiki culture. Something that is self-evidently true to him may well be blatant POV to an experienced wiki editor. This causes Tonetare great frustration and he reacts emotionally, although, as has been pointed out, he sees his actions more objectively later. Charlesknight has acted in the way we would normally consider to be appropriate. The only solution I can see is to help Tonetare to an understanding of wiki policies and expectations which will enable him to achieve what he wants in an acceptable way. He has been responsive to guidance, but it's a bit of a steep learning curve, and it's not going to happen overnight. I think at the moment BITE is applicable. Tyrenius 22:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello, this is Tonetare. This is an example of something Charleknight gave me as an argument on my talk page!

'Your edit was:

Leah Remini recently appeared on MTV Cribs, revealing her beautiful mansion and the fact that she is just as hilarious in real life as she is on her hit show. Leah has a sort of tough gal tomboyishness about her in real life, with a hilarious wit.

Let's say I saw the same show and decided to write:

Leah Remini recently appeared on MTV Cribs, revealing her over the top and vile mansion and the fact that she is a bit of a bitch, just as she is on her hit show. Leah has a sort of slutty needy vibe about her in real life, she is also very unfunny.'

If he saw anything wrong with what I said, this is not a fitting example. This example is obviously inappropriate. If he had a problem with what I said, he should have given a normal example. But based upon this poor example, he changes up the page anyhow.

Tonetare 23:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Below in are Charlesknight's edit summary remarks and beside them is what I have to say to each to back up my point. My point is that I feel most irritated about is that Charlesknight knows very little about this subject, yet has the audacity to make so many rude comments on it that are actually wrong due to the fact he knows so little about it. What made him do this was to go into my history and just pick the thing I had worked most on. He didn't say to himself, is this something I've seen before? I believe that if you HAVE to make so many rude remarks and so many comments about something, you have to know at least a couple things about it. Charlesknight knew nothing about this as he admitted, yet rudely questioned everything I did. see below for examples.

Charlesknight : How can someone be both a former enemy AND a lifelong friends? - removed - Tonetare : This is Charlesknight's big mistake. If you go to the page, you will see that he didn't even read the page correctly. I wrote longtime friends, not lifelong friends. I'd expect a good editor to read carefully especially if his style is to make an abrupt comment about it and then abruptly remove it.

Charlesknight's edit summary remarks : copyedit - more awful stuff - just produce wikiquotes for this material.) Copyedit - frankly I'm of the view that this article should just be completely deleted. - Tonetare : Charlesknight does not back this edit up. He merely insults the whole article and erases the information.

Charlesknight - this article is so poorly written that it might be better to remove virtually all of the content and start from scratch. - Tonetare : Charlesknight makes no reference in this edit summary as to why he made this comment or furthermore this edit. He makes a general comment that the ENTIRE article is bad and makes the edit. That is totally irrelevant to the edit. If he wants to give an edit summary, he needs to give proper reasoning for the particular edit. Not this whole page is bad and then making the edit.

Charlesknight's edit : removing, that's not what I'd call an "accomplishment" - Tonetare : by the way overcoming a fear of water is an accomplishment as well as winning your first challenge. Once again, he didn’t watch the show however. Charlesknight basis this on opinion. He doesn't take it to the user talk page to be talked over. He basis it on an opinion and gets rid of it

Charlesknight's edit : rv as this article does need some work doing on it -Tonetare : He has mentioned this a tedious amount of times, and also gives no reason for the edit. Just an insult to the article

Charlesknight : rv as this article does need some work doing on it - Tonetare : Once again, Charlesknight does not provide adequate reasoning for the edit, but merely criticizes the page

Charlesknight : Reads a bit like a PR piece and the other problem is some of the language seems to head towards libel. - Tonetare : This was a comment in reference to Coral’s attitude toward the competition I worded as belligerent as is accurate. If you go on Tina Barta's page, it refers to her as a bitch. I worded it much less offensively and more accurately. It was misrespresented by him as libel which is a very strong and incorrect accusation. Once again, this user is making judgements toward a show he has never watched. He doesn't even know Coral as he has mentioned several times.

