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

Important notice regarding fair use that all administrators should see

Moved to /Kat Walsh's statement to prevent the discussion from overwhelming this page.

Hesitation

I've left a notice at User talk:Pastorwayne, due to multiple situations, requests and comments, both in the past and present.

It would seem obvious he's well-meaning, but he's also apparently forcing his POV.

And even though he's been warned several times, he's continuing his disruptive creations.

To make it clear this is a history of many categories, over a period of months.

However, I hesitate to block. for a couple reasons:

1.) "How much is too much" could be considered subjective. (The cry of: "That's what WP:CfD is for...", rings in my ears.)

2.) I think this could set a precedent that could be abused, related to the above. ("You created x number of categories which went up for CfD, so now you're blocked.") - Though I honestly can't imagine an admin doing such a thing, I've been surprised in the past : )

3.) If blocking is appropriate, then we should probably discuss a community ban, since it's been an ongoing issue. (At least from methodist, or even christian-related categories.)

4.) I want to give some time after the warning.

Interested in others' thoughts.

PS - I don't think I would oppose a short block by another disinterested party.

- jc37 23:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

First off, that is a very good post you made on Pastorwayne's talk page.

To the issue at hand, I think you made a fair and valid warning. A block would only be appropriate if continued disruption occurs after the message, so that the user is prevented from misbehaving more while the discussion of appropriate action is undertaken. I don't see a block at the moment for preventative reasons- no dialogue+disruption= a day or two. Teke ^(talk) 04:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I am one of the people who has seeked administrative assistance regarding Pastorwayne. I read through jc37's comments, and I think he missed one key point. Some of the categories that Pastorwayne has recently created are effectively the recreation of deleted content, which is clearly disruptive. See the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 February 15#Category:Methodism in Ohio. This issue needs to be addressed. Dr. Submillimeter 08:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, rather than address my concerns, he created another category. He could have explained his reasoning behind the primate categories, but instead, seems to have ignored the warning and created another one. I think that he qualifies for a block based on at least the two following criteria on Wikipedia:Disruptive editing: "Is tendentious" and "Rejects community input". I think that this also brings us to step 5 at Wikipedia:Disruptive editing#Dealing with disruptive editors.

Based on that, I'm instituting a 24-hour block. I do welcome further comments on this. - jc37 15:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Also good block. Will give the user time to respond and re-think. Probably could have done with even shorter, or an unblock if they're willing to discuss. If no discussion and the same repeated problem editing repeats, then escalate the blocks. I've seen escalating blocks be very effective. Start with the minimum to mitigate the behavior and then increase as they continually repeat without improving. - Taxman ^Talk 17:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Pastorwayne appears to have circumvented the block. See the recent edit history of User:70.104.101.220. The user left a vote at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Samuel_Heistand that sounds very much like Pastorwayne. Moreover, the anonymous user started editing Mary Ann Swenson where Pastorwayne left off. Could someone investigate this further and take an appropriate course of action? Dr. Submillimeter 21:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

User:70.104.101.220

User:70.104.101.220 has a familiar tone of voice and seems to have become active just as PW was blocked. Could you see whether he is somewhere in Ohio? -- roundhouse 18:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe User:Pastorwayne has voted in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Samuel_Heistand as 70.104.101.220 while blocked. They both have an interest in Methodist bishops and sign “thanks”. I think he is an honest man who will not deny it if it is true. Over to you. - Kittybrewster 19:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I was going to ask about this myself. User:70.104.101.220 sounds very much like Pastorwayne in his vote at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Samuel_Heistand. Moreover, the anonymous user started editing Mary Ann Swenson where Pastorwayne left off. Could you please investigate further? Dr. Submillimeter 21:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it would seem rather obvious that this is User:Pastorwayne. If necessary I suppose that we could submit a checkuser request.

Taxman suggested escalating blocks. This is where I plead lack of experience. My understanding is that IP blocks are a bit more complex. Also, at this point, he seems to have stopped, so he may just be waiting out the 24 hour block. This probably justifies a notice, and perhaps an extension of the block? While I've read the various pages, I think I would rather err on the side of caution and ask someone more experienced in IP blocks, for suggestions. - jc37 07:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser requested Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser#Pastorwayne - Kittybrewster 13:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

User:70.104.101.220 is busy editing at the moment. (No categories created yet, but there is an addition to a primate category ...). -- roundhouse 14:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

And now Pastorwayne is back as himself, and has already created the 'useful and appropriate' category Category:Burials at sea, with 1 occupant, a deceased bishop. -- roundhouse 21:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Just as well it wasnt a living bishop. I have added a few souls. I still think it merits a seven day block for him and user 70. - Kittybrewster 22:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Interesting process certainly. He + his alter egos are edging towards the top of the checkuser list ... -- roundhouse 23:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

QUOTE:

• Pastorwayne (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 70.104.101.220 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• User44130 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Possible block evasion by

as set out at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#User:70.104.101.220 - Kittybrewster 13:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Please check User44130 at the same time - cf this deletion of a clone of a clone of a deleted page. -- roundhouse 14:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

 Confirmed, but User44130 has nothing to check -- no contributions other than to that of the deleted article, and that leaves no tracks checkuser can follow. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Request 7 day block

User:Pastorwayne and User:70.104.101.220 and User:User44130 - Kittybrewster 04:12, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

At least 7 days. -- roundhouse 04:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Let's wait the result of the checkuser, since it was requested. - jc37 10:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Might I suggest blocking PW pending the result of checkuser, and keeping an eye on User:70.104.101.220 and User:User44130 in the meantime? (The evidence is surely 99.9%. I am supposing that contributing anonymously while blocked is discouraged.) And then PW created a cfd-able category at once on his return anyway ... how much rope is he going to get? -- roundhouse 14:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

It is now confirmed. So how long is he going to be blocked for? Tendentious disruptive editing + block evasion + sock-puppetry. - Kittybrewster 19:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Pastorwayne - Guilty as charged. - Kittybrewster 19:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

So at this point, he sidesteeped his block by editing anonomously, and is still creating categories without discussion, regardless of the concerns of other Wikipedians. Again, I would like to clarify: From what I can see, this isn't simply a single dispute between User:Pastorwayne and a handful of users. These involve a fair number of categories (and articles, apparently) over several months time.

Since the previous block has expired, we can't extend it, but I think we can start over.

My intention is to block him for 24 hours (effectively restart the block which he evaded), and explain why on his talk page.

In addition, I'd like to suggest that he be placed on at least a one month probation, during which he cannot create any categories. Doing so should extend the probation, such categories should be speedily deleted, and any further blocks or whatever else, determined at that point.

I'd like some input from other admins about probation and how to handle it. I've seen it used here before, but any additional insight would be welcome. - jc37 16:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I suggest (1) that he be invited not to creat fresh categories without first mooting them on his talk page. From the responses he gets he may learn what is deemed reasonable and what is not and why. (2) that this happen for two months - Kittybrewster 17:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

After doing some reading, and giving this some more thought, I think that the best next course of action would be for one of you to start an RfC concerning pastorwayne's category creations/inclusions. I would prefer that it not be posted until after he in unblocked, however, out of fairness, giving him full opportunity to respond. While the block may have been justified, I think that for further action, dispute resolution should be followed if possible. Though if he continues to be disruptive, or attempt to evade the current block, other measures may also be necessary. - jc37 21:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Introducing the deletion "bots"

Some Wikipedians seem to have a profoundly negative reaction to the idea of adminbots. Curps operated the only "approved" adminbot in our history, and that approval is somewhat questionable since in addition to the widely known pagemove preventing functions, Curps also quietly added functions to block vandals and bad usernames. The response of the community to automating admin functions has been so poor in fact that, like Curps, many bots and bot-like tools get built and deployed in secret with little or no community oversight.

Personally, I like the idea of admin bots. There are a variety of places where they could be useful, such as deleting orphaned fair use images older than 7 days (CSD I5). Done well, they could perform repetitive tasks with greater care than real admins often do. To use the orphaned fair use example, they could a) verify that the image is an orphan, b) check the history to ensure the tag is at least 7 days old, c) check the histories to make sure no comments (that might be challenging the deletion) have been posted to either the image description or the talk page, and d) post a note to the uploader's talk page to explain the deletion.

However, we don't do these things well. Rather we do them in near total secrecy, and both deleting and blocking bots are run on Wikipedia with no transparency or openness.

What follows is meant to address the deletion part of that. I ran an analysis of a database dump of our log files looking for unusual deletion patterns, and will report my results here. I am not doing so because I want to get anyone in trouble, but rather because I believe the secret use of highly automated deletion tools is bad for Wikipedia, and it is time these things came into the light.

After experimenting with some different approaches, I found one particular diagnostic to be especially useful. This I have defined as a "run", which for the purposes of the analysis below means at least 100 consecutive deletions each separated by no more than 1 minute. Of the 1097 admins who had made at least 1 deletion in the log, 95.4% have 0 runs. 2.9% have 1-2 runs, 0.3% have 3-4 runs, and the remaining 15 individuals (1.4%) have 5 or more runs. Now, deleting 100 items at a rate of 1 per minute is not an impossible feat to do by hand, and I certainly suspect that some people have done it by hand. However, some of those highest 15, shown below, have done it dozens of times and at very high speeds (typically only several seconds per item). It is this pattern of repeated, long sets of deletions occurring at high rates that I am using as a qualitative indicator of bot-like activity.

	Total Deletions (rank)	# of runs	Fastest 100 deletions	Longest run	Longest semi-run
Gurch log	36410 (2)	43 runs	259s	3.46 hrs for 3343 dels (3.7s each)	20.05 hrs for 10740 dels (6.7s each)
Mailer diablo log	35501 (3)	5 runs	478s	0.19 hrs for 126 dels (5.4s each)	8.05 hrs for 1510 dels (19.2s each)
Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh log	29029 (5)	14 runs	164s	0.1 hrs for 135 dels (2.7s each)	10.82 hrs for 1862 dels (20.9s each)
JesseW log	26809 (8)	96 runs	96s	0.59 hrs for 1136 dels (1.9s each)	8.92 hrs for 1468 dels (21.9s each)
Fang Aili log	21193 (11)	7 runs	1048s	0.44 hrs for 141 dels (11.2s each)	10.51 hrs for 964 dels (39.2s each)
Mushroom log	18235 (13)	10 runs	510s	0.74 hrs for 393 dels (6.8s each)	15.66 hrs for 2368 dels (23.8s each)
Kungfuadam log	14998 (16)	9 runs	179s	0.14 hrs for 203 dels (2.4s each)	5.76 hrs for 2206 dels (9.4s each)
Naconkantari log	14963 (17)	37 runs	62s	0.36 hrs for 650 dels (2.0s each)	1.73 hrs for 2386 dels (2.6s each)
Misza13 log	11605 (26)	24 runs	147s	3.28 hrs for 2302 dels (5.1s each)	8.06 hrs for 4449 dels (6.5s each)
Bluemoose log	10605 (30)	13 runs	281s	1.69 hrs for 986 dels (6.2s each)	3.42 hrs for 2388 dels (5.2s each)
Blnguyen log	8123 (42)	9 runs	515s	0.3 hrs for 191 dels (5.7s each)	1.09 hrs for 589 dels (6.7s each)
Marudubshinki log	4756 (75)	5 runs	207s	0.28 hrs for 319 dels (3.2s each)	0.3 hrs for 320 dels (3.4s each)
Betacommand log	3511 (112)	7 runs	136s	0.22 hrs for 429 dels (1.9s each)	2.22 hrs for 1595 dels (5.0s each)
AmiDaniel log	2575 (155)	5 runs	894s	0.61 hrs for 216 dels (10.1s each)	3.06 hrs for 520 dels (21.2s each)
RexNL log	2009 (189)	5 runs	613s	0.28 hrs for 151 dels (6.7s each)	1.11 hrs for 360 dels (11.1s each)

Footnotes

• Total deletions is the number of logged deletions an account has performed through February 6th, 2007. The rank is where the account sits in the list of all-time most deletions. It is worth noting that 9 of the top 20 deleters in fact have 0 runs.
• "# of runs" is the total number of runs detected. As above, a "run" is defined by the consecutive deletion of 100 or more items with no breaks longer than 1 minute.
• "Fastest 100 deletions" is the shortest length of time in which the person was able to delete 100 items. This can happen at any point within a run.
• "Longest run" is the run with the highest number of total deletions.
• "Longest semi-run" is the most deletions detected at an average rate of greater than 1 deletion per minute, but pauses of up to 2 hours were allowed within a "semi-run" (provided the average rate including the pause was still greater than 1 per minute).
• For all of these, deletions of old revisions of images where excluded from statistics. This is because "deleting all revisions" of an image produces multiple log entries for a single action, and if these had been included it would have skewed results.
• User:Marudubshinki was desysopped by ArbCom for bot and other abuses.
• User:Gurch, User:Naconkantari, and User:Bluemoose are no longer active on Wikipedia.

There once was a time when prolonged, rapid-fire editing was the definition of a bot (regardless of how it was accomplished). Now WP:BOT is more circumspect so that if every action is "approved" by a human then perhaps it isn't really a "bot". In discussion with several of the people above, it seems this line is pretty blurry. Some are using "bots" in the sense that they instruct their computer to delete everything in category:X and the computer does so without further intervention. Some are using semi-automatic tools (such as [1]) that allow an admin to reduce the bothersome process of emptying out a category to one click per item (without needing to ever open the item to look at it). At least one of the people above even claims to be able to do the activities shown all by hand. Rather the detailing what I know (or have inferred) about each case, I am rather going to invite these people to explain their own methods.

