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

#wikipedia-en-admins

The recent Giano II (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) matter has directed attention to the behavior of administrators on the IRC channel #wikipedia-en-admins. A discussion needs to be held regarding this matter regarding the questions raised. Fred Bauder 15:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

• Treat #wikipedia-en-admins as if every word is being said in public (it isn't, but IRC clients tend to log by default these days). It's not somewhere to let off steam about what a fuckwit you think someone is.
• Be collegiate. Respect each other's judgement. YOU'RE ADMINS! You were PICKED for your JUDGEMENT!
• ...

Basically, "here are ways not to be dicks. You know, just to remind you." This doesn't address the current soap opera, but it's probably a good approach going forward - David Gerard 15:31, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

This is why I never use IRC, if you say something somewhere else, you should be just as accountable as if you said it here, so long as it can be proven. But you aren't usually (Everyking) held responsible, so all IRC really shows is that some admins lack the outlook on Wikipedia that they should have. Prodego ^talk 15:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

While discussing this the arbitrators found Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks#Off-wiki_personal_attacks. Fred Bauder 15:53, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

There was a lot of contention even on just that. Prodego ^talk 16:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Whilst we could agree that logs should be published, or widely available, in future, I would have strong objection to any retrospective change. I've chatted personally, and given some details of my family on IRC. I chose to do that on the understanding that a few dozen people, all of whom were named and understood IRC rules, might overhear. But the notion that the logs of such conversations might be published (and searchable) on the open web, or given to people not party to the conversation was not part of the deal, and if allowed retrospectively is an horrific invasion of privacy. Change the rules for future use if we must (although I'll probably stop using channels that are that public), but not retrospectively. --Doc^g 16:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree, but if someone were to then create a private channel, and all the admins went there instead, we would be right back where we started. Prodego ^talk 16:08, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

This is already happening. And worse, such channels, being private, will only include like-minded admins. Now that the forces of darkness confer in one, and Geogre et al in another, divisive groupthink will only increase.--Doc^g 16:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

People should treat IRC like a very large conference call. On-wiki actions which arise out of IRC discussions should be justifiable in absence of any agreement or discussion on IRC (ignoring WP:OFFICE actions for the moment). Then again, the same should really be said about the Mailing Lists too.

As for the #wikipedia-en-admins IRC channel, in spite of its apparent lack of confidentiality it continues to be a useful forum for messages like "I'm having some trouble with vandals on Steve Irwin", which obviates the need to interrupt the usual gutter talk in #wikipedia. Sure, there is a multitude of pages on Wikipedia proper which serve such functions, but to be honest, over my dialup connection they usually take ages to load, because the people who haunt such pages (including this one) have a tendency to write essay-length posts about absolute wank. IRC is much easier on my connection than pages like WP:AN, and much more interesting at the same time.

If #wikipedia-en-admins were to be shut down, it would simply shift the "sensitive discussion" to less publicised forums, and make it more cliquey (rather than allowing access to all admins). I think that would be counterproductive, but that looks to be the way it's heading.

For those of you who are desperate to know what goes on in #wikipedia-en-admins, you'll be disappointed to know the conversations therein are quite similar to those in #wikipedia, and only half the time are they actually on-topic. - Mark 16:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, we need a massive thrashing out of this somewhere—not necessarily to get a conclusive ruling (impossible, anyway, because people are free to do and say what they like off Wikipedia), but because I'm sure it will result in an informal code-of-conduct and some principles of etiquette (and hopefully moderation) emerging consensually among the majority of administrators which will serve in future to stifle most outbreaks of nastiness, sneakiness, or inappropriate specificity on a small group of agreed channels. The nasty few will have less effect on Wikipedia if their behaviours are as a result of this wised-up moral majority pushed off into channels where they are unlikely to mix with most decent-thinking administrators. But this discussion does, in my opinion, need to be centralised somewhere (if it already is, could someone guide me there, please). qp10qp 16:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion

IMHO, the problem with the #wikipedia-en-admins is not the medium itself but that it is too big and important a forum to ignore the discussion there and at the same time it is protected from scrutiny.

I would suggest: to allow postings of logs (obviously sanitized from the personal info and WMF legal business) if it is needed to assess onwiki activities. It could apply to any off-wiki communications (including various chats, blogs and E-mails). A usual off-wiki WP:NPA#Off-wiki_personal_attacks principles would apply: you cannot be blocked only for the off-wiki activity but the good faith of your actions may be evaluated based on the off-wiki evidence. E.g. if an admin on IRC was searching for a "clean kill" instead of solving a disruption problem, then his or her block may be seen as issued in the bad faith.

The other problem is that a few extremely productive users see the #wikipedia-en-admins as the place there a clique is plotting intrigues against them. I would guess that the easiest solution would be just to invite the editors to the channel. They could see the matter for themselves as well as solve their problems from within. As I understand very productive editors are more rare species than admins, they also tend to be devoted to editing rather than chatting, so I do not think their inclusion would significantly increase the noise level on the channel. Alex Bakharev 02:51, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, no reason Giano should not be on the channel. Fred Bauder 03:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

In principle, yes. I could see the consequences of that heading in either of two diametrically opposed ways. Either he sees that nothing much really goes on there, or he blows his top completely. At the end of the day, much as people have been arguing on the Esperanza MfD, people editing Wikipedia have to be able to cope with the environment. As a community, we should try and keep the environment as pleasant as possible, but there are limits and people have to insulate themselves to some aspects of the environment (ie. ignore some things as beneath them, or whatever). Carcharoth 03:59, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

We are talking about the admin-user interactions here. The primary (and in a sense the only duty of an admin) is to provide maximally comfortable environment for the productive users (and uncomfortable for the vandals and trolls). Alex Bakharev 07:05, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