Charlesknight : Personal Info - removed reference to DVD - does not add anything to the article. - Tonetare : What Charlesknight has said here is very poorly explained. It doesn’t add anything to the article is what he has said. What doesn’t he feel it doesn’t add to the article and why? His comments don't give any reasoning behind his edits yet he immediately gets rid of the information. Another example of how poor his edits and edit summaries are.

Charlesknight : Removed recent challenge material - it would make no sense at all to someone who has never seen the show - Tonetare : Once again, as charlesknight has never seen this show, he is going on no knowledge of it. This show doesn't repeat it self. They keep making new ones throughout the year. It hasn't repeated it self ever since it came out and it has been on the air for 6 years. This is yet another reason why he cannot just go into anyone’s history and just start making so many edits, especially disrespectful ones, on something he knows absolutely nothing about. He should stick to editing things he knows something about. He’s already asked a bunch of questions on the talk page of Coral Smith

Charlesknight : removed reference to "bad girl" - does that means she does not eat her greens? - Tonetare : This right here just comes off as a very smart aleck remark from Charlesknight and isn't respectful. I had actually put the reason she was considered a bad girl but someone erased it so he was disrespectful toward another user. Maybe my reasoning should have stayed in there. Still and all, this is something he seems to question yet erases it and words it in a smart aleck manner. If you question something, you shouldn't go ahead and move it. You should at least talk about it on the talk page and be respectful. If something doesn't make sense to Charlesknight, no arguments, he'll just remove it with a rude remark like the one up above.

- Charlesknight This article is a terrible mess. I've tried a copyedit but I will soon reach the limits of what I can do because I have never seen this show. - Tonetare : Here he admits to not ever even seeing the show yet he's made a number of criticisms as to the accuracy of the information and how bad everything is.

Someone whose called a good editor as this user by administrator Tyrenius, should know enough not to make so many edits and rude remarks on a subject he knows nothing about. I came here because this user is very stubborn and it would become an edit war if I took it up with him as he is extremely rude with me. Tonetare 23:54, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Charles, Tonetare obviously wants to engage in more dialogue with you over these edits, and I wonder if you'd be prepared to do this on the talk pages of the relevant articles, to reach an accommodation that satisfies all of the aspects involved? Tyrenius 00:03, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Even though I've just said this would become a long edit war as I have dealt with this user, this is the comment I receive back from the administrator I dealt with in the situation. As you can see the administrator I dealt with in this matter won't take in regard my arguments, but rather dismisses with words like "obviously" and "dialogue". This is partly why I am upset with the administrator I had the displeasure of dealing with as well. The administrator's negligent behavior and not caring about my reasoning has just been shown. I spent a great deal of my time preparing specifically what has bothered me about this user and his behavior so everyone could clearly understand where I am coming from which is something I feel I should be applauded for. Yet, the whole thing is dismissed as dialogue by the administrator I dealt with and treated as nonsense. This is why I am very upset. Tyrenius has blatantly ignored my remarks when I politely came to him for help when I went to him. He did not bother to see where I was coming from as has just been displayed, and merely backed himself up by saying Charlesknight is a great editor and ended the conversation earlier this week. Now, even though I have been polite and nice to Tyrenius so me and him could have a nice relationship, he's got involved and made an unnecessary comment as he is no longer involved in the matter. This is why I am so frustrated. Thank you! Tonetare 00:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Eagle 101/WikiVoter

What is up with this? Is it so onerous to require a person who wants to actually contribute to AfD to actually go to the article in question, read it, click on the link to the AfD and edit that? This is just too obviously an end run around actually performing due diligence towards the deletion discussion process. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Something just feels wrong about this tool. I can't quite put my finger on it either. Maybe it's an automated form of canvassing? —ptk✰fgs 03:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Knowing the people associated with this, there is no ill will involved. —Centrx→talk • 03:10, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Idea: try it, see if you like it. Bear in mind that it's a work in progress, and that changes can be made. I can certainly understand why you're concerned, and I sincerely appreciate that you're looking out for the best interests of Wikipedia... but to be perfectly honest, having used it some, I don't see any potential for abuse that wasn't already inherent to the entire AfD system. Users with fewer than 250 edits can't use the program (requirements can be changed/developed, if necessary). Sockpuppetry will still be just as easy to catch. Obviously uninformed or misinformed votes will still be ignored, just as they always have. A team of WikiVoter moderators will be available to respond to any complaints of misuse, and will be able to ban users from using the program if necessary. If this doesn't address your concerns, please let me know of any concrete problems or potentials for abuse, so that they might be resolved or improved. Please try WikiVoter and see what it does, before you decide, that's all I ask. Luna Santin 03:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I've used this software a bit and find it useful for doing all the things Zoe describes. It's current version allows the user to access the article, the AfD nomination and outside search engines by clicking on different tabs. It makes informing oneself on the relevant issues easier and (in my opinion) encourages editors to do due diligence. I guess I could see how it could be abused, as the voting feature would make it easy to just go through and vote to keep (or delete) every article, but I haven't seen any evidence that that is happening. Of course, I could be missing something. JChap2007 04:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