Highly automated deletion tools can be problematic for a variety of reasons. For example, a semi-automatic tool created problems a while ago when it was used to empty out images marked as Fair Use Replaceable without checking if {{replaceable fair use disputed}} had been added, and hence the disputes went ignored. Similarly, I would note that some people using such tools appear to have been deleting old WP:PRODs, which certainly goes against the spirit that at least two people will look at the item and agree that it should be deleted. Regardless of how it is accomplished, any process that reduces deletion to a few seconds per item is not engaged in any meaningful sort of review. That may be okay in some cases, but we ought to discuss which cases those are.

I don't have anything against adminbots and highly automated tools, in general, and in fact would like to see their use increased. However, having such tools operate in secret is begging for problems as it means that there is no oversight in their design or their application. That is why I am posting this here. I don't want to get any of the above users in trouble, but I do think that we as a community need to confront the fact that automation is useful for dealing with the ever growing deletion backlogs, and talk about the best way to do that, rather than having individuals simply apply automation in secret. Dragons flight 20:43, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Discussion of deletion "bots"

There is problem if there is a rule against bot use and it is detected that that rule is being broken. There is a problem if someone does something that hurts wikipeia and they are allowed to get away with it with the excuse that it wasn't them but that it was a bot. I see no problem with an editor using an detected bot if that editor takes full responsibility for anything that goes wrong, including being discovered using an unpermitted bot. If we can't tell its a bot and its doing no harm, what's the problem? Some people are very bot like. Bot like editing is no cause for alarm. WAS 4.250 21:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• Bots? Sure? If I chose to simply ignore those which are not immediately self-evident, I could easily rack up a hundred deletions in no time at all when the CSD backlog gets up to 300 or more. Deletion summaries? Guy (Help!) 22:44, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
  • You, JzG, have never strung together more than 40 deletions without a 1 minute pause, and your personal best for 100 deletions is over 13 minutes (compare with under 3 minutes for some of those above). Yep. All by hand, no doubt. Feel free to look through the logs yourself, but you will find long runs of very uniform summaries. Dragons flight 23:24, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Maybe this seems obvious, but I'm not sure I understand. How are "runs" of less than a half an hour evidence of bot deletions? Can't just about anyone maintain a fast deletion pace for a half an hour? That seems plausible to me. Firsfron of Ronchester 23:29, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Says someone else with 0 runs ;-). And when you do 1100 deletions in that half an hour? Yes, with the right aids, just about anyone could do deletions at the rate of twenty per minute and string hundreds together. That doesn't mean that having admins acting like bots is a good thing. Dragons flight 23:53, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
        • Yeah, well, I freely admit I'm slow at deleting, even at CSD. I'm automatically assuming people are faster than me because I know I'm slow, and I get bored easily. My mind starts wandering... Anyway, thanks for the reply. Firsfron of Ronchester 00:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
    • [EC] That is because when I get to a tricky one I stop and work it out, or AfD it or whatever. If I simply closed it and moved on to the next unambiguous one... Guy (Help!) 23:31, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Javascript will do the trick nicely. I have used that for WikiProject tagging which speedied things up from an already fast cut&paste action in Firefox tabbed browser windows. Agathoclea 23:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Yup. And if I was apply to just accept that images in the "unsourced for over 7 days" category were unambiguously deletable, I'd be able to match that, because the deletion summaries would all be the same. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JzG (talk • contribs) 23:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC).
        • And then you would be a "bot", in the sense I intended, because you were deleting things without thought simply because a category told you to. Dragons flight 23:40, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
          • Absolutely not. I would be a human admin rapidly knocking off the easy ones and going back to the hard cases later. Which is not how I work, I go through alphabetical blocks. But others do it differently, assuming good faith of the taggers. I think we wait until we get input from the admins concerned. Guy (Help!) 23:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
            • To clarify, I know some people are deleting things from those categories without ever even opening the image description page to see if there even is a source claim, etc (because they have admitted as much to me). Doing that kind of thing turns an admin into a bot. Dragons flight 00:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
              • You know? Really? Which ones? Guy (Help!) 00:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
                • Indeed, DF, that raises a completely separate question. It would be possible to peruse the image pages thoroughly and still delete at, theoretically, any rate of speed at all, if you did the analysis first (this is how I do it, though since I rely solely on Firefox tabs I still can't get very fast). But if admins are skipping that stage, that's not so great (depending on which category we're talking about), but it won't be reflected in the rate of deletion. Chick Bowen 00:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
                  • Everyone I know has already been invited to the party, though none have commented so far. I suspect the urge to cut corners is strongly correlated with an urge to delete really, really fast. Whether or not that is really true, most of the people I know of who have admitted cutting corners in the past, said so during off-wiki discussions prompted by this analysis (over the previous several weeks), so they are certainly correlated in my sample. (Which is not to say that high speed deletion, necessarily requires cutting corners, or that everyone above necessarily did so. But let's wait for their direct input.) Dragons flight 01:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Do note that it is simple to inspect each in a list of pages and then "automatically" delete them all using the Jude tool. The deletions would appear to be "automated"—they would not be by hand, they would have uniform edit summaries and be done in uniform time period—but the pages themselves would have been checked. It would be useful to have an AWB-like tool that shows a page alongside its page history and allows quick deletion with a pre-selected summary. —Centrx→talk • 23:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Please note: Marudubshinski was not desysopped for running a bot through his admin account; he was desysopped for a pattern of behavior that included various levels of bot abuse but also unblocking himself and sockpuppetry. There has never been anything close to consensus that running a deletion bot, if done conscientiously, should lead to desysopping. Chick Bowen 23:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Betacommand did not use a bot. He used a script developed by GeorgeMoney, the same script used by a handful of other administrators. The process they take, when doing it responsibly at least, is to go through the backlog, remove the ones that should stay skipping over bad ones, then use the script to remove all the pages that DO need deleted all at once. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 23:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Looks like Diablo is trying to beat Gurch's record. :-) Anyway, could we use the deletion bot in order to delete the WoW and the Brian Peppers' Day redirects, once they are created? I remember one time, there was a vandal who struck 50 or so pages. It took a really long time to move those pages back and delete the redirects. Real96 00:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Interesting stats. What about NawlinWiki? He puts up staggering deletion numbers, but is pretty evidently not doing a bot, since most of his tasks require human judgment. He'd be an interesting look at what an ultra-active human looks like in these kinds of statistics. --W.marsh 01:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

NawlinWiki log

36602 (1)

0 runs

1076s

0.5 hrs for 98 dels (18.4s each)

9.42 hrs for 931 dels (36.4s each)

Per request, though Nawlin is certainly not quite "normal" either. Dragons flight 01:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

How is NawlinWiki's deletion log so different from Fang Aili's, shown above? Both had long runs (in FA's case, 10.51 hrs for 964 dels (39.2s each), in NW's case 9.42 hrs for 931 dels (36.4s each)). For the record, I cannot imagine spending nine or ten hours a day deleting, but that's a personal preference... Firsfron of Ronchester 02:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

It makes a lot of sense that you'd see a similarity... they are (as far as I know) the two most active people at doing CAT:CSD, which clearly does require a human, not a bot. --W.marsh 02:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Fang Aili is perhaps the most marginal on the list. I'd be a little surprised, but not shocked, if he is in fact doing everything by hand. Dragons flight 02:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

On a good day I can clear 100 or so articles from CSD using the TWINKLE script in a little over half an hour. In the light of that it's quite reasonable to assume Fang Aili can do 141 in 44 minutes and NawlinWiki can do 98 in 50 minutes (incidentally, Nawlin leaves the various 'inappropriate article' templates on user talk pages, which would slow things down a bit). W.marsh is right, these two are examples of super-active humans. – Steel 02:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

No, I think it shows he's very much not a bot. A slower time to 100 deletions than any of the people listed above. And while "9.42 hrs for 931 deletions" seems extreme... it's still well within what a human could do just sitting at his or her computer all day. The main thing is that he didn't have any "runs" which I do think is an indication of bot activity (though correlation is not causation). Maybe he's not a "normal" human but still human numbers. Thanks for the numbers though. --W.marsh 02:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I do all my deletes by hand. I am pretty quick with shortcut keys (control-V and whatnot), but I don't have any scripts that help with deletes. --Fang Aili ^talk 16:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I can't help but note that the CSD image backlog is nuts at the moment and has been kind of crazy all day. If someone, anyone, has been doing something to keep it from being this way, and is not doing it at the moment, then whatever they were doing before bears some serious consideration. Not wholesale approval, but consideration. If I'm drawing a false conclusion here so be it. But it's a bit suggestive to me personally. And these image backlogs drive me a little nuts because I'm a total newbie at images and don't feel up to handling them at all efficiently. Cheers. Dina 01:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

My deletion runs were also using the Jude tool. I have backed off of that lately, however. I loaded up tabs, inspected them and used the Jude auto delete tool. I don't think that this a bot.--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 02:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

This is all find and dandy, but don't you people realize how dangerous not checking what your deleting is? There are some major beans here, but I could imagine a situation where hundreds of pages accidentally get deleted by an admin who means well. Assume Good Faith is all fine and dandy, but it's not an excuse to slack on your job and allow a security hole half a mile wide. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 02:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

"I loaded up tabs" means he looked at them before hand, and then deleted them en masse. There is the possibility that someone could, in the time between inspecting the page and deleting, happen to replace the page with a good article or licensing, but that is unlikely and is a problem to a lesser degree in any non-automated deletion. —Centrx→talk • 03:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Such a situation did happen recently, not surprisingly all the images were deleted by a "run" by one of the people in the above list. Dozens (maybe hundreds) of images had to be restored by hand. So mistakes can happen, obviously. --W.marsh 03:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

If you are referring to the situation I think you are, as a result of a template change a number of images were orphaned, these were tagged for x days and then marked for speedy deletion. I'm not sure how you think that could be mitigated against or what it has to do with looking at the images. --pgk 16:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• All my deletion is still done by hand, with the only help of Mozilla FireFox autocomplete (for quick list of deletion summaries) and multi-tabbing features. Geez, I didn't realize I'm actually becoming a mailer_daemon! - Mailer Diablo 03:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm now having a go at User:Chairboy/csdhelper.greasemonkey.js. Not sure how much faster I can go! ;) - Mailer Diablo 15:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• I seldom do image deletions anymore (which surely account for the bulk of the 29k deletes), but the majority of the fast deletes were done using Opera. I check 100 tabs of images in each shot and if the deletion reason was correct for all the images, delete using keyboard. Awyong J. M. Salleh 08:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• As a little test, and mainly for my own edification and curiosity, I'm going to see how much I can validly delete in an hour (and by validly, I mean checking every page's history and whatlinkshere). I've got a fast connection, and shall be using tabbed browsing but no java assistance (because I don't know how to use it). I'll start on CSD then move onto images as soon as I post this message. Ready, steady, go! Proto ► 12:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

  Right. In one hour I deleted 251 images / articles, clearing out 3 days of backlog from replacable fair use images and emptying CSD. I could have maybe done more but kept getting sidetracked (protecting pages from recreation, saving images / pages from invalid speedies, and castigating one very rude image tagger who kept mistagging pages for replacable fair use deletion and labelling any reversions of this as vandalism). I was going as fast as I could, but I would be very surprised if more than around 500 deletions (assuming no distraction) in an hour is possible and still retaining a human component, and I know I'm going bugeyed after an hour. Proto ► 13:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Just sticking a note in here, and apologies if it was mentioned above and I missed it. Last summer, we had a serious problem on Commons with tens of thousands of unsourced and unlicensed images, all of which needed to be deleted because they had been in the "to be deleted" categories for a number of months. As Commons admins, we were concerned about deleting these images, as they woudl be unrecoverable; at that point, a push was made, and image deletions were made reversable by the developers. (If anyone has ever wondered why that came about when it did, there is the answer.) With such a daunting task before us, having to mass-delete tens of thousands of images outright, I had a toolserver tool written that produces "autodelete" links; basically, it creates a link that when clicked, automatically goes to the deletion confirmation page and fills in the summary. (As a side note, I let the Commons community know about this before it was used.) If you enable a javascript snippet in your monobook.js, the links will automatically submit as well. Additionally, there is an extension for Firefox which lets you open multiple links at once. If you use these tools in concert, you can open 100, 250, or 500 autodeletion links at once and have them all submit, in the course of a minute or less. Using this method, I deleted more than 10,000 unsourced and unlicensed images from Commons in a matter of about 24 hours. I point this out because there were no bots involved; only a lot of links, a couple lines of Javascript, and a Firefox extension. Even without the javascript and the firefox extension, this is possible; you can create the links in a text editor, load them into a wiki page, open them all, then go through clicking "ctrl + tab" and hitting "enter", the way Willy on Wheels vandals used to do page moves. When I was still active there, I used this method to delete all the old Quote of the Day archives at the end of each month. Essjay (Talk) 13:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• If you're not really looking at the image/page you're deleting, I don't see the difference between that and an actual bot other than the technicality... the bot actually saves some guy 10,000 clicks really. --W.marsh 14:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Essjay, I think that was an acceptable use of those tools under those circumstances... but if people are doing the same thing to CSD on a regular basis then we have a major problem. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 17:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Now I'm curious, have I ever met the criteria for a deletion 'run'? I don't use a bot, but I've had days where I've zapped appropriately tagged things in C:CSD in pretty short order with a little tool I wrote (not a bot) helping out. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 18:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

You've never gotten to more than 36 without taking at least a 1 minute pause, sorry. Dragons flight 18:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Sigh, well, I guess I'll just have to work harder. Thanks! - CHAIRBOY (☎) 20:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