While I have no opinion toward Giano, and have tried to stay out of this topic as much as possible, I would not support Giano being on the channel; while he's certainly a productive user, there are occasionally sensitive topics discussed on the channel; I can think of at least one discussion regarding a sensitive office action that I was involved in, with Jimbo and many other admins. As far as I've always believed, access should be granted to people we trust not to leak logs or publish sensitive information; while I don't think Giano would, I think he has been involved in enough conflicts that his trust would be questioned by at least a few admins, which I think would lead to more back-channel discussions outside of the main channel. Ral315 (talk) 10:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Except that he's already violated all of the rules of the channel by posting logs everywhere. I can think of very, very few people on the channel who would be okay with him joining now. He's already burned all of his bridges. --Cyde Weys 16:56, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

The way you say that bothers me. It gives the impression that the bulk of these people aren't commenting on the IRC question on wiki for themselves—in which case, why not? It adds to my paranoia to think that our discussing this stuff on Wikipedia is a waste of time because the "real" discussion may be somewhere else: that's almost the essence of what worries people about IRC in the first place. I don't go on IRC, so I can't judge, but so far I have been willing to believe the assurances here that most admins are simply using IRC to speed up and improve their efficiency, in which case I don't see why the question whether Giano had access or not would bother them. I can only really assess what IRC users think by what they say for themselves on wiki: is that naive? qp10qp 18:24, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

As with any discussion on Wikipedia, there is no need to comment if you have nothing to add. There is no point in a comment that says "I agree with Cyde, bye" (and adding empty votes like this on unanimous AfD's, etc. is also stupid). —Centrx→talk • 03:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, a little naive, but the fact there there were extended discussions on the arbcom list is why this is here so that everyone can get in on the conversation. Fred Bauder 20:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

A note about -admins and Giano I am an IRC user of that channel and yes I dont support the request to have non-admins in the channel. there have been Times where I will go there an seek advice from other admins. There are times where I am unsure of what to do and I dont want my asking about it or other request to affect the users in question or how the Issue is finaly issued. there was a case about how to handle some admin actions in general and some specific advice on other areas but sometimes these conversations can feed a vandal or make the situation worse if some of the involved parties find out that you were thinking about taking one action, but when I discussed with people in -admins I decide to take a different action. My first action Could have made the situation ten times worse. But in any given situation if a user asks me about a event that happened on IRC that I was involved with I will freely post the given conversation IF AND ONLY IF I have the consent of the involved IRC parties. I have done this already with one BRfA. I would have done so in the Giano case but due to technical reason I was unable to retrieve my logs and review the situation and get consent. I think that there should be a policy that users in good standing may request the conversation, But the admin in question must get consent from the involved parties and should edit out all conversation not within the scope of the event in question Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 23:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

As a non-admin, how would I even know that an admin's actions are the result of an IRC discussion in order to request the log? If you decided you choose option A instead of option B, why is the rationale behind that decision secret? If your actions are consistent with policy and practice, explaining your motives shouldn't reveal anything that isn't already described on-wiki somewhere. In my view (as a non-admin), all potentially controversial on-wiki decisions resulting from any form of off-wiki discussion (IRC, email, AIM, telephone, what have you) should be accompanied by an on-wiki explanation, accessible to all users. It could be as simple as posting a summary of the discussion on your own talk page. This is an action that admins can undertake right now to increase transparency and trust and debunk claims of conspiracy. –  Anþony  talk  11:04, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

This is usually exactly what is done. The objections to IRC seem to be about 'hidden motives' and 'conspiracy'. Not leaving explanatory log reasons would be the same problem after IRC discussion as it would be for an individual admin making a decision with no discussion. —Centrx→talk • 03:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

It is sad that IRC people does not want to invite Giano and could solve a chronic problem and benefit the project. Betacommand's idea of a system to officially request logs (probably sanitized from the personal info and WMF business) might be useful in some cases: suppose a friend of a user reads the IRC log and suspect something fishy was going on, then requests the official log and starts and ON-Wiki process. To be workable this solution at least require an IRC culture of inviting diverse productive users instead of kickbanning them. Alex Bakharev 11:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

He is perfectly capable of coming on IRC. —Centrx→talk • 05:16, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

New rule

I (with my "Group Contact Chair" hat on) have instituted a new rule for #wikipedia-en-admins:

Chanops can remove a user's access to #wikipedia-en-admins for being "an obnoxious jerk" or being unproductive.

Note that this is a stronger rule than the implicit rule for all IRC channels - that is, that chanops can remove a user's access to any channel for being highly obnoxious or counter-productive. This is because, well, we expect better things of our sysops.

#wikipedia-en-admins was created for crash- and near-crash-priority stuff. I'd rather we didn't have too much of a closed community about it. If we have people being unproductive, but not counterproductive - that is, idly chatting about the weather, well, it encourages just the wrong sort of mentality.

For those that want channels for idle chat, well, #wikipedia itself springs to mind.

James F. (talk) 15:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Esperanza MfD

The MfD of Esperanza has now reached 150kb. As the overwhelming consensus appears to be for deletion, can someone please consider closing the debate now? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:54, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Several things:

1. MFDs run for more than two days.
2. Most users agree it should be deleted, but there is still considerable discussion as to what should be deleted, and how.
3. Debates are usually not closed early unless they satisfy a Speedy keep or Speedy delete condition, and neither one applies here.

Titoxd^(?!?) 00:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflictx2)I am perfectly aware of that, but WP:SNOW says that that if there is overwhelming consensus one way or the other, a debate can be closed early. We're up to 150kb of discussion now, little more can contributed. Most people are just repeating what's already been said now anyway. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 00:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

(non-sysop opinion) Although I don't care about this MFD to tell the truth, an administrator could apply WP:IAR right now, and delete it early (if they wanted to). Iced Kola 00:08, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Except that opens the door to WP:DRV and other unnecessary wikilawyering. I don't see what the hurry is... Titoxd^(?!?) 00:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Umm, you guys do know that WP:SNOW isn't a policy, that WP:IAR just says that we need to respond to emergency situations dynamically, and that very little harm comes from letting a debate run, whereas great bitterness and bad precedent comes from cutting it off early? Geogre 00:32, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