It certainly makes it easy to do the things it does. But the real issue is whether doing only these things can lead to a good contribution to a debate. Too many people rely only on "the Google test" when "voting" (they should be discussing) on the article at hand; I would suggest that having these built into a program would diminish the amount of actual research or investigation that people do into a topic before contributing to the debate. So it certainly makes certain tasks easier, but we should be asking whether they are actually behaviours we want to facilitate. --bainer (talk) 13:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I tried using it a bit and it makes it incredibly easy to get a crapload of "quality RFA" edits without even thinking. Just scan down the list of RFAs for each day, look at the ones that have a high percentage one way or the other, and just pile on. Along with VandalProof, AWB, and other such programs we're reaching the point where anyone can get the "required number" of edits to meet most people's minimums at RFA. Also, this has really steadied me in my resolve to ignore numbers on either side and just look at the reasonings. The inconvience of "voting" in AFD has become so low nowadays that you just see a bunch of people saying "Keep" or "Delete" without any reasoning whatsoever. I think we do need some sort of change to the process, like a policy that allows us to just strikethrough "votes" with no reasoning. --Cyde Weys 04:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Any tool can also be abused. If a fellow were to smash a man's head in with a hammer, do we blame the hammer, saying "it made it easier for the fellow to cause the damage?" This program's usefulness far outweighs any potential abuses; abuses which can be dealt with as they arise. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 05:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I listed this for MfD, and User:Tawker speedy closed it inappropriately. I reverted his close, he re-reverted, so I have listed it at WP:DRV. Let the discussion run its course, Tawker is harrassing me for my contribution at Eagle 101's RfA page, he seems to have a vested interest in keeping this open and Eagle 101 an admin. User:Zoe|(talk) 05:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Am I the only person who finds it toally ironic that we're "voting" on this -- I thought that was what we were trying to avoid. I speedy closed because if we went thru this we'd have to list every single javascript on this site and then some, it's pandora's box. It was in the user space for goodness sakes, looking at the rationales listed there was no reason to keep it over. The MfD could easily be considered making a point and therefore was closed. As for my so called Vested interest... ok, I'm vested in trying to keep this site going, I'm guilty of a horrible crime... I need to be shot :o -- Tawker 06:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Well since Zoe is not complaining against deletion debates including a vote element, then no I can't see the irony. The general tone here seems out of line, I'm sure Zoe also strongly believes that she is doing the right thing to keep this site going, you don't have exclusivity on that. You'll have to let me know which point was being made to make it an early close, since it isn't immediately obvious to me. Regardless of the worth or otherwise of the software/page (noting we can't stop the software existing and being used by removing the page), I can't see why an MFD couldn't have been let run longer than 1.5 hours. --pgk^(talk) 06:49, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I might give it a try myself, it'll allow me to quickly scout out some AfDs with inadequate participation. As to the detail, does anybody rely solely on the Google test? The point of the Google test is that it is a rough-and-ready guide to significance; zero Googles is usually a sign that there is a problem. Just zis Guy you know? 13:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I've seen the Google test misused, such as here, with some people claiming the sexual slang term is more notable than the Senator based solely on Google results. Powers ^T 13:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

That could have just as easily been a mistake or typo. Its not off by much if you loo at the numbers. (real results 22,900 - mistake 23,700). SynergeticMaggot 16:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Google can never decide how many pages it has, two searches same term 10s apart can return radically different numbers. Don't ask why or how but it does. The Google test on something non notable is usually pretty good though -- Tawker 19:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Myself