If anybody wants to know, prior to July 2006 I did everything manually. I think maybe July2 or July 3 I did 500 manual image deletions in about 3.5-4 hours. I did use Jude's tool a lot after I was notified of it. The way I did it was to used Special:Recentchangeslinked on the category, to see if the tagging issues had been rectified in the week since, and then manually fix up the tags which were manually tweaked as a result. Then I would go through a sample of maybe 20 articles in the cat to see if the pictures were still being used in articles, and if the 20 I checked were all clear - ie, they had been machine processed by OrphanBot properly or by a human, cleanly, then that would give a statistically good indication that the rest of the pictures in that batch had been de-linked properly and I would use the script to mechanically remove them. It increases the speed by about a factor of two (I'm not using tabs) on my computer anyway. Having said that, I've not done much deletion duty this year since I read too many arbcom cases, but I will refrain from using the script if it is a concern. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

What this all adds up to

Admins are currently using a variety of tools to aid deletion, with a wide range of automation. There is nothing wrong with using any tool to speed up the process as long as the admin makes sure to view each page (and relevant logs or whatlinkshere, depending on the process in question) before deleting. There is no consensus in support of total automation; there is also no concrete proof that anyone is using total automation, though it doesn't really matter, since none of us are pointing fingers here—the questions is what there is consensus for. However, any admins using completely automated processes should stop for now. It would be useful, however, to identify processes, as Dragons flight says above, that would work well with total automation. I think we all agree that RFA is not the place to get consensus for such a process, and ultimately it would probably mean running a script in a pre-existing admin account, Curps-style. Chick Bowen 23:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Well, some have essentially admitted to using bots to do these deletions. Not here though. If it were anything but images being deleted, people would probably care... but in the current culture you can easily justify deleting images (even with a bot) as something that benefits the project and should not be questioned. --W.marsh 00:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• Ooh, scary "bot" word. What they are actually doing is reviewing everythign and then using an automated tool to do the final donkey work. As long as the checking is done my a human, surely that is sufficient? Guy (Help!) 22:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

What it all adds up to is some people are scared of things they don't understand. Wikipedia editors should use whatever tools they find useful in improving Wikipedia so long as they take full responsibility for their actions. If a tool is complex enough that you are not sure what it will do then you should not use it; but that does not mean you should stand in the way of someone else using it. I hit a key and know what will happen; John hits a key that executes 100 key strokes; Jane hits a key that conditionally executes keystrokes based on a simple if-then script; Bob hits a key that turns on his artificial intelligence device that guides him step by step in creating a great article. Let us not be afraid of tools. WAS 4.250 06:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Unless some very carefully work is done, it would be very easy to abuse any system that relies heavily on bots (or highly automated users) and categories. Anyway... everyone just needs to be careful. If I delete something I shouldn't have, it's entirely my responsibility weather or not it was "assisted". ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 06:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• I should point out that the recent RFA for an adminbot would have passed if it had not been withdrawn at the last minute. So this is not nearly as controversial a subject as some people think. >Radiant< 12:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Personal attack in edit summary

User:Corticopia made a personal attack in this edit summary. Please take action. Dagnabit 06:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Simply, warn with {{uw-npa1}}. Real96 06:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Said editor removes information to suit his point of view about Norway (consolidating entries into one), despite clear provisos both in Europe and Demographics of Europe to the contrary about the country listings/contents and edit summaries to that effect (and, of course, ignoring like situations with Finland, et al.); this is arguably vandalism (which this editor also accused of). I can instead refer you to the article about not being a dick or notions about crying wolf -- but you get the point. Too bad. Next ...Corticopia 11:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Dagnabit, in the future please consider telling other editors how such comments make you feel before bringing it all the way up to WP:AN. Corticopia, I strongly recommend against the use of the word "twit". If you want to refer to another editor, I strongly suggest you do so by name (e.g. "Dagnabit"). — Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 17:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Noted. Corticopia 23:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Why do I have to, this already follows from WP:Civil. Corticopia is completely hopless and insists on adding patent nonsense to articles. I'm not sure what the refernce to Finland is supposed to be, I do not edit articles about Finland. (I believe, maybe I've stubled upon something at some point.) Dagnabit 23:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Deal with it: I am restoring the table entry you persistently remove (based on the UN listing of territories) without any modicum of consensus and despite the notes therein (which you either won't or can't read) -- that's arguably vandalism. Why don't you do the same for the entries for Finland (Aland), the UK (Isle of Man, Guernsey), et al. Because you are pushing a point of view which other editors don't share. And if you think your sweet talking will get you brownie points, you are sadly mistaken. Corticopia 23:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I see reverting on both sides and no talkpage or other discussion, so even apart from the fact that this is not really an administrator issue, I can't even readily tell what your disagreement is. If you post your respective views on the talkpage I'm sure someone will be glad to give you a third opinion. Newyorkbrad 23:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Per edit summaries: essentially, D., believes the table entries for Norway and Svalbard (an archipelago with is under Norwegian admin but with unique status)/Jan Mayen should be combined and persistently does so without any chat; however, the table (which has seen its share of manipulation/POV-pushing about contents) is based on a consensual listing of territories (per UN) where both are discrete, as are similar domains (e.g., Finland/Aland). D. then accuses me of adding gibberish to the article in restoring prior content, resulting in collateral damage. What the fcuk is that? RE civility, that's more like hypocrisy. Anyhow... Corticopia 23:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

It was hard to tell that's the only change; there seems to be reverting on other issues as well. In any event, if the two of you can discuss on the talkpage you can get other views (including mine if you like). Nothing further required here at ANI. Newyorkbrad 23:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

User Corticopia continues to use profanity in edit summary [2] and [3]. Please take action. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Let's talk! )} 00:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

First of all: you remove content indiscriminately, regardless of other edits made (hence first comment); the second is neither here nor there. And you continue to push a point-of-view regarding the status of Mexico and related terms despite citations (which you wilfully remove and have been called on (see Talk:North_America#Usage_of_.27North_America.27)), precipitating an edit war at Mexico over a single word that resulted in that article being blocked for 10 days. I still maintain your edits are of generally low quality and generally to make a point. Wikipedia is not your mother, and neither am I. Corticopia 00:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Request for advice \ help

Hi guys - this is a strange one, but I am hoping you can help me out.

When I first started using Wikipedia, I created an article about the place I work (NMUK) - which in hindsight was a stupid thing to do. Over-time the article has grown, and has started to get noticed by management. It has become used as a politcal sounding-board, etc. Now people are trying to find out who made it, etc. Almost like a witchunt. This has started to get me really worried, and I'm beginning to get stressed about it. If the dots are joined and my real world anonymity is breached (which is possible, because I haven't exactly tried to hide it up until this point) it could really cause problems for me at work.

So - I am asking for your help. What can be done? My personal preference is that the article (and therefore it's log) is deleted. If it's genuinely missed, then someone else will recreate it. It's not that good an article anyway. Failing that, can my username be stripped / changed in the log?

I realise what I am asking for breaks the rules of Wikipedia - but I am really worried. At the end of the day this is an online encylopedia - it's not life or death. And in situations where an article can cause problems for people in the real-world, can exceptions not be made?

Thanks for your time. John the mackem 17:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately due to the nature of the copyright license we have we can't remove contributers from the logs when there contributions were used to build the article.

Wikipedia:Changing_username would be the place to get your name changed. It will change int he logs, but not where you have signed your name. To get someone to go though and change all your old signatures you would need to make a request at WP:BOT.

However, I wouldn't be all that worried. Unless you were engaged in more serious activity (sock puppetry, POV-Pushing, etc) then I doubt much "trouble" will happen. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 17:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't count on it. Gator1 wasn't doing anything wrong and he got in a lot of trouble... Hbdragon88 23:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Do you realize that you comment boarders on trolling and is a violation of his meta:Right to Vanish? ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 06:04, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with that comment at all. Nowhere has it been requested that we never mention Gator1; in fact, he's still listed at WP:LA (Inactive, #42). His story is a cautionary tale; that's how Hbdragon88 meant it; perfectly valid. Chick Bowen 11:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, so the Gator1 story has put me into Defcon1 paranoia mode - when I think of how lax I have been with anonymity in the past. I realise I am not an admin and there is no reason for anyone to stalk me... but I am not taking any chances. I am attempting to rectify the situation. I have started by changing my username.

*** Can an admin please delete my old user talk page (User:John the mackem) and logs? *** It means I lose a Barnstar... but i'm sure I will live.

The remaining problem I have is to do with pictures in the Commons. I have taken lots of photos for the project, and rightly wanted attribution for them. Unfortunately, on a lot of the photos, in the Author section of the template, I put my real name. As this is just metadata, can this be deleted from the logs? What are my options? Cheers for the help fellas. Elysium 73 22:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC) (The editor formerly known as John the mackem).

Responded at User talk:Elysium 73. Chick Bowen 00:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

You have an article on X and Y, which are much less important than Z...

...so you need to keep Z."

Heard that one before?

I've drafted a new essay called Wikipedia:Do you ever go fishing? (shortcut WP:FISHING). In a nutshell it specifies,

Don't argue that an article shouldn't be deleted just because other, 'less important' articles still exist in Wikipedia. Don't argue that a block is invalid because another editor happened to do the same thing without drawing a block; don't argue that your antisocial behaviour is acceptable just because another editor hasn't been sanctioned.

Comment and editing welcome. Have at it. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, very familiar. I think we already have something along those lines with regards to "Do Not Delete because X and Y exist" in an essay about bad keep reasons - does anyone recall the essay I'm talking about? The antisocial might be funny to some, but I fear that links to the essay could be construed as personal attacks because of that line. Picaroon 20:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

You're thinking of Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Sam Blacketer 20:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Specifically, this seems a bit redundant to the WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS part. Picaroon 21:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

The essay also has a hint of Wikipedia:Inclusion is not an indicator of notability. Aecis^Brievenbus 21:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Oops. My face is red now. Ah well. Does anyone like the story? :D TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

...On the other hand, there's still the second part—the "He got away with being a dick, so why can't I?" bit. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I think there is a "Pokemon test" essay somewhere. Goes along the lines of "If it's more important then (insert non-notable pokemon who has surived an AFD) then it must have an article!" ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 21:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Pokémon test. Aecis^Brievenbus 22:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

To which the common reply is "Only if you can cite as many sources for your subject as can be found cited at Bulbasaur#Notes and references will you have an argument that actually holds water.". Uncle G 02:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

It may be a bit redundant with WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, but I'd keep it around. It at least is a bit more civil of a way of making the point.--Isotope23 15:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Somethingoranother

Not sure why this user wasn't permanently banned for sockpuppeteering (their sockpuppet accounts were), but they are now clearing out their talk page which contains many warnings and blocks. [4] Their comment as they blanked it sums up their general attitude on WP. Isn't this vandalism? Gsd2000 21:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

1) Sockpuppeteers aren't always indefinately blocked along with thier sockpuppets, it's up to the blocking administrator to decide what to do with them (and there is a difference between blocks and bans: bans come from Jimbo Wales, the Arbitration Committee, or the Wikipedia Community acting as a whole; blocks can be placed by any administrator for cause). 2) Removing warnings was once considered vandalism; the last time I remember it being discussed, I believe it was decided that users could remove warnings if they chose to do so. 3) If the edit summary was a continuation of previous conduct, then it may be cause for further blocking. Essjay (Talk) 21:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

OK - but now I'm getting personal abuse from this contributor: [5] Gsd2000 21:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

And based on that nasty little message, and given the busy block log already and the sockpuppeteering, I have blocked the account indefinitely. Please feel free to review this block. Proto ► 21:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks for that. However, they are now evading their block by editing (engaging in 3RR violations, actually) from their IP address: [6]. Gsd2000 22:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Which appears to be static. Doh. Softblocked that for six months. Proto ► 22:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear, he's back again, reverting the same article [7], using a different sock puppet account (to get round the semi protect status). Please please please - can we get an IP range block on this guy? Gsd2000 01:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Lee Nysted

Lee Nysted (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) was indefinitely blocked for a campaign of vanity spamming including Lee Nysted (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), The Lee Nysted Experience (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Nysted Music (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Also Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Lee Nysted found a number of sockpuppets: Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Lee Nysted. He was unblocked under WP:AGF, but as I feared his contributions since being unblocked have been entirely centred around himself. Recently he posted to the user pages of the various sockpuppets making the assertion that the "check loser" is invalid and asking them to identify themselves.

• Nyslee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was major editor of Lee Nysted (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), proven by CheckUser plus the obvious name. Nysted added his comment to that user page as well, so that's pretty much holed his argument below the waterline.
• Huntress829 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is stated to be Nysted's girlfriend, editing from the same IP. We don't make a distinction between sockpuppets and "friends" (aka meatpuppets, to use our rather unattractive term of art) when they have no other contributions.
• somelight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a "friend" who happens to edit from the same IP address as Nysted and Huntstress, this is available in the undeleted histories.
• Symphonic Flight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has no edits remaining undeleted, posted the contents of the former Lee Nysted article at talk:Lee Nysted after the former was protected from re-creation.
• Billybobsteak (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was a CheckUser block, no edits to Nysted articles, but has not attempted to edit since - this may have been a sleeper caught before use, or it may be that one day the user will come back and ask to be unblocked.
• Smdewart (talk · contribs) is known to Nysted and was not blocked, because this is a provably different account.

See also user talk:Yamla, where Tony Fox points out that Huntstress has at times claimed to be unrelated (when challenged about her participation in the deletion debates, I think).