And Wikipedia:Five pillars isn't anything at all. WP:IAR says nothing about emergencies. This discussion, like any discussion on Wikipedia, is about what is best for a situation. —Centrx→talk • 00:41, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to say the same thing I said the last MFD: It's the wrong place to discuss such things. You don't deside whether an organization can be here on not on a deletion debate. It's stupid! There's got to be a better place to discuss this. We can't just go deleting organizations. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 00:33, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Huh? —Centrx→talk • 00:39, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Royalguard does make a good point. Maybe we can learn from the way WikiProjects and even entire wikipedias are deleted (there is a page on meta that deals with deleting inactive WikiMedia Foundation wikis). In those cases, inactivity seems to be the only criterion. There has been talk of Esperanza beoming less and less active, so maybe if left to itself it will die a natural death? Has there ever been precedent for deleting an active organisation with this much history? Carcharoth 00:41, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Anything that harms Wikipedia gets deleted. Esperanza is slowly dying anyway, all of the senior members were leaving, with only excitable new users with no sense of history or wikipedian policy left behind. It's becoming more and more dangerous, and if there is no precedent, better to set one than to keep something around that a lot of people want deleted. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 00:45, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Dev920, it is considered bad form for the originator of an XfD to ask for it to be closed early. It is terribly easy for people to get the wrong idea and think you want it closed at a point where the nomination is succeeding. I realise you aren't, but for appearances sake it is best to leave things to take their natural course. Anyway, "more and more dangerous"? Some of those attracted to Esperanza may be misguided, but they are hardly in the same class as the vandal who has been targeting the main page and the featured articles on the main page. Carcharoth 01:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

New Wikimedia project goes through a preliminary testing phase and the "Wikipedia" project itself is already unequivocally decided to be appropriate for Wikimedia. The concept of a "Wikipedia" has already been well-tested and is a fundamental project for the Wikimedia Foundation. These projects are shut down for inactivity because that is almost the only reason why there would be any reason to shut them down. A Japanese Wikipedia would only be at odds with the goals of the Wikimedia Foundation if all the other Wikipedias were also at odds with it. With a Wikipedia project, anyone can create it and it could be about anything at all, as the various subpages of Esperanza have shown. I don't think there is much history of the concept of "deleting an active organisation", because there is no other "organisation" that has decided to separate itself so much from Wikipedia at large. There are no other "organisations" like this, because if you want to do something on Wikipedia you can simply create a Wikipedia page and do it—without gated access, without a sense of superiority, and without bureaucracy, and then possibly it gets deleted at MfD just like any other such page. —Centrx→talk • 00:56, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

See my links below to how this is handled over on meta. Carcharoth 01:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

• In any case, this probably shouldn't be closed as a normal Mfd would. Maybe there should be some sort of admin "vote"-ing to determine what the Mfd discussion has determined (delete, keep, no consesus, inappropriate for Mfd, whatever), though that does seem a touch silly and bureaucratic. In any case, it seems like too major of a Mfd close to be done by a single administrator. Wickethewok 00:46, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I think the options and consensus is somewhat. The question is whether leaving it open is going to generate anything else that a summary would not. No commenter now is reading that whole discussion, and some appear to have only read the nomination statement. At a certain point, any new comment is just going to ignore the progress that is already made, with new commenters just giving visceral reactions about the project they love or hate. Given that it is not a vote, but a discussion, the question is whether the MfD should be closed and the discussion points summarized and reviewed elsewhere, with decisions about where and what to move being done more slowly and carefully than any 5-day MfD or any mostly ignored 2-day MfD. —Centrx→talk • 01:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

• If anyone wants pointers to other discussions on closing down projects, some with much more debate than the Esperanza MfDs, have a look at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposals for closing projects. There is an archive there that should show some of the more out-of-control 'discussions'. Hmm. The one I had in mind (possibly the only one that was out-of-control) doesn't seem to have been archived, so here is the snapshot I saw on 19 September 2006 of the discussion to close down the Moldovan Wikipedia. It makes the Esperanza discussions look like a stroll in the park! Carcharoth 01:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

NB. The meta page and methods are only provided as an example. Obviously, Esperanza is an internal matter for the en-wikipedia, and as such we can deal with it however we want. Do note though, that there are several Esperanza clones on Wikipedias being written in other languages. The inter-wiki links show at least two: Bokmal (Norwegian) and Simple English. Carcharoth 01:06, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the Simple English one had a massive ruckus over it a couple of weeks back. Can't recall what happened, but someone got debureaucratted over it. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 01:08, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Was that a ruckus over the Simple English Wikipedia as a whole, or just the Simple English Esperanza? Carcharoth 01:21, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

The Esperanza. :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 01:24, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Such a monumentous MFD definitely shouldn't be speedy-closed, it would be immediately challenged at DRV on technical grounds and require another one. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-31 01:02Z

Exactly my point. Titoxd^(?!?) 01:06, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I concede. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 01:08, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I certainly wouldn't close it early, but I'm thinking that when it is closed normally, the consensus result per the discussion should be to turn all of the subpages into protected redirects to the main page and then write a historical essay there about Esperanza. Note that this doesn't actually delete anything; all of Esperanza remains in the history for everyone to see. It's an important part of Wikipedia history, and shouldn't just simply be deleted. --Cyde Weys 02:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Given the number of votes to delete outright, I don't think the consensus result should be to do that at all. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 02:57, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Sometimes a compromise is the best solution. --Cyde Weys 03:06, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

And other users don't mind having the Esperanza front page deleted, but don't want the subpages to be redirected to WP:ESP and protected, but rather moved out into the Wikipedia namespace... Titoxd^(?!?) 04:09, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