Hello,

I made a mistake and deleted warning messages from my talk page. user:Brat32 has subsequently given me three warnings without actually indicating what policy I was violating. He finally did it on his own talk page, after he gave me a third warning. Is this appropriate? Significantly, he's citing me for removing a warning about a change I made to a page that was subsequently reimplemented by the reverter (reverting the reversion). 132.205.93.88 04:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi and welcome to Wikipedia! I looked into the situation and thought that your edits were made in good faith and User:Brat32 was just a bit quick to jump the gun in warning you. I left a message on his talk page to the effect that I believed you were acting in good faith and that he should remove the warnings he left you, as his understanding of the guidline in regards to not biting the newcomers seems to be lacking a bit. I hope this will clear things up and that you will continue to edit Wikipedia, as you're certainly welcome to! Cheers hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 04:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

A request that an admin mentor someone

At this point, with mediation being a bust and the same problems still occurring, I'm making the plea that someone with the knowledge, ability and patience to do so while not being involved in the recent wikidrama caused by the last few days offer to mentor User:SynergeticMaggot on many of our various processes. If he wants to help, that's excellent, but he is in need of some direction, and seems to only think the direction that's warranted would come from this segment of Wiki society. Please help out. Thanks. --Badlydrawnjeff 11:22, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Would you like a mentor? Having looked at your talk page I notice that your recent actions have upset quite a lot of editors. --Tony Sidaway 12:11, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not convinced I need one. You've upset more people than I could even be capable of, do you need one? If you're not offering, then please stand aside for someone who might, and if people who weren't involved in the issue (and you were, Tony) aren't willing, then we'll explore other options at that time. No need to spin the topic around to draw attention away from the issue.--badlydrawnjeff talk 12:13, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

It's just not clear how we go from two-party mediation to one party "volunteering" the other for mentoring. (or, if that really is a logical step, then volunteering the other way seems equally logical) --Interiot 12:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

It's me trying to avoid taking steps that would otherwise be drastic. I want to see this editor be productive, especially since his motives are otherwise noble, but that he's not doing it the right way. He's said he doesn't accept the criticism from non-admins, so let's see if he'll take some coaching from those he claims to accept. That's all. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Normally we'd consider a mentor if a person's actions were disruptive. Jeff seems to have a problem with rather a lot of SynergeticMaggot's closes, but looking closely at those closes I don't see a problem--most of them were obvious keeps and that user did an excellent job, overall, of helping us to catch up with our sizable AfD backlog. I don't see any justification for Jeff's request except a wish to score points of a user with whom he has an unrasolved dispute. --Tony Sidaway 12:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

This is probably the most farcical request I can think of. Jeff is not contesting the outcome of the closes, only the speed. Why? Why bother bogging down an overloaded process just so we can say we waited five days before keeping something, when the result was obvious after one? Fuck process. Just zis Guy you know? 13:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way, JzG. If this is how you feel, where have you been at speedy keep when I was trying to adjust things? Will you be okay when someone says "Fuck process" while trying to keep libel on a talk page? I think the lines are clearly dranw on these issues for a reason, and we have a very simple way to solve these issues if our processes don't currently work within them, and it doesn't involve ignoring them. --13:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

No, Jeff, because WP:V and WP:NPOV are policy not process, and that's what underpins the guideline WP:BLP which allows removal of libel. Have you really not noticed the amount of crap which has been thrown at me for policing that particular edict? There is, to a good first approximation, no connection between that and the closure of an unambiguous keep on a verifiable geographical location. Process is your enemy, policy is your friend. And here I mean you, specifically. Check out Tony's past closures of AfDs and DRVs. Just zis Guy you know? 01:32, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Can someone archive this now? Its clearly a waste of time. Oh and close it per SNOW. SynergeticMaggot 17:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

That was sarcasm by the way. SynergeticMaggot 18:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Spam-a-rama

See this list [11] of links to chabad.org, a polemical website. Many of these links are inappropriate (in Christian topics, for example, where the Hasidic view is not really relevant). I am not sure what to do about this. Hundreds of links always lights up the spam radar. Just zis Guy you know? 12:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Zap the lot of them, and enjoy it! --kingboyk 12:43, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