I don't know what Nysted is up to, but Is suspect it's nothing good. His edits on my Talk [8] suggest that his long term aim remains unchanged: to have an article on himself. Guy (Help!) 21:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

What is the whole Lee Nysted story about, is it some kind of WP:AUTO-related incident?? I can't really comment as I haven't been following. --sunstar net^talk 22:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Lee Nysted Experience is the nexus of the discussion, I believe. Tony Fox (arf!) 23:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• I found a copy on the Dutch Wikipedia, here - nl:The_Lee_Nysted_Experience, if anyone's interested. I'm surprised no-one there's deleted it. --sunstar net^talk 23:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Seems to have been nuked now. Guy (Help!) 13:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• Shtop, thish vandalishm ish not ready yet! Yeah, shomebody ushed their Dutch account. Proto ► 16:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• Heh! Not editing from the coffee shop I hope :o) Guy (Help!) 22:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Cross-posted from Yamla's talk page are my thoughts about the unblock:
Please do not overturn checkuser blocks without consulting with the checkuser that conducted the investigation beforehand. These blocks are made due to information the administration in general is not privy to and as such should not be overturned without discussion. In fact, I'm rather of the opinion that no block should be overturned without discussion with the blocking admin, but that's tangential. I would kindly ask that you please reinstate the block pending discussion with jpgordon. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 21:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 23:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• In a truly stellar example of left hand not letting right hand know what it's doing, Nysted was re-blocked as having been unblocked without discussion or reference to CheckUser case (reasonable) and then unblocked again! [9], again with no evidence of discussion with the blocking admin. Brilliant, guys! Guy (Help!) 23:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  • This needs seriously addressed before it becomes wheel warring. I would support an indefinite reblock, pursuant to the harassment and vandalism Lee Nysted (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) participated in since unblocked. Opinions? ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 23:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Left hand not knowing...? Well, seems like it. I must say I hadn't seen this discussion here, but the on on WP:ANI#Unblock/reblock of confirmed sockpuppeteer, where I did consult and where both the previous unblocker and re-blocker had participated. I unblocked in what I saw as an absence of tangible indication of new sockpuppetry - nothing concrete mentioned there, no recent entries in the checkuser archives, and the previous re-block at least partly owing to a self-admitted misunderstanding of the blocking admin about the timing. Apologies if I got it wrong, I'll have no objections against another re-block if there are any strong reasons for it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
      • The fact that all their contibutions since being unblocked are attacks on users, attacks on the checkuser process, and removing sock tags, does not fill me with optimism that he will have ANY valuable contributions. He hasn't before, he hasn't now, where do we draw the line? After the 5th sock? The 10th? ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 00:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• Also the fact that the first I really knew of it al was yesterday - I know I am not terribly active right now due to RL but I am hardly on the missing list. Not that it matters overmuch, but he is deeply tiresome and really quite rude. Guy (Help!) 09:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Not sure why he was unblocked given the tone of his unblock demands both onwiki and on unblock-en-l, and having followed this for quite a while (since his legal threats on his talk page weeks ago), I'd support any re-block with good reasons. – Chacor 16:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Is this vandalism?

CyclePat (talk · contribs) has issued a vandalism warning on my talk page. [User_talk:Bkonrad#Category:Cities in the UTC-5 timezone and template:Infobox city]]. Edits that CyclePat has made to {{Infobox city}} add meaningless redlinks to city articles that use the template. I don't how reverting edits that break a heavily used template is vandalism. CyclePat is attempting to do something or other to automatically add time zone information to city articles. Previous attempts to create a similar set of categories were deleted at CFD Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007 January 29#Category:UTC-5 Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007 January 28#Category:UTC+3 Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007 January 25#Category:UTC. The current attempt has also be nominated for deletion Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007 February 26#Category:Cities in the UTC-5 timezone. older ≠ wiser 03:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

And, CyclePat has reported this as vandalism at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism (permalink: [10]). older ≠ wiser 03:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

That is not technically "vandalism", but you still should not be doing things based on a CfD that has recieved no input. You might have a case if a bunch of people had showed up agreeing that it is a recreation of deleted material, but they didn't, so you should wait for it to conclude. -Amarkov moo! 03:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Nominated for deletion and voted for deletion by... ? See discussion on user talk:Bkonrad on the warnings he has received. He is attempting to undermine wikipedia category for deletion process by giving all the more reason to delete the article. It is writen in on the template for cfd that one should not remove content from the category. Changing the template removes content vital to these Category:Cities in the UTC timezone. If Bkonrad could demonstrate what the problem specifically is we could perhaps work at fixing it! --CyclePat 03:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

The CfD is actually a side issue as far as I'm concerned. I was reverting his edits to the template because they add a meaningless redlinked category to city articles that use the template. older ≠ wiser 03:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

You shouldn't remove items from categories you nominate for deletion, no matter whether or not you think it's meaningless, because then people say "delete as unused". Discuss removing it from the template, or discuss deleting it. Don't do them both at the same time, because one affects the other. -Amarkov moo! 03:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. I did not nominate the category for deletion. I noticed a meaningless redlinked category on a city article, that happened to be very similar to the ones that CyclePat had created previously which had caused similar problems with the template. When I saw that, I reverted the edits to the template. At that time, I had no idea that the category was nominated for deletion. Am I crazy, or is it now OK to go make edits that break templates? older ≠ wiser 03:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

It is true that Bkonrad voted approx. 6 minutes after he made changes to the template. But it still does not deny the fact that you often patrol CfD's and that this article was nominated for CfD prior to you making these changes. Removing the auto-generated categories undermined the deletion process and make for an unfair deletion process. --CyclePat 04:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

So because I noticed the CfD immediately after editing the template, that somehow makes the edits that broke the template OK? Sorry, but I don't see the logic. I actually came across the CfD by checking your edit history -- you had responded to the CfD and and that is how I saw it. But how I came to to CfD is actually pretty irrelevant to the issue at hand. older ≠ wiser 04:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Please see recent revert to the template. The {{template:infobox city}} has been reverted again. This revision undermines the deletion process of Wikipedia. To avoid a 3RR I am reporting it here. It requires another revert to avoid conflict with the CfD and I request protection until the CFD is finished. A further explanation on the template may be required (though it is already explain a little in the FAQ section). --CyclePat 03:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

No, please don't. The recents edits break the template. It should be incumbent on whomever is changing the template to be certain that it doesn't cause undesirable side effects. older ≠ wiser 03:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

That is correct. If you could explain these undesirable effects perhaps we could work together at fixing them. Currently all I know is that you are complaining because I haven't had the time to create more than 48 valid sub-categories which even have article here on wikipedia. (Ex.: UTC-5) Instead of destroying the template, you can help by simply placing {{category:Cities in the UTC timezone}}. --CyclePat 04:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• Pat, please remember bold, revert, discuss. You did the bold, then there was the revert, now it's off to the talk page. Guy (Help!) 22:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Content / process dispute. Dispute resolution is thataway. My suggestion: less 'doing' things, more 'talking' about things. --CBD 12:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Record-keeping for Image:Ejaculation_sample.jpg

Some users have expressed concern that the subject of this sexually-explicit image may be underage, and that therefore Wikipedia should obtain proof that he is not, lest it run afoul of the Child_Protection_and_Obscenity_Enforcement_Act and the PROTECT Act of 2003. --Atemperman 04:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

As has been discussed many times, the 2257 record keeping provisions apply only to images used commercially. As a nonprofit Wikipedia/Wikimedia is not required to maintain such records. Downstream users might have a problem, however, DOJ is presently enjoined from enforcing those provisions due to ongoing legal challenges (ones which many observers expect them to lose because DOJ wrote regulations that appear to most to be much broader than the mandate granted to them by Congress). Dragons flight 05:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be a good idea to make a template to tag images that might run afoul of these record-keeping provisions, for the sake of commercial downstream users? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo has deleted at least one image citing the possibility of it requiring 2257 record keeping. Reuse, people. 22:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you just ask the guy that uploaded it? --CyclePat 05:31, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

To be fair the uploader hasn't edited since Sep 8, 2006 [11]. Still, Dragons flight is completely correct as to the legal position. WjBscribe 05:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I was wrong about the 2257 legality, but what about him being possibly underage as some other editors pointed out. — MichaelLinnear 05:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

It really doesn't matter how many times it has been "discussed" by editors who lack a Juris Doctor, if we cannot fulfill the 2257 requirements of the Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act we need to delete the offending image posthaste. Take lead from Jimbo Wales and move along. [12] RFerreira 06:31, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Umm! I just took a look at the picture and that's not a child. If there is a specific issue from the CPOEA perhaps you could cite the area it is violating? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CyclePat (talk • contribs) 07:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC).

It's a depiction of a sexual act, so cannot be used in commercial distributions without accompanying documentation of the model's age. If it can't be used in a commercial distribution, it's non-free, and it doesn't belong in Wikipedia. - Nunh-huh 07:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

If Wikipedia content is banned in China does that mean that we should remove all all our content? Is our goal to only post content that can be used commercially? I think not. -- Samuel Wantman 07:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

You're wrong. Non-commercial only content is not acceptable. It's not a debate, it's by fiat, from above: our decision, not some government's. Your example is a little confusing, as it's US law we're talking about, and we're hosted in the US, not China. - Nunh-huh 07:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

The difference is that it is a government that has made the commercial distribution illegal, not the creator of the content or us. In that respect the situation with the US government is analogous to the actions of China. -- Samuel Wantman 07:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

It's always a government that makes rules about intellectual content and rights of commercial and non-commercial reproduction. - Nunh-huh 07:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes. That is why we should post as much "free" material as we can, and leave it to individual governments to limit its use if they see fit. We should only be concerned with whether we can legally post the free material, and not whether some government might further restrict its use. -- Samuel Wantman 08:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia follows the laws of the United States and the state of Florida, and this is at present non-negotiable. We can ignore China's laws; we cannot ignore the US's. --Golbez 08:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Except we aren't breaking any laws. A reuser located in the US might be. That is where the analogy with China comes in, because only certain reusers in certain jurisdictions are at risk. (Though at present, the US law is also unenforcable due to pending legal challenges.) Dragons flight 08:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I was more responding to his earlier comment, which seemed to say "We don't do what China says, why should we do what the US says?" --Golbez 08:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. I don't know. the fact that Jimbo deleted something similar, citing 2257 issues makes me pause and makes me think that this perhaps should be deleted. Titoxd^(?!?) 07:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Really? When? Dragons flight 08:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Image:Creampiesex.jpg ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 08:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

We cannot host non-commercial only content since May of 2005 by order of Jimbo (the email is on my userpage, if you wish to see it). Pretty much, I think the problem we have here is a lack of documentation of where the image came from and if the license is correct. This is true for non-porn images. I believe in this case we need to be sure about the guys age, if the photo was taken by his request and he has authority to give it the license that he gave. I noticed he had other photos deleted before due to copyright issues, so I think this is a copyright violation. In short; delete unless we can truely say the guy is over 18 and the license is correct. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 08:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

The image isn't non-commercial in the normal sense (assumming the uploader is legitimate, which is a fair question). The image would only be restricted from commercial use in certain jurisdictions where record keeping requirements apply. Other jurisdictions could use it as is. Let's be clear here though. If we challenge anything where 2257 might apply to a reuser, that is a lot of images. Dragons flight 08:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Clearly this is something that needs to be (and eventually will) be decided at a higher level than users, so why not just kick it upstairs to the board before the interminable debate rather than after? - Nunh-huh 08:31, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

There are many images currently hosted at Commons & en.wiki which might fall under the purview of 2257 if Wikimedia is considered as a publisher instead of carrier. I have no idea of the official legal stance on the issue, so Nunh-huh's observation is probably the most sensible conclusion. But I have noticed that there is some flexibility with respect to commercial use considerations due to the apparent tolerance of photographs uploaded without release of personality rights. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 09:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:CHURCH

I'd appreciate some outside people taking a look at this proposal for notability guidelines on churches. On the one hand people say it's necessary and useful because theology is an important academic field; on the other hand there's significant dissent against the proposal on grounds of m:instruction creep, overlap with WP:CORP, and the fact that it doesn't come up on AFD more than a handful of times per month. A number of proponents feel strongly about it and have said they'd prefer to keep it around as a proposal permanently, even if there is no consensual support for it. Please comment on its talk page rather than here. >Radiant< 09:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• I've just noticed that the same applies to WP:ROYAL, only moreso; this proposal has been around for more than half a year and still has no consensus, so it's pretty obvious there's not going to be any. >Radiant< 10:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  • These things need either tagged as 'rejected' or some new category of 'idea of some people - but obviously without any working consensus'. The problem is that if they are left as they are peopel !vote "fails WP:CHURCH' and leave the impression, to all but the experienced reader, that there's an agreed and authoritative position here--Doc^g 10:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Well, I've got no problem with tagging rejected, this is evidently not going to achieve consensus. We could also just redirect to WP:N, which would still preserve history, or reword it a bit (to state that this is what some people think makes churches notable) and tag as an essay. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 10:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  • A Man In Black added the rejected tag, it was removed on grounds that "there is no consensus to reject". Once more, people are requested to look into this. >Radiant< 10:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Flameviper II

It seems that User:Flameviper has returned despite his indef ban from WP:AN/I last month. The reason why he has returns seams to file a request for arbitration against User:Yanksox, should this account be banned as a sock? RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 12:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't see why, there doesn't look like anything approaching consensus for an indefinite ban at the discussion linked from User:Flameviper. Catchpole 13:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Since community bans are supposed to be appealable to ArbCom, the question comes up how a banned user is supposed to present the appeal without violating the ban in the process. I've asked the arbitrators in a clerk note on the RfAr page how they would like this to be handled. Newyorkbrad 13:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

From the appeal process policy:

If there is disagreement then the matter will usually be escalated to the Arbitration committee to make a full ruling on the matter. You may request this by email if your editing access prevents you asking in the usual way. Editing access will usually be restored for the Arbitration pages only; abusing this by editing any other pages may result in a block which will not be lifted.