If that happens, you first move the subpage in question (to preserve the edit history), then return to the original page (now a redirect) and redirect that to the Esperanza front page, and add a note there saying that that subpage that redirects here was continued at whatever location it was moved to. If there are only a few links in "what links here", bypass the redirect manually for them and point them at the correct location. If there are hundreds of links, leave people to correct them themselves. I've looked at what links here for the Tutorial Drive, and there are around 660 links, but the vast majority appear to be user talk pages, probably from a copy of the Esperanza newsletter left on members' talk pages. The Tutorial Drive was created on 31 October 2006. The what links here for the Alerts program is surprisingly similar, at around 556 links. Again, mostly user talk pages or user pages. This program was broken off from the Esperanza main page on 19 September 2005. So far, just looking at these two programs, it seems that the links are mostly (though not all) contained to social interaction on user talk pages. The Reach out program has around 300 links, again, the vast majority being user talk page links. Reach out program created 11 November 2005. The Calendar program is similar. The Happy Birthday program page is not heavily linked as most activity seems to be on the subpages. The Collaboration of the Month has less than 50 links, but it was only created on 11 November 2006. The Admin Coaching program has around 700-800 links, which are mainly user talk pages. Earliest version of that page is 30 January 2006, though there is history before that at other locations. It would be interesting to find out what links to Esperanza programs are not from user pages or user talk pages. Carcharoth 16:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Talking of the history, when exactly did it start? I noticed the link to a September 2005 Signpost article, but was that merely a relaunch? I found the earliest version of Esperanza here from 12 August 2005, but I was mightily confused by Cyde's comment here, where he says "even after years and many, many, second chances". I can't make a year and four months "years", no matter how many times I count on my fingers. I checked the deletion log, and I don't see any signs of it having been deleted before. I can only assume that Esperanza hasn't been around for years, which is strange because I seem to remember it being around before then (not that I was around very much before then). Carcharoth 02:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

All I know is that Esperanza was around before I started getting active on this site. Maybe "years" is an exaggeration, but it's been an eternity in Wikipedia time. --Cyde Weys 03:06, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

The August 12 date is correct; the project didn't really pick up until early September. Ral315 (talk) 10:55, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Come on, we can afford to leave the long MfD page as a testament to how so many editors have become disillusioned with Esperanza. Just let the MfD do its thing and give Esperanza the coup de grace using our normal processes. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 06:17, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

All in all, deleting the history of these pages isn't going to achieve anything useful, but will make many discussions on Wikipedia that link to the pages incomprehensible to new readers. Redirecting all subpages to the main Esperanza page and marking the main page as rejected is a much better solution. We don't even need to protect the redirects preventatively. We can get to that if anyone actually tries to resurrect them after the obvious consensus to discontinue Esperanza. Zocky | picture popups 13:16, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree, now go say that in the MFD instead of here :) —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-31 13:58Z

• This may already have been addressed, but WikiProjects get deleted for more reasons than simply inactivity. We've seen projects which the community has felt to be in bad faith deleted at mfd before now, which should create the precedent for this deletion debate. Esperanza is basically a WikiProject. Steve block Talk 16:58, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks for answering the query I raised about whether WikiProjects have been deleted before. Can you remember any off the top of your head? What other alternatives have been proposed? I know that content-focused projects (or at least the associated articles) have sometimes been transwikied to a wikia wiki. As Esperanza is so focused on Wikipedia, I guess that makes no sense at all. But it is the previous WikiProjects deleted for non-inactivity reasons that I'd be interested in. Carcharoth 18:46, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

• • • There was this lovely example from a year ago: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Catholic Alliance of wikipedia. -- Donald Albury 19:40, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
    • From a quick read-through of that, it appears that that was plain and simple a voting block. There was no other reason for the organization. EA has been called a voting block (on RfA's). But there's a difference between deleting a POV-pushing organization and a long-standing one. I still don't think MfD's the best place. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 21:39, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
      • What other place would there be? Esperanza is not outside of Wikipedia deletion processes. —Centrx→talk • 23:22, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Alternatives to deleting have included merging and tagging as historical. Esperanza itself has been nominated before, so I think the precedent has already been established. A trawl through Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Archived debates should show up a lot of pages that are similar in scope to Esperanza.Steve block Talk 09:46, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

It looks like it's over. All that's left is a little bit of cleanup work to go through and either delete or redirect all of these hundreds of Esperanza subpages. Man, they certainly put out a sheer amount of verbiage that none of the rest of us have ever read. They had entire debates over internal elections, for instance. These are being deleted. --Cyde Weys 04:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• See also Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Concordia, a project that appears to be similar to Esperanza. >Radiant< 09:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • <original comment retracted> Never mind, no point cross-posting my opinion here, let alone expressing it with unnecessary sarcasm. My apologies. --tjstrf talk 09:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The return of PalestineRemembered

User:PalestineRemembered, is just back from a 1 month block for Serial violations of WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:NOR and WP:BLP" Since his brief return he has

• suggested that "critics of Zionism" might find it difficult to get the e-mail functions of Wikipedia to work, [1][2] has hinted darkly to another editor about the perils of "speaking out",
• used Talk: pages to soapbox again (e.g. Zionists all over the place (including WP) claim that Iraqi Jews have flourished... Israel is the most dangerous place on earth to be Jewish!,
• stated that the word "Jew" is the word is being used as a blunt instrument with which to bash people who fail to respect the "sanctity and superiority of Israel",
• stated that Zionist editors of Wikipedia are provably a lot nastier and more dangerous than anything we've seen since 1945,
• soapboxed that Nobody can justify the apartheid nature of the current Israeli regime,
• received a personal attack warning from a lonstanding admin because he referred to his ethnicity and implied he had no right to call himself a Jew,
• inserted into an unrelated discussion on Village Pump the claim that there is rampant POV editting in favour of Israel, referring in turn to a 3 month old discussion about Finkelstein and the Holocaust having nothing to do with Israel,
• ranted about Zionists again: the Zionists have vast resources available to track down and harrass people like me. They can again ring prominent people in my neighbourhood and point to what I've posted I was doing so in order to try and protect these people from the lies and unpleasantness of the Zionists - think about it. (That's mostly the case, in 2 other articles I was trying to quote the murderous words of Zionists in their biographies Perhaps "PalestineRemembered" could impact on people's impressions of WP. Mislead the passer-by into thinking that WP is not dominated by Zionists?
• after a month and a half's peace, returns to revert-warring in admitted piece of original research using the justification that he is "putting the claim back in, without any reference, since it clearly doesn't need one. It's a fact so well known that written confirmation in a 100% WP:RS source has so far eluded me.",
• congratulated an editor for creating an article called "shitty little country", a term Daniel Bernard used for Israel,
• responded to a 5 month old discussion with blatantly sarcastic comments attacking me