First of all it is not a polemical website. It is one of the largest Jewish websites out there. Each link is an important resource which belongs there under WP:EL. An example of a link which he removed is this link from the Psalms article, which is the Judaica Press (Non-Hasidic) translation with the commentary of Rashi. I have restored those links. Which christian topics does it have links by? I could not find any. The Problem of evil which you removed a link [12] is applicable in Judaism as well. etc.--PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 12:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Do you deny that it carries heavily politicised pro-Israeli editorial content, then? Just zis Guy you know? 13:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

It has a few article which are very pro-Israel, but that is to be expected from a Jewish site. In fact every Jewish site out there has pro-Israel articles, are we going to start removing links to all of them? The links that are in the articles are to specific sections of the site that deal with the content of that article. For example in the Psalms article it links to the transalation and commentary of Psalms, not to any Israel related content. The Israel content is a tiny fraction of a percent of the site. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 13:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC) In addition its Pro-Israel articles focus less on politics and more on prayer, charity, and good deeds. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 13:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Do you deny that it carries heavily politicised pro-Israeli editorial content, then? And the translation with commentary is indeed problematic, as is the fact that the copyright status of the commentary is somewhat unclear, and the fact that it is surrounded by adverts selling off the page (see the shopping cart icon?). Oh, and the text "at chabad.org" is weblinked not internally linked. Just zis Guy you know? 13:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

About the Pro-Israel content see above. Why is a third party commentary Rashi problamatic? There is no problem with copyright. You can write to Judaica Press to ask them. and a small advert on the side offering someone to buy a hard copy is quite reasonable when you are making the entire copy available online for free. I don't know, but perhaps Judaica Press asked them to place a link there as part of the agreement. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 13:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Chabad-Lubavitch is a popular and well-known Jewish movement, and chabad.org is a popular Jewish website - for example, it gets an Alexa ranking of 10,786, significantly higher than other popular sites about Judaism like askmoses.com (15,200), aish.com (15,930), ou.org (66,439), and jewfaq.org (68,141). I daresay it is the most popular site about Judaism on the internet. The fact that it carries a small amount of material about Israel is almost inevitable (just about every Jewish site does), though it's not clear what makes this content "heavily politicised". In any event, most of the links appear to be not to content that has anything to do with Israel at all, but rather to relevant pages on Jewish thought on various topics. In particular it's hard to imagine what is objectionable about the links to Jewish translations of various books of the Bible, along with Rashi's commentary. The Judaica Press translation is generally recognized as one of the most scholarly Jewish translations (it's not a translation done by Chabad, btw), and Rashi is the pre-eminent Jewish commentator - observant Jews almost never read the Bible without using his commentary. All in all, these links are a rather valuable service provided to the Wikipedia reader. Oh, and regarding "copyright" issues, Rashi wrote the commentary in Hebrew in the 11th century, so I suspect his copyright has expired at this point. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm with Jay on this one. That said, the chabad.org site does not in every single instance represent the mainstream Orthodox Jewish viewpoint. In those cases, alternatives may need to be sought. But I don't support blanket removal of all links simply because an editor (an admin in good standing) once added them many months ago. JFW | T@lk 22:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

User:TruthbringerToronto and page deletions

I just wanted to make a note of this user and their usage of removing of deletion templates/opposing pretty much any deletion request. This user keeps removing speedy delete templates on grounds such as "possibly notable" or removes them and adds stub tags to articles or an external link while not expanding the article. The articles themselves still maintain no sense of notability but the user believes that by adding stub tags it makes them notable.

Contributions here: [13]

More specific examples are available at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/TruthbringerToronto#Oppose

I was wondering what the administration view of this seemingly willingness to save any article? --- Lid 13:13, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Anyone can challenge speedy deletion or WP:PROD. If deletion is challenged, take it to AfD. Yes, uncritical inclusionists are a bore, but sometimes they are right and the cost to the encyclopaedia of thinking about a deletion rather than just doing it is relatively small. Once at AfD the articles will either be rapidly fixed up or nuked, either is acceptable. Just zis Guy you know? 13:22, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

TruthbringerToronto typically expands or sources the articles that he removes speedies from, which is very useful. I hope he continues: he helps us not delete notable topics and his research can only improve the quality of an eventual AfD discussion about the articles. Kusma (討論) 13:37, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I took a look at TruthbringerToronto's contributions and it seems like he's saved a lot of valid articles from being deleted. Some of the users who originally posted the CSD tags on some of the articles acted rather hastily (he recently removed CSD tags from articles on an author with multiple published works, a professional basketball player, and a high school). hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 13:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments, now I have a view of the situation and the admins view. --- Lid 14:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Problem with French Main Page

Can someone please fix the French wikpedia welcome page. http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accueil

I get a message that it is trying to "download a file" onto my computer instead of opening the page as normal. It appears to be some kind of vandalism.