So shouldn't that section be removed and Flameviper told to email the ArbCom list? Metros232 13:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Probably, but I want to make sure that the arbitrators are in agreement with handing it that way, so I can write it into the arbitration procedures and others don't make the same mistake. Newyorkbrad 14:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Metros, where is that quote from? Thatcher131 15:11, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

There's a similar quote in WP:BAN#Appeals process: Bans imposed by the community may be appealed to the Arbitration Committee. Banned users should not create sockpuppets to file an appeal. Rather, contact a member of the committee or an Arbitration clerk by email and ask that a request be filed on their behalf. Generally speaking, the banned user will make the request on his or her talk page, which will be copied to WP:RFAR by a clerk. In some cases, a banned user may be unblocked for the sole purpose of making his appeal to the committee., which would seem to back up what Metros232 is saying. --ais523 15:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I just wrote that . I was looking for Metros' quote so I could find and update it to reflect current practice. I think I've found all the places this is discussed (here and here). Thatcher131 15:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

It was from the "appealing a block" page. Sorry, I was teaching classes all morning so I couldn't respond/see your note but you've got it updated, good. Metros232 19:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• With regard to Newyorkbrad's quote above about Flameviper and appealing to ArbCom, isn't this a Catch-22 situation?? As it is, I wouldn't have a problem with him appealing the ban, provided he edited the Arbitration pages only, and didn't make any mainspace/other edits in the process. --sunstar net^talk 14:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Why don't we unprotect his old talkpage and let him appeal the ban there? That way we won't have to worry about a second account. — Moe 14:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I have unprotected User talk:Flameviper. He can make further comments there and a clerk will copy them to his arbitration request (if appropriate). This also avoids the possibility of an unrelated troll trying to have some fun at our expense. He should not create new sock accounts; blocking on sight would be appropriate. Thatcher131 15:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• He already knows the procedure is to email the arbitrators, since he used one of his other socks already - User_talk:Wiki_Duct_Tape --pgk 19:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• He's also been - er, active on the mailing list. I think he was responsible for all new subscribers going on mod. Twice. But I might be mistaken about that one, it could be some other banned editor. Guy (Help!) 22:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Reviewing a Block

I wanted to approach the Admin noticeboard to review a block I have recently instated. A user who previously owned an account Yells at soup; (now known as Barry the chopper) would often be subject to userpage/user talk page vandals. I protected his userpage twice after seeing a heavy onslaught of vandals constantly targeting him. After some time I started noticing a strange pattern in the contribution history. He started inserting his own vandalism to his userpage/user talk page such as this instance (done under his new account) and frequently would make strange unconstructive edits while logged out. It came to the point that I believe he was using multiple sockpuppets to insert fake vandalism into his user page as well as other user pages when he spammed the mental health template in many circumstances: (see this, this (done under his new account), and most recently this). I feel this indicates strong evidence of what he was sneakily up to while editing Wikipedia. However, I would greatly appreciate if more experienced admins would review this. Thank you.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 20:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Just scrolling though his full contribs, I doesn't look like he's actually here to contribute to the encyclopedia --pgk 20:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Just to point out this was a rename --pgk 20:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

PR firms - elaborate webs?

Wikipedia is a big target - almost too big for its own good. PR firms love control - it is their business, attempting to control information. To cut to the chase a man (Anthony) who owns a PR firm (Called Eligo) had created an elaborate and verbose article on himself, it was AfD'ed and deleted (Afd). Another article on him at a different name page was created the day after his first one was deleted - it has now been speedied. One of the contributors to that article was 81.193.124.176 (talk · contribs). The talk page contains the following from Max Kaertner (talk · contribs), -

"Anthony, a Royal Wedding (yours!) certainly merits notability! Time for Eligo to weigh-in and create a new Wiki article for HSH Princess Marie-Therese von Hohenberg! Don't forget to invite me!".

I brought this up on here a couple of weeks ago, and at that point identified a number of accounts that seemed to be part of a web - now we appear to have a comment suggesting that it is "Time for Eligo to weigh-in and create a new Wiki article". How many accounts do they have? Advice on what should be done with all of this is welcomed - because it looks to me that a load of rich mens club PR operators are running around the controls we have in place to stop autobiographical input as well as conflicts of interests. The contribs of the IP above, as well as Seisal (talk · contribs), Cahce (talk · contribs), Eligo (talk · contribs) are engaged in editing on themselves, their various "private clubs" and also on their clients. And the remarks about his PR firm "weighing in" to just simply create an article for his fiancée just takes the biscuit. Others thoughts welcomed. SFC9394 22:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, the behavior is certainly unfortunate, but being the great-granddaughter of Archduke Ferdinand, whose assassination started World War Ii, is probably at least a good ice-breaker at parties. Since there seems to be not much to comment on in the lives of the betrothed, it might be incorporated into a single article on the descendants of the archduke. That would be too much like genealogy for some tastes, so it too would probably have deletion problems. - Nunh-huh 03:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Block on political grounds?

I would like to ask for an admin who is not involved in editing Middle East related artciles and does not suffer from a conflict of interrests to review this [13] block of User:Tiamut. Please note also her comments on her talk page. Thanks ابو علي

She added the phrase "their indigeneity has been challenged" or equivalent here, here, here, and here. Yes, the wording was changed, and other aspects of the relevant paragraph were changing around her edits as she made them, but the repeated insertion is pretty clearly a violation of 3RR. Note that I have absolutely no knowledge of the context; I'm responding on technical grounds here. Chick Bowen 23:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

But this leaves out the context of the edit war, with 40 reversions by 12 different editors, in the course of three days. Please see the discussions at User talk:Tiamut#3RR block and Talk:Arab citizens of Israel#indigenous, and the page history and edit summaries for Arab citizens of Israel. Tiamut was the unlucky editor to fall into a trap baited by other editors, and is being unfairly punished. RolandR 00:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it does leave out the context, as I said above. This is part of the problem with WP:AN/3RR: people give diffs, and admins look at the diffs. Having looked at page history, I agree with you that it's a mess, and that Tiamut is hardly the worst offender. Tewfik has gamed the system a little bit, with four reverts or quasi-reverts in about 27 hours, it looks like. I think Wikipedia:dispute resolution might work well here, and temporary protection may be necessary. But all that said, I'm not inclined to unblock here. The point is, you're right that she was baited, but she shouldn't have gone for the bait. 24 hours to let things cool off would do all of you a lot of good. Chick Bowen 00:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The suggstion that a well respected vetern editor blocked this user (for what is perfectly obvious is a violation of 3RR) out of political motivation, and the canvassing of editors with langauge that similarily suggests a politcal motivation (here, and here) is such a blatant violation of WP:AGF that it should earn you a block. Isarig 00:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

While I agree with the block, it is hard for me to see why one would block someone for failing to AGF. Canvassing is bad, they've stopped canvassing. The user should not canvass again. JoshuaZ 01:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

You might want to check WP:BLOCK: "A user may be blocked when his/her conduct severely disrupts the project — his/her conduct is inconsistent with a civil, collegial atmosphere and interferes with the process of editors working together harmoniously to create an encyclopedia." Isarig 03:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Shalom Isarig, Do you really think that your own conduct is really "consistent with a civil, collegial atmosphere and interferes with the process of editors working together harmoniously to create an encyclopedia"? ابو علي 14:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

If you have a complaint against me - feel free to use this page to make your case. Until then, please read Tu Quoque. Isarig 20:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Abu Ali, this isn't the first time you've made bad-faith allegations against administrators when you disagree with their actions. Please give it a rest. As for Tiamut, I've offered to unblock her if she stays away from that article and any related page she's edit warring on, if any, for 24 hours, but she hasn't responded yet. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

proabaly because the offere was made around midnight Israel time. good that the offer to unblock was made. but better late then never. ابو علي 09:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) I received a request at my user talk to review this block and it does look like a solid application of 3RR policy. Tu quoque isn't grounds for unblocking. Clearly, the article needs protecting for a bit while the editors work toward consensus. I recommend an article content WP:RFC to bring in some fresh views. If problematic behavior by other disputants continues then build up a case for WP:POINT (or any other applicable policy) and report to WP:ANI. Durova^Charge! 21:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Another question, User:SlimVirgin has threatened to block me for supposedly making "repetitive, predictable personal attacks"[14]. But I have not made any personal attacks, merely questioned her actions as an admin. To what extent can an admin use their admin rights to ban editors who oppose their particular point of view? In such cases would it not be wiser for that admin to leave the block to another admin in order to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interrest? Thanks ابو علي 11:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

User Corticopia using profanity in edit summary

User Corticopia continues to use profanity in edit summary [15] and [16]. Please take action. He was already reported for personal attacks in this same page. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Let's talk! )} 00:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll say here what I've said elsewhere. First of all: you remove content indiscriminately, regardless of other edits made (hence first comment); the second is neither here nor there. And you continue to push a point-of-view regarding the status of Mexico and related terms despite citations (which you wilfully remove and have been called on (see Talk:North_America#Usage_of_.27North_America.27)), precipitating an edit war at Mexico over a single word that resulted in that article being blocked for 10 days. I still maintain your edits are of generally low quality and generally to make a point. Wikipedia is not your mother, and neither am I. Corticopia 00:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

You both caused Mexico to be blocked. You both tried to make a point, and there were sources to prove both. It seems that in Mexico the consensual version included all possible versions (NPOV) and reversions stopped. But it seems this issue was moved to Mesoamerica and Middle America, and both again, are trying to make a point. --theDúnadan 01:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

User GSD2000

This user keeps refusing me to contribute towards any articles reverts any edit I make even though all of them are fully referenced from reliable sources. Can someone please help stop this person from unilateraly deleting fully referenced information from the Great power article which is breaking Wiki policy. Userofwiki 01:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

NB - this user is a sockpuppet of User:Somethingoranother, who was permanently banned as a result of his consistent rule breaking - the thread is still visible further up this page. He is using this sockpuppet account to evade the block on his account and the semi-protect on the page in question, Great Power. Gsd2000 01:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

More info: user clearly isn't heeding the advice from admins the last time he tried this: [17]. Gsd2000 01:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Gsd2000 is unilateraly refusing to allow me to contribute towards any article and and never allows me to contribute anything on Wikipedia even when it is important referenced information and even if I were to correct a spelling mistake they would revert it. It's obvious they've became nothing sort of being a bully on here now and are probably doing this to many others too. Userofwiki 01:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Timothy Noah

More administrative eyes are needed at Timothy Noah. Noah is a journalist for Slate magazine who wrote an article on February 24 about Wikipedia's notability guideline using his article as an entry point. Thereafter, Noah's article underwent an Afd (kept) and many, many edits. Today, Noah published a follow up article at Slate. The edits to Timothy Noah are increasing. There has been a large amount of discussion at talk concerning content that is being ignored by most of the drive by editors and a large amount of edit warring is going on. I'm reluctant to protect the article given that there are a lot of new users getting exposure to Wikipedia through this article. Thus, like I said, more eyes would be helpful. Thanks! · j e r s y k o talk · 01:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Death rumor vandalism at Dave Grohl

See Talk:Dave Grohl#Death rumor vandalism generating bad press for Wikipedia. Could we get some more people to watch this page, please? — CharlotteWebb 01:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I think I've revived three or four people now, myself... Surprised that's generating press. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

An interesting proposal on the Village Pump

There's been an interesting proposal [18] on the Village Pump for a new way to prevent vandalism. Administrators' opinions would be much appreciated. Thanks. Canderson7 ^(talk) 01:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Interesting stuff

A break from all the abuse complaints and the usual programming: have you seen Wikipedia:Adminship survey? It's this year's version of the Admin accountability poll held last year. Comments there would be nice. Titoxd^(?!?) 02:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

It was mentioned here a few days ago - I can't be bothered to check the archive. Hbdragon88 02:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Question, sorry if this is the wrong place

I know this is a delayed response. I'm just wondering ... Did anyone see Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Newsletter/Issues/Issue001 (section "Notability of state highways is challenged")? It just seems a bit ... WP:CANVASSy. --Iamunknown 05:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

First, I think it should go to WP:ANI WP:VP or here.... Second, I do agree, that one subheader is a little Canvassy, but since I am not an admin, and since I am not well rounded on policy disputes concerning Wikipedia and what a letter should and should not entail, I don't have any expertise in this area. Real96 05:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Looks like all the AFDs discussed have been closed already. Not sure you can canvass for something that has already been decided. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 05:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, ya...I admitted it was a rather delayed response. The messages were posted before/during the deletion debates. --Iamunknown 05:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

IMO, it's a newsletter. It's to inform people. Per WP:CANVASS, it could be construed as a "friendly notice" of what's going on in the WP:USRD world. I did not distribute this newsletter, but I would assume that it went to all those users who are listed as "participants" of the relevent projects, thus opting them in to receiving a newsletter that's considered a part of the project. And they are more than welcome to be removed from receiving the newsletters. To cite the arbitrator: "Briefly, I think a reasonable amount of communication about issues is fine." It was a newsletter provided by the main contributors of a Project to the listed participants of a Project, not to random users, that had a link to an article regarding current events. I don't think it qualifies as true canvassing. --MPD ^{T / C} 05:24, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

This is very late to be complaining about this. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 08:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

No estoy de acuerdo. Cualquier momento es buen momento para el cambio. Este es foro para todas las cosas. Creo que NPOV es muy importante para todo de nuestras obras, incluso boletines. Cuanto más ojos y opiniones se tiene, lo más bien sea los discusiones.--Pedro Almendras 10:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Odd, not sure why this individual has posted in Spanish but here is a loose translation of above line: I don't agree. Anytime is a good time for change. This forum is for all types of things. I believe that NPOV is very important for all of our work including bulletins. The more eyes and opinions we have, the better will be the discussions. (→Netscott) 10:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Quizá acabamos de necesitar para dirigir a él/ella al wiki español. (Maybe we just need to direct him/her to the Spanish wiki)--MONGO 11:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