It seems to me that PalestineRemebered has not understood the purpose of his original block (see here; to emphasize to him that Wikipedia is not a battleground for fighting for his own POV, or for insulting other editors, but an encyclopedia. At this point, I'm not sure whether another 1 month block, or a permanent block is in order. Comments? Jayjg ^(talk) 21:56, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

• Ask the user if he wants banning for a month or permanently. It might even work :-) Guy (Help!) 22:39, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Geez, some people never learn. I've reinstated the initial block and added an additional month for ignoring the warnings given him the first time. FeloniousMonk 00:59, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I had some (limited) contact with this user prior to their first block. If they've picked up where they've left off (as Jayjg indicates with the diffs, I checked a couple of them and it looks like they have), endorse block fully. To be honest, it wouldn't suprise me to see this user blocked indef/community banned within a week of the current block ending... Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 02:37, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Jayjg forgot to mention this gem that PalestineRemembered posted yesterday: "[I]t's impossible to insert any evidence against Zionist politicians [on Wikipedia without it being reverted], no matter how well referenced and indeed proud they may be of their murderous racism." --GHcool 20:12, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I support the block as well, I'm not sure what was going through his/her mind what he said all that. Khoikhoi 21:42, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I support the block; however, I do just want to point out the irony of PR's "rant" that "[Zionists] can again ring prominent people in my neighbourhood and point to what I've posted". It seems crazy until you realize, without putting too fine a point on Jayjg's politics, that is indeed exactly what has occured with this ANI posting. -- Kendrick7^talk 17:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC) I told him to take the 'Z' key off his keyboard, so if he comes back ranting about something that looks like onion-ists....

Block procedures

Dmcdevit placed a range block on '208.54.0.0/17' due to Cplot accounts coming from that range. However, this is apparently a range used by Starbucks and hit User:Bobak (who does alot of 'DYK' stuff) amongst others. I attempted to correct this by unblocking and re-blocking with the 'Block anonymous only' and 'Prevent account creation' boxes checked and the 'automatically block last IP address' box unchecked. In theory I would think that should allow already existing accounts to edit normally, right? If so, wouldn't it make sense to use a configuration like that for most blocks on determined sockpuppets/vandals? If it doesn't work as I thought then what exactly does the 'block anonymous only' box do? --CBD 22:15, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's right. The problem is these vandals sometimes have a ton of sock accounts already created, or they go create them elsewhere at the library, school, etc. and then use them on the dynamic IP at home, etc. —Centrx→talk • 22:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Indeed; we've been using anon-only blocks for several weeks, and we've had to upgrade to hard blocks due to the sleeper accounts. Essjay (Talk) 23:08, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Has anyone informed the Starbucks IT department about the issue? If we are lucky they can ban the MAC address from accessing the network. ---J.S ^(T/C) 23:51, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

He's using more than just Starbucks, but if you'd like to try an ISP case, you're welcome to do so. In my experience, however, these kind of vandals get tired of getting nowhere and move on to something else after a while. Essjay (Talk) 02:41, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

This is exactly the issue I've tried to bring up several times and I've been shouted down over and over again. It's not through Starbucks, but through Tmobile Hotspots which is located at many Starbucks (all of them in some regions) and many other locations as well. Tmobile uses only a few IPs for all 9,000 US locations. I had asked for the Foundation to write a letter to Tmobile someoneI provided the address after corresponding with Tmobile on the issue). The Wikimedia foundation has a project underway to help with this called the XFF/RFC1918 project. It would help a little. Everywhere I've tried to bring this up, the post has been reverted away over and over again. The cplot sockpuppets have been quite helpful in trying to restore the post, but apparantly some administrators think that being misinformed is an asset against vandals.

This very issue has been posted (and reverted away) at Meta:Babel, Meta:Stewards talk, Bureaucrats Noticeboard, here and at the request for checkuser talk, because checkusers sysops need to understand this too. Everyone of these places this information has been obliterated as subversive or somehow contraband.

The important thing to understand is that this issue cannot just be swept under the rug. If this network of 9,000 LANs is being blocked because a single editor is talking about uncomfortable topics, then some solution has to be found. If a block of 9000 LANs does nothing to stop Cplot (and from what I can tell it doesn't) then why block it at all? Perhaps simply airing the uncomfortable topic would be a better approach than blocking an entire segment of the US internet. I don't think the Cplot sockpuppets are like any others. I think they're here to stay and until we address the underlying problems they're not going to stop. That's my sixth sense about this. --HappyNewYear2007Again

I should add that twice Tmobile editors tried to add request for ISP reporting Wikipedia:Abuse_reports/208.54.95.129/32 and Wikipedia:Abuse_reports/208.54.95.129. Both were deleted because it was assumed that Cplot was the only one editing on those 9,000 LANs throughout the US. One was protected so that no one would ever create an ISP reporting request again. Wikipedia administrators need to step back an try to gain some perspective. --HappyNewYear2007Again 08:19, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that these hotspots are essentially low-tech open proxies. You can hop IPs by editing from the local Starbucks. The potential for abuse is the reason open proxies are prohibited, and since it's no one's home IP, it's much more acceptable to block these ranges for persistent vandals. Dmcdevit·t 08:50, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

This is exactly the type of internet illiteracy I'm talking about. Dmcdevit is the worst culprit. You'll find Dmcdevit blocking IPs for six month because a Cplot sockpuppet walked by a WiFi netowrk. It is so irresponsible. And Tmobile hotspots are not like open proxies. Far from it. Every user that logs onto a Tmobile hotpot is a customer of Tmobile. For serious abuse, Tmobile could tell you precisely who the person was that maade the edits from their network. These are not proxies at all. Tmobile runs a WAN using RFC 1918 internet protocols. Blocking this one IP it's much less aacceptable to block an IP that's the public address for over 9,000 LANs in the United States. This is Orwellian to say that blocking thousands of LANs is more acceptable than blocking a single user working from home. --InternetLiteracyIsFundamental 09:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