Thank you for your help. foros 14:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Not something that should be posted here. Try WP:VPT —Mets501 (talk) 15:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

anon page creation

Isn't it about time that this be restored? supposedly this was restricted in the first place to help cut down on page creation vandalism, which after about 2 or 3 days simply meant page creation vandals had to login to vandalize.. The only thing the current ban on anon page creation really helps to do, is make it almost impossible for anons to use things like AfD and other things that depend on page creation. If anything, this coupled with newer features like sprotection, anon only blocks, AntiVandalBots with "angry modes", and RC filters that target just anon edits, really hurts the anon friendliness that wikipedia had way back when. Couple that with the fact that Registered Users more and more getting the idea that anons don't matter anymore. Not to mention the recent trend of "RC Patrol" only accounts, who view anons as an obstacle to their RC patrolling. Not to mention, as anyone who has ever tried to run anti vandalism tools as an anon knows, many people would rather restore vandalism than fact that an anon with a high edit count isn't a vandal. Is there anyway that the page creation ban could be reexamined, maybe even lifted for a trial period?--172.130.227.58 16:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Three AFD's may have slipped through

Just a heads up that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manatee meat, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ModTheSims2, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bitweaver2 have all been open for seven days now while other AfDs around them have closed. They haven't been relisted for consenus or posted to in a while. Could an admin take a look and make a call (relist, no consenus, delete or keep)? Thanks --Brian ^{(How am I doing?)} 16:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Picture name

I don't know where to post this, so I'll do it here: The picture [14] should be renamed into something like "Hitler coloured movie shot" as the current title violates NPOV (in a non-serious but still annoying way) and the title alone helps to inflame tempers at the Hitler article. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 16:49, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, that image also contains a strange and unreferenced copyright status claim. It should probably be taken to Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images. It is very difficult for us to disprove that a photograph has been published, which seems to be what we're basing this claim upon. Jkelly 17:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The copyright issue gets slightly stranger too, it is acknowledged in the tag that movies and such get longer copyrights then the 50 years for photos... this is a... screenshot for lack of a better word, from a home movie filmed by Eva Braun. This should be deleted, then let DRV sort it out now that we can undelete images.-M^ask 00:37, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Username?

Does anyone else feel that Tess Tickle (talk · contribs) should be asked to pick a less sophomoric name? Just zis Guy you know? 18:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Blocked. Naconkantari 18:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Problematic Move

The correct name of the book at War (book): Opposing Viewpoints (2005) is War: Opposing Viewpoints; a request to move the article to War: Opposing Viewpoints was made on the talk page. However, war: is a language prefix (perhaps it was not a good idea to use a common word as a language prefix). So the question is, what's the best thing to do with this page? -- tariqabjotu 19:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Featured picture deleted

I feel the need to report this here, because it was a pretty significant action. I just had to deleted a featured picture, Image:Milopengtibet2.jpg, because its source reveals it to be licensed CC-BY-NC 2.0, i.e. noncommercial use only. User:Angr 20:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Darn, I liked that picture. :) Did it get uploaded with a fraudulent tag, or did nobody bother to check the page? --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 20:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Or was the license changed? Does Flickr have a facility for tracking changes to the license? —ptk✰fgs 21:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

AFAIK, Flickr has no facility for tracking changes to the license, so there's no way of knowing now whether the tag was correct at the time or not. But it is the case that at the time the picture was uploaded, and even at the time the picture was featured, it did not provide a link to the Flickr page. The source said merely "Photo by Milo Peng. Taken on September 13, 2005 / Tibet, Lake Yamdrok Tso" with no link. It wasn't until last week that someone finally noticed that isn't an adequate source and put {{nsd}} on it; then someone else found the Flickr page and listed it as the source; then someone else looked at the Flickr page again and changed the tag to CC-BY-NC 2.0, making it a speedy candidate. User:Angr 21:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Karl Meier banned from Islamophobia for three months