MONGO, I doubt the U.S. Roads issue exists on Spanish Wikipedia. :-) (→Netscott) 11:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

De verdad. Me gusta contribuir a todos los Wikipedias. Cierto que mi inglés es mal, pero puede ayudarte con este wiki, como se puede ver en este caso.--Pedro Almendras 11:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

(It's true. I like contributing to *all* the Wikipedias. True, my English is bad, but I can work with this wiki, as you can see in this case.) Por favor, escribir en ingles, Pedro, hasta si su ingles es un poco mal. Proto ► 11:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Left them a note at their talk. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 11:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I guess I should bring up at WP:UW to have {{Useenglish}} translated into some other languages. —Elipongo (Talk|contribs) 11:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Well I sometimes leave messages in English on other language Wikis where I don't speak the language.... so to a certain extent I understand this message but still it is a bit odd to have someone writing in Spanish out of the blue on this topic (and have it be their first contributions to en.wiki). (→Netscott) 11:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

True Scott. I think Pedro needed a guidance. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 11:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Was I complaining? I noticed a newsletter which, while necessary for a wikiproject to function, seemed to be inappropriately canvassing, or rather galvanizing, and I was curious what other users thought. Remember, there is no deadline; I don't see how it is too late to talk about anything. --Iamunknown 18:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

For the record, the newsletter had little effect; there was already consensus to keep when it was sent out. It probably could have had better wording though. --NE2 11:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, first of all, AfD is not a vote, even if a hundred people voted keep and all they said was I like it and the few that said delete had valid points where it violated policy, it would still get deleted. AfD is a discussion to come to some type of consensus, it's not a democracy. Secondly, notifying other members of a WikiProject that one of the articles of said project is being nominated for deletion is good practice. I am not "watching" every article, so I may not even know an article is nominated since people that nominate articles do not post anything on the WP talk page, which I think they should be required to do. AfD is a process to improve Wikipedia, not to just get rid of articles that someone doesn't like. --Holderca1 16:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

My concern was not that members were notified, which I agree is entirely appropriate, but that users were (at least it seemed to me) galvanized. --Iamunknown 18:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Harassment of Faculty and involving the police over a sockpuppet report

Adrian Sfarti has been contacting faculty members at UIUC regarding a recent sockpuppet report Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Ati3414. He has also been sending emails slurring a student and even trying to involve the campus police all because of this report and delusions that he keeps getting banned at sites, not because of his actions that warranted the bans, but because it is somehow everyone else's fault and we should fix everything for him. His behavior is unacceptable, but furthermore I am disappointed in Wikipedia administrators. Yes ultimately these are the faults of Adrian Sfarti's actions and he clearly has problems, both in the inability to look at himself critically and accepting the consequences of his actions, but also the notion that he can possibly believe this makes him look like anything but more of a crank is beyond me.

However, it is outrageous that Wikipedia administrators allow this to keep recurring. Yes, that is right, Adrian Sfarti has done this in the past. This should never have been allowed to happen again, for he should not have been allowed to even get back into situations like this. You have IP records of everyone coming on here and at the very least you should have a mechanism to flag someone as heavily using IP's that a banned individual used. From the sockpuppet report it is even apparent that a user recognized one of his edits and labeled it as "Sfarti spam" back in mid December, and yet Adrian Sfarti was allowed to continue on. People like Mr. Sfarti should immediately be removed. To keep letting them get their foot in the door again and again, and then to drag out the process of removing them each time, only leads to more of this nonsense.

Please give serious consideration to improving your user identification mechanisms. It is clear he will continue this cycle for as long as you allow him and I do not want to ever have to deal with this individual again. AnnoyedInIllinois 06:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

You might not want to deal with him, but unless he has been banned by the community here, he is free to edit. From what I see Sfarti was never banned here and If I'm missing something, point me to the editor name he was banned under or the community ban discussion. Most of the stuff you are referring to here is happening off Wikipedia and isn't relevant here. We generally don't block underlying IPs unless there is serious vandalism or personal attacks happening, and I don't see that right now (diffs would be helpful). So... I'm not sure what you are expecting to happen here.--Isotope23 14:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

HI AnnoyedInIllinois... we have alot of concerns to balance here. First of all, your concept is a good one (flagging users who are using the same IP address of someone who has been troublesome) but unfortunately it can't be done in a way that is effective. In many cases IP addresses aren't stable. Some even switch every page-load. In other cases (schools are a good example) a single IP address might be shared by hundreds/thousands of editors. In a few notable cases entire nations share a single IP address. Another concern is that of privacy. I realize that IP addresses arn't very secure, but atleast when I speak here I can do so with confidence that some irate vandal isn't going to call my boss and try to get me in some kind of trouble. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 18:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Werdnabot problem?

I was checking through the page history, as a few reports I was active on seemed to have gone AWOL. Turns out the culprit is werdnabot. At 15:28 on the 25th, werdnabot supposedly "archived" this page ("Automated archival of 23 sections to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive74"). However, if you look here, it never did copy the content to the archive in question. Am I missing something? (apart from 23 sections...) yandman 12:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Huh? Thatcher131 seems to have created the archive 75 manually -- that probably confused the bot; I can't find those 23 sections either. Duja► 12:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

That was a day later, though. Strange. By the way, there seems to be a big backlog of problems being reported on Werdna's talk page. yandman 12:47,

27 February 2007 (UTC)

No one ever remembers to increment werdnabot; archive74 was over 500KB, so I manually split half of it to archive 75, and changed Werdnabot to archive 76. Did I miss something? If so, sorry. We might want to ask Essjay to put Essjaybot II on to archiving this page as it does AN/I; when the archive reaches a preset size, it autoincrements to the next archive. Thatcher131 13:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm more than happy to do so, as long as there is agreement for it. Essjay (Talk) 13:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

You didn't cause the problem, Thatcher. Werdnabot messed up at least 10 hours before you intervened. I'd think it might be better to switch to Essjay's, at least until this is cleared up. yandman 17:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Banned Blocked users requesting help

Flamviper actually has a pretty interesting suggestion on his talk page right now. He suggests the creation of a template that banned users can use to get the attention of an admin when they have a request other than unblocking.

This blocked user is requesting administrator attention.

• User:Username (block log • ipblocklist • contribs • creation log • unblock)

Administrators: Remove this template when finished with this request and provide an answer to the blocke user's query.

He wants to call it Template:ATTN, although I think

might also work. Does anyone else think this has merit? It would require categorization, and adding to Dragonflight's report like {{editprotected}} and {{unblock}}. Thatcher131 13:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Is it just me or does the combination of Flameviper and "banned using wanting attention" seem to go rather well together. What's the point? They either want to appeal a block in which case we have the unblock template and mailing list. Or they want to appeal a ban, in which case they email arbcom. What other attnetion is it that a banned user may require? If we banned them why would we want to let them continue to have influence over the project by proxy? This appears to be instruction creep and/or another way for banned users to continue disrupting the project. --pgk 13:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Looks like an invitation to trolling to me. I see no merit. And why are we discussing the suggestions of a banned user anyway?--Doc^g 13:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

We can treat abuse of this category the same way we treat abuse of the unblock category. We already have a subcategory of unblock: Category:Requests for username changes when blocked, I think the new category is worth a try since there are bound to be blocked users with legitimate requests to be made, and it will eliminate one more excuse people have for justifying sockpuppetry while blocked. NoSeptember 14:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Can you outline those legitimate requests which wouldn't already be covered by the {{unblock}} or {{helpme}} templates? Why would an admin specifically be required? --pgk 14:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

How about a right to vanish request from a 3RR blocked user who is done with the project due to that edit war. Is there any reason they have to wait for the block to expire before making the request? (Whether we grant it is a separate issue) NoSeptember 14:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

They can request that through a simple unblock request for that. Or a helpme request. Or they can put the CSD template directly on their user_talk page. This seems a pretty rare/unusual scenario why create yet another process to cover it, what's wrong with the current processes and why do we need this instruction creep? (Some people already seem to find the instructions on the block page complex already why add more?) --pgk 14:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

There is a term for this: proxying. The banning policy is quite clear on the practice: "Wikipedians are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned user." As Pgk stated above, and as I stated on RFAR, the appropriate forum for banned users to appeal their ban (which is the only legitimate activity a banned user may take part in) is to email the Arbitration Committee or Jimbo Wales. Codifying a process for, and encouraging admins to, violate a core Wikipedia policy is a Very Bad Thing™. Essjay (Talk) 14:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

My understanding is that Flameviper is trying to get reinstated because of Yanksox's being desysopped. They're separate issues: Flameviper was banned for his actions, and Yanksox was desysopped for his actions. I agree with Essjay, this suggested template is a way to circumvent existing Wikipedia protocol, and not a good thing. --Kyoko 14:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Having this option does not mean we have to change any protocols or suffer trolling any more than we do now. Not every user can/will use email or IRC or one of the mailing lists; one more option doesn't hurt, just as the creation of the Unblock mailing list was just one more option to use for that purpose. Containing the user to his talk page is preferable to having that user create a sockpuppet and post elsewhere, which btw is what Flameviper did, causing more disruption than if he made the Arb request on his talk page. NoSeptember 14:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

We waste a disproportionate amount of time giving due process to trolls and other pests as it is. It is hard enough to get these people banned, without creating more processes to ensure the discussion is unending. What is the problem that this solution is trying to solve? What is the benefit to the project here?--Doc^g 14:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

"Not every user can/will use email..." - free email addresses are 10 a penny. If we've banned the user it tends to suggest that we've had plenty enough of them already, if the user is unwilling to create such an account to mail in why should we be bending over backwards to accomodate them? --pgk 14:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

You refer to a banned user, not all blocked users are banned. What about the normally productive user who gets blocked for 3RR or a one time personal attack etc? (I blame Thatcher131 for using the word banned instead of blocked in the section title ;-) NoSeptember 15:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that was stupid of me, sorry. Sent the discussion off in the wrong direction. I guess the point is, is there ever a reason that a blocked user would need help that only an admin could provide, so that {{helpme}} would be insufficient? Thatcher131 15:24, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I can think of a situation where a blocked user would have a legitimate request that something be posted. If he's temporarily blocked while having an RfAr against him, he should have some ability to have his comments (or evidence) listed in the procedings. Not admin action, per se, but something that should only be done by someone who is sure that it wouldn't be proxying. (And, yes, there is an instance of that in an active RfAr.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

That's a separate issue. Once a case is filed, the arbitrators or clerks should be watching his talk page anyway. Thatcher131 16:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

A small group of very busy users can easily overlook someone for quite a bit of time during a month long case. I think Arthur's example is valid, as is the right to vanish example, and I'm sure several others. NoSeptember 17:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

with the discussion having died down, I see that the situation is rare enough that {helpme} should be sufficient; if the first responder can not handle the request they can notify their favorite admin or post to ANI. Thatcher131 02:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Although note Essjay's comment above, that banned users (as opposed to blocked users) should not even be asking for any assistance, since the only action they are permitted to take is to appeal their ban. A ban is a formal revocation of all editing privileges. --bainer (talk) 06:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Agree 100% with Pgk on this. Any user can use email if they have a request other than unblocking, including requesting an Arbcom case, unprotection of their talk page or right to vanish (which would seem to be the only valid requests, anything else would be a request to proxy). In this particular case I can assure everyone from experience that Flameviper is willing to use email, but the thing about email is that it only gains you the brief attention of whoever you send it to up until the point they delete it. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 10:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Can someone describe the difference between being banned, i.e. by community consensus, after an open discussion, and being indef blocked, which is often done by a single admin, acting alone?? What (if any) rights does an indef-blocked user have? - EMET-MET 16:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

See WP:BLOCK for an explanation of our blocking policy as different from WP:BAN, our banning policy. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Those pages leave many questions unanswered. For example, if an account is indef-blocked, but not banned, can that person simply open a new account and continue editing? Can this new account be then blocked as reincarnation of a banned user, or can the new account continue to edit if the behavior that caused the original block is not continued? If a logged-in user edits (or appears to edit) from an open proxy -- even once -- can that user (rather than the ip address) be indef-blocked for open proxy use? Also, if a user is indef-blocked for any reason, and unblock is declined, can that user appeal to WP:ANI or elsewhere? It appears to me that indef-blocks (vs. bans, which are community reviewed) are subject to a lot of potential abuse. - EMET-MET 17:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

142.227.235.193

Could someone block this IP? I know it's a school IP, but there's always vandalism. Thanks. --Averross (u♠t♠c) 14:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Blocked by Kusma and then reblocked for longer by Clown. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 10:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Clerks of all types need to be deprecated

Please see Wikipedia:Community_noticeboard#Clerks_of_all_types_need_to_be_deprecated --Durin 15:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Backlog

[19] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hunted by A.K.G. (talk • contribs) 22:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC).