The above sounds like Wikimedia need to keep up-to-date with the latest internet technology. Can someone clearly explain that they are up-to-date, and how this is being dealt with (if it can be)? How does "upgrading to hard blocks due to sleeper accounts" allow logged-in users to edit through that hotspot? Do logged-in users now have to limit themselves to non-blocked hotspot IPs? Carcharoth 13:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

ATTENTION ALL ADMINISTRATORS

(and editors, and readers, et cetera)

Happy new year!! Can't sleep, clown will eat me 00:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Same to you. Happy new year to all! Even though mine doesn't come until 8:00 UTC because I live in California. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 00:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Yep, Happy New Year! Do we not have a nice photo of the fireworks around the London Eye, though? Martinp23 00:46, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Neat. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 00:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, and the same to all of you! | Mr. Darcy talk 00:52, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Bah, old news. I'm already half-way through my new year's day in Sydney :) enochlau (talk) 00:58, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Ooh, pretty! 00:59, 1 January 2007 (UTC) (A deliberately logged out admin)

Psh. Who are you to tell me how to have my new year? -- tariqabjotu 01:58, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Nice anti-Redshift on the big round thing, whoever you are... 68.39.174.238 02:27, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

It's been New Years here for over 13 hours... :) Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 02:35, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeh, Happy New Year wish to only admins as Can't sleep (& other admins) know that admins are going to spoil editors' year by blocking them rightly or wrongly. LOL. swadhyayee 03:10, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Happy almost-New-Year: here in California the parties haven't even started yet. Durova^Charge! 03:27, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

New Years' in Wisconsin :) Only two-odd hours left. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 03:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

4 hours, 12 minutes till midnight here. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 03:46, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

50 minutes and going... what happened to the New Year's channel Freenode had last year? 68.39.174.238 04:09, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

#freenode-newyears Naconkantari 05:24, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Too late... blast it. 68.39.174.238 05:42, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

It's now midnight here in the Central time zone. Happy New Year to everyone, and thanks admins for another year of great work. AuburnPilot^talk 06:01, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Belatedly, WP:HNY ......... Tyrenius 08:11, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Happy New Year everyone. --WinHunter ^(talk) 15:42, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Google Web Accelerator

Ok, I was just auto-blocked for having the Google Web Accelerator recently installed. It also stated that my IP was User:64.233.173.85, which my IP is always in the 216.75 range or in a 209 range, so why is it readling like I'm from an entirely different range? Am I missing something about Google Web Accelerator? semper fi — Moe 05:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

When you use Google Web Accelerator, your IP goes through Google's proxy, which has been blocked as an open proxy. Naconkantari 05:23, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, no matter then, uninstalled.. semper fi — Moe 05:26, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't uninstall it - just disable it for *.wikipedia.org. The below link from Hbdragon has the step-by-step. It claims to have saved me 5.1 days of loading time (out of 435 days total loading time), so I guess it has at least some benefit.... —AySz88\^-^ 06:31, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Google Web Accelerator for the gory details. Hbdragon88 06:03, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

My advice is to leave it uninstalled, this is not the only website it causes problems with. I used it for about 4 hours before getting sick of it. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Same here. —Mets501 (talk) 01:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

And if you want to save loading time, just install the FasterFox extension and use an optimized build of Firefox. Combined they can make browser loading times basically instant on any broadband connection. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 16:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Zoe Tay

On 11 December, the Zoe Tay page was semi-protected by User:Sarah Ewart after the discussion at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive153#Zoe_Tay. Today (1 Jan), however, a sockpuppet by the name of User:Wenfangfan has come in to remove the three tags attached to it - the sprotected tag, the unreferenced tag and the inappropriate tone tag. I feel that if sockpuppets are allowed to come in repeatedly and revert all edits to their preferred version, it makes a mockery out of Wikipedia. I suggest that a full protection tag is in order. OngBS 11:10, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Side note: admin should block that user anyway based on inappropriate names (famous celebrities - Fann Wong's Chinese name is "Fan Wen Fang", and I think it's quite obvious the user chose this name just because of that). – Chacor 11:18, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

So this is a fan of Wen Fang. One edit, not a big deal. Guy (Help!) 11:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I guess you could read it that way too, I think it's just unfortunate that the surname is "Fan", so there's the ambiguity. Regardless, probably needs watching. Don't think there's anything really actionable besides the name yet though. – Chacor 11:32, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Alright, Wenfangfan is definitely a sockpuppet. It has changed the revert by Ryulong back to its own preferred version, and added a picture that was previously uploaded by banned user Walaha2006. This is just the latest episode in a numerous series of reverts by the same user, who is creating one sockpuppet account after another just for this purpose. OngBS 15:56, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Problems at Category speedy-renaming

I've recently had a bad experience with the Speedy Renaming process — and similar things have happened to me before. I put up a category for speedy renaming, as it contained a glaring and embarrassing spelling mistake: "Category:Occitan personnalities". This clearly needed correcting to Category:Occitan personalities, but the category was, at the time, rather full, so I proposed it at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion, hoping to get some help with the transfer of articles. Instead, when I returned to the page, I found that my proposal had disappeared. Some detective work eventually revealed that it had been removed to the discussion page for category deletion. No-one had bothered to inform me (this seems to be standard, if discourteous, practice; the same thing happened to another of my proposals within a day or so), no indication had been left at the discussion page, and the renaming notice at the category had been left unchanged, pointing to a non-existent discussion here.

Someone then objected to it on political grounds, it was largely ignored, and today I find that the renaming has been rejected as "no consensus". Well, there was no chance for consensus, as the proposal had been hijacked and removed from discussion at the renaming section. The result was that an obvious and clear renaming proposal was rejected, and the embarrassing spelling mistake stayed. (I decide to do all the work myself, but when I returned I found that the category had been virtually depopulated, only one article remaining; presumably by the objector — who has just tried to propose it for deletion again.)