Under his probation in the case Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Irishpunktom, I have banned Karl Meier (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) from editing Islamophobia for three months because of his disruptive editing (his last eight edits, at least, were all reverts). The ban expires 22 November, 2006. --Tony Sidaway 22:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Wait a sec -- his last edit was August 15, six days before the RFA closed. Kinda ex-post-facto there. --jpgordon| 22:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

His disruptive editing didn't stop just because there was an arbitration case running. If you want to go into details, the motion was laid before the arbitration committee on 26 June and reached a majority on 29 July. Of Karl's latest four edits, in mid-August, two of them were reverts of non-vandalism on that article. He keeps blanking some polls that some other editors think should be there. --Tony Sidaway 22:43, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Regardless, invoking the arbcom decision to justify that ban doesn't seem proper. ArbCom did not decide to ban him from the article for his past actions, as far as I can tell. --Jpgordon 22:56, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Irishpunktom/Evidence#Reverts by Karl, notice that this article is in that list. You think he's stopped his tendentious ways? I don't. Just zis Guy you know? 23:00, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "past actions" here. All actions that we know of are past actions. If an editor has continually edit warred on an article, then it's reasonable to conjecture (in the absence of the power to see his future actions) that there is not likely to be a change. I also emphasize that the decision to place this editor on probation was made before the edits, and that the decision was made on the basis of what was known about his behavior at that time. The decision of the committee was obviously correct. Even so, knowing that he was to be placed on probation, Karl Meier contined to disrupt that article. --Tony Sidaway 23:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm a little confused here too. The page says the decision to place Karl on probation was "Passed 9 to 0 at 03:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)". The last edit was made August 15. How was the decision made before the edits? --Nscheffey^(T/C) 23:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Is the effective date of an ArbCom decision now when one of the articles in the decision has a majority vote of the arbitrators, or is it when the case is actually closed? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 23:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The decision was made on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Irishpunktom/Proposed decision. The decision was passed Monday when the closing arbitrator (Dmcdevit) performed an edit to transcribe the passed motions from that page to the main case page. In any case that's just nitpicking. Administrators have always been entitled to draw reasonable conjectures on Karl Meier's disruptive behavior, and plan to ameliorate it using their whatever powers are at their disposal. The availability of the new powers under Karl's probation simply makes it easier to handle such disruption. --Tony Sidaway 23:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

"Nitpicking"? Not at all. When is the effective date of an ArbCom decision? It's a crucial question. For example, a common ArbCom decision is "Jpgordon is banned from editing XYZ for six months...if he violates this ban, he's subject to being blocked". So now can someone reach back and block me because I edited it a week before the decision? --jpgordon 23:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict)This "made/passed" dichotomy seems needlessly unclear. The RfArb page clearly states when the motion was passed, and hence when Karl was placed on probation. Also, this is the same day Karl was notified he was under probation. It appears pretty straightforward that this is the day he was placed on probation, and not before, To ban him from a page based on previous actions is the definition of an ex post facto law, and I don't think pointing that out is "nitpicking". If Karl continues his behavior, by all means block him, but don't use his new probation status to punish his pre-probation behavior. Isn't the whole point of placing someone on probation to see if they continue the disputed actions? --Nscheffey 23:36, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

In that, this is ex-post-facto. Thing is that all the above arguments seem to be treating Wikipedia as some kind of procedural forum like a law court. Could somebody explain what the problem is? This guy was a problem editor before the case was brought, otherwise there would be no evidence. The remedy is now applicable and has been applied. --Tony Sidaway 00:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

The problem is your reasoning for the ban. You stated that you banned him "under his probation in the case...because of his disruptive editing." Since he was not on probation when he made those edits, this ban appears to be void of logic. --Nscheffey 00:43, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

He wasn't under probation, but he was still disrupting the article. Your objection seems excessively legalistic to me. --Tony Sidaway 00:52, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

From what I know of the history surrouding this issue User:Karl Meier's latest edits relative to the Islamophobia article stem primarily from new User:Deuterium's tendentious influence on it. As a long term editor on that article I should know. Even I have had to deal with this User:Deuterium's disruption there myself (User:Jacoplane would verfiy my statement about Deuterium as being true generally about him). I'm not going to try to act as a lawyer in Karl Meier's defense but I do agree with the ex-post-facto arguments of others. Although User:Karl Meier's last edits there haven't been in accord with the later agreed upon disruption clause of ArbCom's ruling he has made numerous beneficial edits to the article to which I commended him. (→Netscott) 01:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

What concerns me is that such editors who are seen as commendable for a while sometimes go off the rails and get into a revert cycle. They don't actually contribute to Wikipedia when they do thst, they make it a nasty place to edit in.