Random article link

I'm beginning to think that the random article link in the navigation box on the left of the screen probably causes more harm than good. It makes it easy for vandals to find obscure pages to vandalize, many of which will likely stay vandalized for some time. If the link were removed, vandalism would still continue, but it would likely be much more centered around notable, carefully watched pages (e.g. George W. Bush) and be easy to revert, as opposed to obscure pages (what vandal is actually going to type "Rolls-Royce Corniche (2000)" into the search bar and hit go?) As for the benefits to having the random page link, the only one I can think of is that it's a nice little diversion for visitors, but such benefits seem small in comparison to its pretty much given encouragement of vandalism. I propose that it be removed, or at least be made a registered user-only feature.--Azer Red Si? 22:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

It's nice for readers to find new subjects! I've always used it to find bad articles and articles needing fixing as well. I'd like to see proof that this is how vandals find articles. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 22:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

It's pretty obvious that this is how they find articles on lesser-known subjects. I mean, seriously, do you think that the casual vandal actually types Amédée Baillot de Guerville or Mahatma Gandhi Kashi Vidyapeeth into the search bar and clicks "go"? Heck no, they just keep clicking the random page button and vandalizing whatever article comes up. That button is a vandal's best friend, since it prevents them from actually having to think of a subject to vandalize.--Azer Red Si? 22:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but the flip side is that it's the wikignome's best friend as well. If you want to find random commas to fix, or random pages that have slipped through new page patrol and need to be speedy / prodded - a good way to do it is to sit there hitting "random" until you find something that needs fixing or tagging. (Or at least that's how I do it - others may have better methods.) --TheOtherBob 22:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd suggest either keeping it or removing it for anons; I know that it could definitely be used to find articles to fix, as TheOtherBob said. However, there is the consideration of how similar this is to protecting every page (allowing users to edit encourages vandalism!) Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 23:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Personally I find the random link a fascinating object - you never know where you will be going next. Should the focus of wikipedia be to protect all content at all costs from vandalism - or should it be to promote content at all costs at the expense of all? Of course the reality lies in the middle - but I think the random link lies on the right side of the line. Neither of the articles you linked to have been vandalised - and a quick test by me on hitting the link and selecting obscure articles (The Mirror of Production, Sheikh Abdullah ibn Zaid Al Nahayan, James J. O'Donnell, and Norfolk Windmills Trust) show that none of them have been vandalised either. The vandals who wish to target obscure articles will do so anyway, random link or no random link - just clicking a trail through articles from well known ones can very quickly (within 3 or 4 links) deliver you to something very obscure anyway - they will always find a method. SFC9394

The Mahatma Gandhi so-and-so article was vandalized--Azer Red Si? 23:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, but going from Gandhi (probably something that a lot of the juvenile school vandals will have been asked to find out about for some class exercises) is one click away from Gandhism which is one click away from your target article, Mahatma Gandhi Kashi Vidyapeeth. We can't turn this encyclopedia into an online anti-vandal fortress - the easiest way to solve the vast majority of vandalism is to stop anon edits, but that isn't going to happen either! (I say that as someone who makes probably a dozen reverts a day on the day of the year articles to keep them clean of my mate billy born 1990 entries) and would be happy to see them all SP'ed, but it just isn't going to happen. SFC9394 23:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Openness and preventing vandalism are always a delicate balance. Our position has been that we'll go for openness unless things are so bad that we can't--that's why we still allow anonymous editing, despite the problems. I suspect, though, that the random article link has been indirectly responsible for much of our growth; it's the only way, in a few seconds, to get a sense of the encyclopedia's enormous breadth and range, and people (newcomers too, not just wikignomes) generally find it fascinating. Chick Bowen 03:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Fool that ruined America

Please could someone more awake than I am take a look at this ([20]) and unravel the moves and redirects. It's making me dizzy. Ta. I'm so spun by it, I can't even work out if it's vandalism. --Dweller 23:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

It seems to have been taken care of. Cbrown1023 talk 23:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

AfD heads up

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solar system warming. Someone has turned it into a vote, and several people seem to believe that Google results which include solar, system and warming are an indication that "solar system warming" is verifiable (which, according to Factiva, Google Scholar and other resources, it is not). A textbook case of "novel synthesis from published sources" as far as I can tell. Several "brand new users" and discussion obscured by the odd layout. Guy (Help!) 23:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Notice of ArbCom Injunction in Armenia-Azerbaijan case

The Arbitration Committee has adopted a temporary injunction in the case of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan. The injunction provides: Until the conclusion of this case, all parties are restricted to one content revert per article per day, and each content revert must be accompanied by a justification on the relevant talk page. Violators may be blocked for up to 24 hours. A list of the affected parties can be found on the case page and they have been notified of the injunction on their talkpages. This notice is given by a Clerk on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad 02:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Another AfD heads up

This AfD for the article JJB message board could go south very quickly per this messageboard posting. Might be worth keeping an eye on - I've put a not-a-ballot template on. EliminatorJR ^Talk 02:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Personal attack on user page?

This User:RedKlonoa looks like it contains a personal attack. I'm not about to go jumping in and editing someone's user page, anyone else agree though?--Crossmr 03:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

"Idiotic" removed and talk page notified. Teke ^(talk) 05:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Allen Hynek edit-war

Again and again user 84.133.etc. replaces the passage that is not to be found in the given reference ("Revelations"), I read the book and especially searched for the quote, but did not find it. Moreover, what the quote says is included in the surrounding paragraphs anyway. So I don't know why 84.133.etc. replaces the wrong passage all over again, and he refuses to give his reasons, on the contrary, he is insulting me ("(Bwilcke, stubborness won't help, this just ain't right so you better shut up"). I know him, he is a German whose contributions are confined to enter or provoke edit-wars - like here - and to rare minor (mostly unreasonable) corrections. A weird fellow. He likes to insult not only me but also others (e.g. got blocked once for incredible contentions about the familiy of another user, unknown to him).

Could you help, please?

Bwilcke (forgot my password) -- 84.176.56.251 03:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOPRO, revisited

It's about time we (re)consider dropping the prohibition against semi-protecting Today's Featured Article. The discussion on the talk page has stalled and so I have decided to bring the matter back to the forefront here. In the first five hours Aspasia has been on the Main Page, changes to the article have been – in short – minimal, with many of the constructive edits (that are not merely vandalism reverts) coming from established users. And yet we are still maintaining the idea that it is better to show people that this one particular article is open for editing rather than maintaining the integrity of what we claim is an encyclopedia. If we truly are an encyclopedia first, why are we compromising the quality of what we all flaunt as some of our best work in the hopes that, despite past experience, most newcomers will make positive contributions? Whereas the current policy is giving those small number of constructive newcomers the feeling of satisfaction, are we not lending credence to the idea that Wikipedia is unreliable by showing many others entire articles that are replaced or riddled with nonsense by vandals? -- tariqabjotu 05:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

We claim to be an openly editable encyclopedia, so protecting the most visible article goes right against that philosophy. Incidentally, the day you picked to bring this up is a day with a front page article that would have a very small amount of the public that is knowledgable on the subject, leading to fewer constructive changes. Viridae^Talk 05:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, though you'd be surprised--when Eric A. Havelock was on the main page, a couple of Havelock scholars (there aren't many) dropped by. But the wider point here is this--perhaps the TFA is not the best way to advertise our openness? I know this is the wrong place to start throwing out proposals, but what if we had a "stub of the day" and encouraged editing of that? It would get a lot of vandalism, but that would be OK because no one would expect it to have integrity. Chick Bowen 05:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

DYK kind of fills that niche with (mostly) short, new articles. Hbdragon88 05:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

True, but the rules for DYK have become stricter recently (minimum raised from 1,000 characters all included to 1,500 characters excluding references, infoboxes, and categories), so stubs and very short articles no longer have a place there. Perhaps an "article improvement of the day" on the front page may be a way to lure new editors? Take some general or popular subject without a really good article, so that many people will feel that they can contribute something useful? Articles like (just a random sample) Horror fiction, The Beano, Hugo van der Goes, Buster Brown, ... We could even have a redlink of the day, where people can just start from scratch (ftalates, Lives of the Most Excellent Painters, Sculptors, and Architects (the very important book by Giorgio Vasari), ...). Fram 08:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• One question might be whether we need to advertise our openness in that way. We're quite well-known throughout the world. >Radiant< 09:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

We are first and foremost a free encyclopaedia - at least that's what it says at the top left of every page. Being freely-editable is a means to an end, of generating as much content as possible, and comes second in importance to being an encyclopaedia. The prohibition against semi-protecting today's FA is misguided because it puts editors above readers, even though the vast majority of people come to Wikipedia to read it, not to edit it. (As any rational person would expect - I don't go to McDonalds so I can grill my own burger. Or to use a non-profit analogy, people who call The Samaritans don't expect to be told to sort it out themselves.)

Preventing anons from starting articles, introducing the semi-protection policy, and many other measures have already gone against the philosophy of being openly editable for the sake of protecting the encyclopaedia. Semi-protecting the FA so that people new to the encyclopaedia don't see a load of penises or 'MY FREIND TOM SUCKS BALLS LOL' is another step that should be taken in this direction. I acknowledge that I'm in the minority over this at the moment, but quality is more important than quantity now, and the direction of policy is inevitably going to continue to point in the direction of safeguarding what we've got rather than fighting the law of diminishing returns as it applies to random contributions. Featured Articles, by their nature, are going to be on the flat end of the curve anyway. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 10:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah the Most Excellent Painters and Sculptors etc... surely two of the finest would be Theodore 'Ted' Logan and Bill S.Preston Esquire who surely merit a most bodacious article! And the less we know about 'freind Tom' and his eating habits the better! :) Lemon martini 10:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• The random article feature is a Good Thing, as for wikignomes like myself, it allows me to fix obscure articles which I'd have to search for. And as for semi-protecting the main page article, it's a no-no, it goes against the policy of "Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia anyone can edit". Semi-protection is a good thing, it's like a safe haven against vandalism. These are my thoughts, and I realise they may be controversial, but it's just an opinion! --sunstar net^talk 15:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Out of Order

I would like to complain about User:Mr. Darcy. His approach and attitude towards other editors who come to Wiki and work diligently is unacceptable. A review of his contributions/comments/Talk pages should demonstrate this. He often appears to act in unison with User:Tyrenius. Regardless of how many barnstars and merits accumulated by such people, opiniated power seems to be running amuck here. One email I received from another User about Mr Darcy described him as "Arrogant, rude, hasty, overweening, opinionated, biased and power-hungry." If Wiki is supposed to be a forum for consensus and civility towards each other it is not being demonstrated here. David Lauder 09:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

To be perfectly and truly honest, mentioning a "cabal" never helps your case. I briefly considered taking a look at this case until I reached the word "cabal". Ral315 » 09:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I am asking here for intelligent consideration of this matter. Saying you will not consider it because you don't like a single solitary word is fairly ridiculous, is it not? I have changed that now. David Lauder 10:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I have had my run ins with Mr.Darcy (infact he blocked me last week (which was later overturned)) and generally find him pretty harsh - harsh but generally fair, fair and knowledgeable in fact. If you are going to throw around accusations of acting in a "cabal", then maybe the old adage of "those who live in glasshouses, should not throw stones" could apply.--Vintagekits 10:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

If I were an unseasoned observer I would say that you were more friendly with Mr Darcy than not. He has supported you absolutely in appalling decisions before. Maybe the block was just a ruse to indicate his "independence"? David Lauder 10:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

So you make a complaint about Mr. Darcy, but when someone speaks up for him, they are in cahoots with Mr. Darcy in some diabolical ruse? I am disinclined to give much attention to your complaint at this juncture. Please provide diffs to evidence your complaints, rather than vague accusations of cabalism and malevolent plottery. Proto ► 11:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your contribution. I feel that I have been clear enough. David Lauder 12:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Saying that someone is being bad will not cause anyone to immediately dig through every one of the user's contributions looking for bad stuff. Saying what they've actually done wrong is a bare minimum, evidence is highly desirable if you want anyone to take action. With regard to this posting I hereby swear that I am not a member of any cabal, conspiracy or secret 'NO GURLS' clubhouse. I am not privy to the secret codes, the secret handshake, the secret decoder ring or the super secret secret squirrel. I am not nor have I ever been a member of the Communist Party, nor have I been party to the Communist Party parties, although this one time I went to a Socialist Party but it was a total sausage-fest full of nerds in pullovers so the next time I was invited I was all like look I'd like to but the neo-conservatives already invited me to theirs and after a few drinks one of the girls usually starts a game of Strip and Awe so... --Sam Blanning^(talk) 12:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

WOW! I didn't know you could do that! GOD, I LOVE WIKIPEDIA. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 12:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

If an Editor has a complaint, properly expressed, it seems to me that you should make an effort to treat it with some respect instead of trying to belittle it through ad hominem abuse. Your post says more about you than you realise.--Major Bonkers 14:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The trouble is that the complaint is not properly expressed. There's no evidence, just vague allegations about power-hungry admins and insinuations of some kind of underhanded subterfuge. Proto ► 14:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Thats the best I can do. It is easy enought to spend five minutes looking through the contributions if you're really interested. I do not have the knowledge to direct you otherwise. David Lauder 14:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

If it was easy enough, you could have spent that five minutes yourself scaring up some actual diffs with actual evidence instead of saying that you couldn't be bothered to do so. Why should anyone else be interested if you aren't yourself? --Calton | Talk 15:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Someone may have closed their own WP:CFD discussion

Could an administrator please check the proposals to rename Category:Members and associates of the U.S. National Academy of Engineering and Category:Founding members of the U.S. National Academy of Engineering at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 February 27? It looks like User:Tasoskessaris (a.k.a. Dr.K) closed his own nominations without allowing for discussion. Even categories nominated for speedy renaming take 48 hours to pass through WP:CFD. This activity simply does not look right. Dr. Submillimeter 11:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

It does look strange. I don't understand why it wasn't listed as a speedy rename. Have you asked Dr. K? I don't think this is anything to worry about. Do you? -- Samuel Wantman 11:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Looking at User talk:Tasoskessaris, it looks like this user needs to be warned about his actions mainly so that a record is made on his talk page indicating what happened. The user has a history of disruptive behavior (whether it is intentional or unintentional). Among other things, I saw a warning indicating that the user has caused category-related problems before (such as the recreation of deleted content). Dr. Submillimeter 12:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Looking further at User talk:Tasoskessaris, it does not look like the user is trying to be disruptive. However, the user does appear to make some mistakes. The user should at least be warned (preferably by an administrator) not to close his own rename discussions, although the warning should not be too harsh. Dr. Submillimeter 12:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Over 500 links to a single band

I don't know how much of this is an AN issue, but some serious, serious, serious gnomery and/or intervention is needed. Placebo (band) is one of our most linked articles. Someone has been inserting links to it everywhere. I mean everywhere, too. Go to the band page and then check "What links here." Now, the fact that the band is linked from David Bowie may be neither here nor there, but so many links inside Wikipedia might well result in some added lucre because of Google page rank boosting. If you folks want to investigate and decide it's all kosher and copacetic, fine, but it seems...excessive.