At the very least, proposers should be informed that their proposal is being moved, and the notice at the category altered accordingly. Better would be a policy that ruled out this sort of thing. Perhaps a move should depend upon the agreement of the proposer, or a deletion proposal should wait until the renaming proposal had gone through (with provisions made for very populous categories, so that work isn't duplicated unnecessarily.

Any thoughts? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

As the one who moved the discussion and then later closed I'd like to first correct some of the facts in this:

Some detective work eventually revealed that it had been removed to the discussion page for category deletion.'

Perhaps a move should depend upon the agreement of the proposer, or a deletion proposal should wait until the renaming proposal had gone through

It was actually moved to the substantial Wikipedia:Categories for discussion. Prior to today, for some historic reason, this was still titled "Wikipedia:Categories for deletion" despite the content being clear that the page also covers renamings, mergers and splits. A proposal being moved there does not make it a deletion proposal. This is a point that others have found Mel Etitis unable to grasp.

The reason for making the change so was because the Speedy Renaming states "Deletion and de-listing may occur after 48 hours if there are no objections." (Original emphasis) The proposal in question had a disputed destination and so was accordingly moved so that the alternative options could be considered. There was a chance for consensus but the original proposer's belief that it was a deletion nomination rather than a renaming made this hard.

As for the tags,yeah fair point and from now on I'm aiming to update them and inform the proposer when moving these. Timrollpickering 17:12, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

First, I didn't misunderstand the nature of Osomec's proposal; indeed, the implication of "I can't see any sign of a request to delete this category, so am unclear why it was moved here" is that I saw a mismatch between the title of the page and what he was proposing. Osomec's subsequent hysteria over this would be more charitably ignored than linked to.

As for the notion that my belief that it was my intransigence/stupidity/ignorance that caused the proposal to be rejected is absurd, as even Osomec accepts that I didn't oppose his suggestion; indeed, no-one opposed it, the only other person who joined the debate supported it. Moreover, it was closed out of process.

Timrollpickering's reponse doesn't really answer my specific complaint, nor the more important general worry that it raises, though I'm glad that at least what I take to be the minimum change – editing templates and informing proposers – is going to be done. Even that, however, should be made policy, not left to the discretion of whoever happens to be around. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:10, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Blimey. That doesn't sound like a lot of fun. Mel, can I offer my services if this situation happens again? I think that if you have a couple of willing helpers you can get on with just fixing it and we can do without the (erm, slightly insane) process that seems to be involved? Or am I missing something? This seems awfully straightforward. The category has a small but embarrassing mistake in its name, so somehow we need to go in and change it in each instance. I'm not really understanding the debate over that. Reverse Gear 09:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. There are two main issues (three, if you include the lack of courtesy, but let that pass). The first is that I'm an admin, so I can do the renaming myself. A non-admin who spots an error could post it in the Speedy Renaming section, only to find the proposal suddenly vanish, with no explanation, and no indication as to where it's gone — and when it's suddenly rejected (despite being obviously correct), she's left bewildered, angry, and unable to do the job herself. Secondly, anyone visiting the category and following the link to the discussion will find that there's no discussion there; it's been moved, but again, with no indication as to where. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

New anti template vandal feature

I just noticed that a feature which Ligulem requested last week has already been implemented. If you click 'edit' on a page and scroll down to the list of pages transcluded onto it you will now see "(protected)" or "(semi-protected)" next to those which have such status. This is a quick way of identifying any templates on the Main Page, Main Page/Tomorrow, the 'article of the day', or any other page are vulnerable to vandalism. Good job by the devs. --CBD 13:52, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Lovely! Thanks for pointing that out (and thanks to the developers, of course). -- Natalya 14:06, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Nice! HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:55, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Very cool. It woudl be even more awesome if it showed a (redirect) for those who are redirect templates so I could eliminate those (while I'm editing the page, of course, I wouldn't edit a page just to fix the redirect). Hbdragon88 23:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of which, what is with User:Jmax-bot/FACount.js, why is it listed there, why can't I find the results of the include, and why is it not protected? What is it being used for and how is it included? -- Renesis (talk) 18:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

It seems to be listing the current number of Featured Articles, so the number only has to be updated in one place to fix all places where the number is used. It is a .js even though it isn't a JavaScript for one simple reason: .js pages are effectively protected for all users except the user whose subspace it is in. Thus, Jmax-bot doesn't have to have the sysop bit to update the count, but every other user does. --Cyde Weys 18:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

On the Main Page it is specifically used at the bottom of the 'Today's Featured Article' section in the link to 'All XXX featured articles'. I expect alot of vandals will see that it is 'unprotected' and be very disappointed when they can't edit it. :] --CBD 11:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Deleting Articles at AfD

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Ant Bully (TV series) contained a discussion of whether it was appropriate to tag pages already at AfD wth speedy tags. I had always thought that that was the appropriate course of action of you actually wanted a speedy to go forward if say a page eligible for G10 is nominated or an author blanks a page while it is at AfD (G7). That way admins who do CSD patrol and see the page and evaluate it in a timely fashion (either deleting it or removing the tag and letting the AfD continue). Otherwise a speedy delete "vote" is unlikely to be acted upon because AfD's are very often not very active between days 2 and 4. What is the consensus of admins in this area? Eluchil404 16:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

If it is a clearly speadyable item then most admins think nothing of closing the AfD early with a speedy delete. I don't think putting the speedy notice there is wrong as long as the AfD notice stays. After all, if it qualifies for speedy deletion then the discussion is not relevant. Just my 2 cents. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:53, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

If it qualifies for speedy deletion then there's no point in wasting editors' time with an AfD. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 16:54, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Concur with the above, leaving a note with User:Ceyockey. -- Steel 16:56, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I normally just put a "Speedy Delete" vote on the AfD (or did before I got the mop, anyway), rather than adding a speedy tag, but either works. --Tango 16:57, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