I've asked the Committee for clarification on whether the basis on which I made my decision to ban was appropriate. Of course if they agree with me there will still be the matter, which you have touched upon, of whether the ban is necessary. --Tony Sidaway 01:13, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Tony. (I have no opinion whatsoever regarding the ban itself, as I'm unfamiliar with the case; I was just trying to reduce the amount of ammo that we provide to people with authority problems.) --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 01:53, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

If you've got problems with me, bring it to me or take it to an RFC. Otherwise stop harassing me and making irrelevant personal attacks on pages that have nothing to do with me. Unlike Meier, I have often participated in the talk discussion and added content to that page such as the very poll in question, rather than just reverting constantly. And I am not on probation. Nor I am a "new user". I find your comments here evidence of bad faith and some kind of grudge against me. Deuterium 01:10, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Deuterium (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), one need only look at your block log and the recent history of your talk page as well as this section and this section or User:Jacoplane's talk page to verify what I've posted here about the tendentious nature of your editing. Even User:Pilotguy was reverting your deletion of User:Jacoplane's friendly counsels on your talk page. Your charge of harassment itself is tendentious. (→Netscott) 01:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Your block log is somewhat more full than mine, I have to say, and the issues on my talk page have long since been resolved satisfactorily to everyone except for you. I don't see what relevance all this has here.

This isn't about me, it's about User:Karl Meier, and the fact that you can't help to bring me up, despite the many other people who share my point of view on the Islamophobia page (BYT, HisExcellency, ABakharev) and have opposed Meier's reverting, is harassment and clear evidence of a personal grudge. Just let go of this fixation you seem to have on me and move on. I'm not responsible for what Meier chooses to do, no matter how much you wish it to be so. Deuterium 01:32, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Challenge of the GoBots

Due to various page move vandalism looks like we've lost the edit history to this page, can someone restore it please? Thanks. exolon 01:05, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Research Survey Request

Hello I'm a member of the research team at Palo Alto Research Center (formerly known as Xerox PARC) interested in understanding and characterizing conflict in Wikipedia. We are currently running a survey to better understand how expert Wikipedians characterize conflict and to get a "ground truth" on a representative set of articles. You can look at the preliminary results of our first survey in which we targeted members of the Mediation Cabal to get an idea of the kinds of questions we are interested in, and we are actively seeking feedback as to the kinds of research and tools that Wikipedians could find most useful in identifying and managing conflict.

We are now requesting the help of administrators to help characterize conflict in Wikipedia. Initially we targeted a randomly-selected (based on username) group of administrators and specifically asked them for help, but were informed that posting this request here would be a better solution. We have two surveys with different sets of articles; please choose one to complete (or both if you are feeling motivated). We will remove the link to a survey once we have enough completed responses to it.

http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.asp?u=272072498578

http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.asp?u=201962477432

The results of the survey will be incorporated into an academic paper that will be submitted to a peer-reviewed conference this fall (likely the CHI conference), and whose results will be freely available to any interested parties. A link to this publication will be posted on my user page.

Please note that we are not journalists or spammers but an established research institution with a strong track record of high-quality publications. Here are links to find out more about our team (the User Interface Research group) and our past research, including studies on characterizing the web.

Thank you for your time and consideration, and we look forward to hearing any comments or suggestions you might have. Parc wiki researcher 01:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

User page move

User:Lysten Syngatykc, who appears to be the same as User:Josh West, created a page at User:Josh west, but that user does not exist. I put up the "Josh west" page for CSD U2 at first. However, it seems appropriate that the page at User:Josh west be moved to User:Lysten Syngatykc who created it and has no user page, but I felt a little uncomfortable moving user pages. Gimmetrow 01:23, 23 August 2006 (UTC)