I found the band because a "biography" of their drummer (written by a drummer!) was a speedy delete that I hit while surfing Random Article. I thought, "I've never heard of this band. Is this a European thing?" I looked at the band article, verified that it has albums, and then went to "What links here." Warning: wear your goggles. Utgard Loki 13:43, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I peeked at the list, and most of them seem okay (alternative rock-related articles). There are a LOT of "trivia" type "_____ in Pop Culture" sections where the band had a song that related to the subject. I don't blame the band, I blame the crappy articles that have these meandering popculture sections. Mahalo. --Ali'i 14:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I can confirm that I have heard of Placebo, and they are not a little unheard of band, particularly in the UK and Europe. Proto ► 14:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

No, they are one of the most popular rock bands (or alternative pop or whatever it is called nowadays) in Europe (certainly in France and Italy, but also in Belgium and I suppose a lot of other countries). I don't know what article was speedy deleted (it looks like all band members have their article for the moment, so perhaps you haven't speedy deleted it after all). A link from David Bowie to Placebo is quite normal, as they are heavily influenced by him. It has less than 500 incoming links (now, perhaps people removed some since the start of this section), so I doubt that it is one of the most linked articles (check e.g. The Simpsons), and most of the links seem at first glance to be correct (there are some like Jodrell Bank Observatory I could do without, but that's a general problem with trivia sections). But bands like Pink Floyd have over 3,000 incoming links, and even a very young band like Kaiser Chiefs has over 300 incoming links. It all looks quite normal to me. Fram 14:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I am just some guy with a separate comment on categorization. However, I looked at the "what links here" for Placebo (band) and saw that a large number of the pages were user pages. The band probably just has a lot of fans in Wikipedia. (However, this does not explain all of the links.) Dr. Submillimeter 20:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Buddhism

Buddhism seems to have been the victim of some page-move vandalism. Can this be fixed? —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 15:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Try reporting this at WP:RFP. The solution is move only protection - allows free editing of page but not moving. Eli Falk 15:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I don't see this kind of vandalism often, so I wasn't sure where to go. The situation's been handled by an admin. Cheers! —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 15:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

User Account Problem

Hi! I have problems with my user account Bwilcke. Something is wrong with my original password, and when I ask for a new password, I get no answer.

Maybe a did not give my e-mail address: bwilcke@web.de. Can you help?

-- 84.176.56.251 15:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Unexpected Request By User:212.219.247.229

This user has requested to be blocked.

1. I can't handle this
2. Why would someone ask this?
3. Is that even allowed?
   RyGuy 15:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

It would appear to be an educational institution (registered to a council, connecting via ja.net). So it's likely to be very shared. Such IPs are normally blocked as anon-only, account creation blocked when they vandalise heavily, but in this case I'm not sure if they should be blocked merely on a request (because one person requesting an IP to be blocked would cause other people using that IP also to be blocked). --ais523 16:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I have heard of blocking anonymous editing from a school IP, at the request of school officials. But the guy making the request on that page hardly looks like an official. He may just be a student trying to annoy his friends. EdJohnston 17:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Blocks for warning removal

Maybe I'm completely off base here, but we generally don't issue blocks for warning removals by an editor from their own talkpage do we? At least my understanding was that removing warnings is annoying as hell, but not expressly forbidden by any guideline or policy and a block based on warning removal from an editor's own talkpage probably isn't a very good block. Just want to clarify my understanding before I wade into a situation.--Isotope23 16:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

That's my understanding as well. | Mr. Darcy talk 16:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

If someone removes a message, we can assume they've seen it. This would be a poor reason for a block. Friday (talk) 16:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree, blanking userpage warnings shouldent warrant a block in itself. (But, i bet you wont have to look too deep to find other reasons to block, i.e. continue vandalism or spamming). -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 16:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I am testing a bot that will retro-actively create an archive from a page based off of it's revision history. That will show any thread that was removed, including warnings. I just need to make a better caching system before I roll it out. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

That is correct. We do, however, issue warnings or blocks to editors who insist on edit warring to add a warning to a talk page. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that seems to be the root problem here. There was 1 warning that the editor removed, then another editor and an admin kept adding the warning back along with additional vandal warnings to stop removing the warnings. the admin eventually blocked the editor ostensibly for violating 3RR... which never would have happened if 2 other people were not incorrectly adding the warnings there.--Isotope23 17:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Not only that, but we tend to treat a user's talk page as an exception to the 3RR. Except in unusual circumstances, an editor is allowed to remove whatever comments they want, as often as they want, from their own page. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

So, the block on User:XX7 is going to be lifted by someone then? – Steel 17:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll look into it. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Well now that the name has been mentioned, it does seem the reason given for blocking is not in line with policy. I have unblocked the user. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Looks like HighInBC beat me to it. I also note that the template being removed was a notification from OrphanBot. I can't imagine why someone would edit war to keep that message on a user's page in the first place. It's just a notice from a bot, for goodness' sake—it's not even a user conduct warning. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

my edits keep going away

i have editted two intel articles on "pentium d" and "core 2" user sarenne keeps undoing the edits.

i don't understand what is going on here and need some help. what's the point of Wikipedia if some folks just undo all of the work of other users. I did enter a comment on user's sarenne talk page -- but i doubt it makes a difference.

but from what i read the problem is much bigger than i.

this user is trying to engineer social change far beyond the mear correctness of terminology...which, by the way, i totally disagree with.

so someone needs to explain this binary terminology religious ferver to me and what it has to do with Wikipedia.

Or maybe you won't have to "block" me. I will just go away and use/contribute somewhere else where it is valued.

Thanks.

Rman2000 17:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

This is a conflict over the Manual of Style's guidelines for the binary prefixes. Rman2000, under the IP 68.115.91.4, is going against the MoS by using, for example, MB, while other users are using MiB. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 17:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

It has been explained to this user why his edits have been reverted and he has been directed to the correct page to take up his issue with the current policy. This is a hotly contested policy, but has withstood many challenges thus far. There have been a string of IP users recently who show up solely for the purpose of removing the correct usage of these prefixes and causing a fuss when their changes are reverted. -- mattb @ 2007-02-28T17:51Z

It doesn't matter how hotly contested this issue is or what the past has held. In this case these articles are about products designed and built by Intel. The inventor/manufacturer does NOT use this terminology. So I don't think that Wikipedia consensus (and since the entire community didn't vote, the importance of this isn't clear either) is really the guiding factor in these articles. They should be true to the rightful inventor/owner terminology. It is clearly confusing to see one terminology in Wikipedia and a different one from the manufacturer: web pages, documentation, packaging etc.

This isn't just editting of a page here or there but these MiB/KiB folks are out to change the world. They are clearly monitoring Wikipedia for just sunch changes and changing them back...it's like the binary number police at work. When in this case, they are simply wrong on every front. If they want to write original articles and use obscure terminology known only to .00001% of the population, then fine. I appauld them for living in their own private world. But I live in this world and it doesn't use MiB or KiB ... anywhere else.

The forced imposition of standards is a political event and should be handled in a suitable political forum. If they want to "suggest" certain changes to authors...well why not. But they are forcing every page in Wikipedia to bare their particular nomenclature stamp when it is not the desire of the subject community. What is "correct" is not the forced change of every occurance of MB to MiB etc. They must have a BOT that checks all pages in Wikipedia for "violations" of their form of "correctness" given the speed with which my edits were removed. This is really the George Orwell "1984" nightmare incarnate.

And the slight above about IP users is just more snobbery about the topic. I didn't sign on because I didn't even think about it at the time. And I don't think others are trying to hide from the changes. Only from the overwhelming pressure of the binary zealots that are taking over Wikipedia.

Read what they said. The words on vandalism and blocking are threats pure and simple. You don't leave it the way we want it and you will be "eliminated"....almost "resistence is futile" sound about it. I don't think that I and other users respond to threats very well.

Wikipedia's value is deeply rooted in it's openness. This kind of "bully" editing runs clearly against the grain. These folks, whoever they are, don't own every technical page in Wikipedia...at least I don't think that they do (correct me if I am wrong). And I don't think it serves Wikipedia to have "policemen" of any type forcing everyone to walk on the "right" side of the street.

But I am concerned about these pages where the terminology is being corrupted in the name of "standards" and made inconsitent with the common practice of engineers, programmers, users and manufactures as represented in their own writings, web sites and packaging. Rman2000 19:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

In this case, the marketing people at the companies you mention are using the wrong prefix because they don't want to confuse the customers. Wikipedia shouldn't adhere to marketing talk, it should keep to standards and in this case MiB is the correct use of prefixes when referring to 1024 bytes. --Strangnet 19:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

In any event... this is a content dispute, not something requiring admin action.--Isotope23 19:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Wonder what admins are for then? I am just a simple user and everytime I make a change the MiB police change it back. I don't have the power or time necessary to keep making the changes over and over again. If the admins are in support of "editting police" then it's a sad day for Wikipedia. If and until the "issue" is settled, I think that they should not be able to "purify" all technical articles to their own beliefs and wishes. This isn't a dialog that can happen on a single article or two. And it doesn't appear to me that they are winning on the merits of their argument either. They are winning by brute force. Multiply this behavior many times and it will be the death of Wikipedia. Sure you want it to start here?Rman2000 20:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Admins are janitors here, not police. What I said isn't in any way "support of editing police". The only things an admin can do that any other editor cannot is delete articles, protect pages from editing, and block editors for vandalism. Other than that that, we are all simple editors. Deletion, protection, and blocking are not warranted here so there really is nothing that requires an administrator to intervene. There are numerous mechanisms open to you at dispute resolution--Isotope23 20:43, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict of the same thing, but I typed it so I'm posting it, dammit!) Administrators are regular editors like everyone else, but with access to a couple technical features to aid in maintaining the project (block, deletion, protection and MediaWiki). We may offer advice from experience, but a single administrator does not have the authority to rewrite the manual of style. Administrators are not the Wikipedia jack-booted police. Some users may have jack-boots, some may be police, some may be jack-booted police, but as a whole our function is not dispute resolution. That door is right around the corner.. Teke ^(talk) 20:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

First of all, it isn't just the "marketing" people using a terminology. The technical programmers and engineers who invent, design, build, test and ship all (almost all) technical products don't use MiB or KiB. The computer technical community has been using MB, KB, for what, sixty years now give or take. And they are all "wrong" and you are the only one who is right? My my, it must be special to know that only you have it right and everyone else has it wrong. But it is also the "confusion" of the "customers" that should concern Wikipedia the most as Wikipedia doesn't just exist to fulfill the whims of a hand full of MiB zealots. Rman2000 20:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

For the last time. If you have an issue with this policy, take it up in the appropriate place: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). Neither the administrator notice board nor revert summaries nor user talk pages are correct places to get this policy changed. I suggest you first read up on the five or so previous times this has come up, been discussed thorougly, and still maintained significant consensus to keep. Believe it or not, there are a lot of valid reasons for using IEC prefixes. Irregardless, please do not revert articles to your liking until such a time as the current MOS guideline changes. You can drop the persecution complex. Nobody has bullied you, it's you who is demanding that your opinion is more valid than that of the users who established and have maintained this particular policy. There are other users who disagree with the policy, if you have anything to add to the lengthy discussion, by all means do so in the appropriate place. -- mattb @ 2007-02-28T20:27Z

Cabal like Page Move discussion at Talk:Voodoo Kin Mafia

First, a question, if band changed their name, would the article name change with it? How about if the band changed name a few months ago, should the article reflect its current name? Or should it use their older more established name?

There's a page move discussion at Talk:Voodoo Kin Mafia which was started on the 4th of February, it's still ongoing regarding moving the article back to the old name. However, this page move is linked from absolutely nowhere apart from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/to do, a behind the scenes wrestling page. It has taken a month just to get 6 support votes from editors engrained within the wikiproject, and absolutely lacks any outside comment.

I'm afraid that these guys will just get an admin to go "Look! Support! Move it back!" without letting them know the whole picture. Is such a move discussion even valid? 82.19.126.78 19:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Admin power abuse by Dbachmann

I would like to request a review by an independent Admin of the abuse of admin power by DBachmann. In a content dispute, he blocked my id. I requested an independent review as a part of Unblock. Dab unblocked my id, so that the independent review would not happen. So I am requesting the review here. To provide some details, Dab is adding all kind of original research to the Indigenous Aryan Theory article. I have been asking for citation of controversial claims since Feb 13th. Yesterday since no citation was provided, I added verifiable and relevent content with proper citation and removed OR. Dab removed the properly citied material and replaced with OR. One place where he did provide citation, he misrepresented the main content of article. When I corrected the content based on the article, he charged me with reverting and blocked me for 48 hours (he is the one doing reverting). I requested him to discuss on talk page. WP:OR states that any further analysis of authors position is original research. Dab as an admin should be upholding WP policies and not abusing them. I can provide history going back about 4 months where he has provided OR, removed properly referenced material, and provided fictitious citations. Please see here for other editors complaints. [[21]]Sbhushan 20:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

see WP:AN/I#Sbhushan for context. This request should be at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_conduct#Use_of_administrator_privileges. dab (𒁳) 20:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)