If it's at AFD I think you can add speedy tags to it. Just make sure that as an admin you close the AFD at the same time as "speedy delete". There's nothing against speedying an article under discussion at AFD. AFD doesn't exempt an article from speedy deletion. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 20:32, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

It's okay, but I'm wondering if it would be worth trying to discourage it. One would think that, if it's made it to AfD, the tagging person did not feel it necessary to rush it, so why should we, especially when we might learn something? --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:34, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

It depends on the speedy criterion I would think. I purposely didn't use A7 as an example because I agree that little to nothing is gained by speedying on notability rather than waiting 5 days since new evidence might emerge. I do, however, think that there is a real gain in speedying a G10 rather than letting it wait and the same applies to, say, G1. The deletion debates are pretty crowded and there is no need to clutter them up with easy cases. And thanks to eveyone for the feedback. Eluchil404 22:01, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Some of them are just because someone has gone to Wikipedia:Deletion policy or some other page and seen "Articles for deletion" and thought it was the appropriate place. Something being on AfD does not necessarily mean that the nominator was familiar with the speedy deletion criteria or thought that the deletion would be controversial. —Centrx→talk • 11:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd say that tagging an article on AfD for speedy deletion is indeed appropriate in cases like this, where the article turns out to be speedy deletable for some other reason than what it was put on AfD for. However, if the article is on AfD because it's not clear whether it meets a particular speedy criterion or not, I'd recommend expressing your opinion on the matter on the AfD page. Generally enough admins do look at recent AfD nominations that any "speedy delete" comments there do get noticed and acted on fairly promptly. Of course, if it does happen that an article lingers on AfD for more than a day with a clear consensus to speedy delete, tagging it with something like "{{db|see AfD page}}" may be a good idea. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 20:36, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

If speedy was already considered by an admin and declined and proded or AFDed instead, then don't tag for speedy deletion again. If new information has come to light, for example that it was newly discovered to be a repost or blanked by the author, then tagging for speedy is appropriate. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-01 22:36Z

I think that adding a speedy tag to an article undergoing an AfD process is an open invitation to delete the article out of process and leaving this door open is an invitation to conflict. However, as there is wide consensus here that it's ok to have an article coexist in multiple deletion processes, I won't act in a manner conflicting with that consensus. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion is a process too, so provided the article meets the criteria for speedy deletion, I don't see how speedying an article while at AfD is "out-of-process". The speedy criteria are intended to describe the sort of articles that we do not want under any circumstances; if an article meets the speedy criteria, it should be deleted – Gurch 20:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

user:MelForbes removal

I would like my username user:MelForbes to be deleted. I am retiring from the WP project. Will log-in on Tuesday Jan 2nd 2007, for the last time. MelForbes 00:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I can delete the user page and talk page, and block the username from editing but we don't delete actual users. Is that what you want me to do? HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 00:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The user account can simply be renamed instead. —Centrx→talk • 11:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Well if one of you could freeze-up the account or whatever, as I don't want to be going back into it again. Thanks! MelForbes 14:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Done. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 01:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Templates for deletion

Although I generally close discussions at TfD, I am away on vacation, and I lack access to my AWB script. There are a few TfDs still open which deal with heavily transcluded templates which are very tedious to delete without AWB or a similar script. Some of the debates have been open for more than twice the usual nomination length. It's not a backlog, just something I can't do at the moment. Thanks in advance. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 01:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

My bot can do it, just tell me which ones need deleting. —Mets501 (talk) 01:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

2nd AFD on Misnomer missing in TOC

Can someone look into and explain why the indexed TOC list on this does not list Misnomer, whereas misnomer does seem to link to a stand-alone page vice the standard que of candidates for consideration.

I would suggest a restart of 'the clock' on this possible procedural irregularity. If this is not out of bounds, please use small words and big pictures and explain slowly and carefully why it is not. Please! Thanks and Happy New Year // FrankB 04:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, listed now at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 January 2. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-02 06:26Z

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sex tourism

This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above.

• KyndFellow is indefinitely banned from editing sex tourism and related articles as well as their talk pages. It is presumed that articles regarding any person, business or service or any accommodation or sex tourism destination mentioned on his websites are related articles, but the ban extends to all articles which relate to sexual services or sex tourism destinations.
• KyndFellow, editing under any username or anonymous ip, is indefinitely placed on Probation. He may be banned from any article or talk page which he disrupts by aggressive biased editing.
• Content questions regarding the appropriateness of mention or links to the sites promoted by KyndFellow are not addressed; those questions being left to editorial discretion exercised in the normal course of editing.
• KyndFellow, should he violate any ban imposed under the terms of this decision, may be blocked for an appropriate period of time.
• Sock or meatpuppets which edit in the same manner and with the same themes as KyndFellow are subject to the remedies imposed on KyndFellow. Indefinite blocks may be imposed on aggressive socks. All blocks and bans to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sex tourism#Log of blocks and bans.

For the Arbitration Committee --Srikeit 06:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

User who repeatedly uploads untagged images

I was wondering what should be done about Abono para sembrar flor (talk · contribs). They have repeatedly uploaded images without providing copyright or source information and have ignored (and possibly cannot understand in this case) all messages left on their talk page. It appears as if their native language is Spanish. Right now all the images they have uploaded have been tagged for deletion unless information has been provided, and if this continues it will just create unnecessary work for admins who have to delete these images later. VegaDark 08:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Warned him in Babelfish Spanish. I really need to practice more :(—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:55, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

If the warnings do not work, I would suggest an indef. block for the user. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 00:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Unblock

I am requesting to be unblocked. I am prepared to make my case. 149.166.137.124 19:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC) (a.k.a. User:Koavf - please e-mail me.)

You should still be able to make your case (i.e. edit) on User_talk:Koavf. Please see the {{unblock}} template for more instructions. This mechanism allows for open, honest communication about the block and its end result, which email can sometimes inadvertently stifle. -- nae'blis 19:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Continued linkspam at Everson v. Board of Education

This page has a history of many different anon's repeatedly replacing the page with linkspam, going back to October. I have no idea why this page was targeted, but as far as I noticed, every single time new spam is added it is by a new IP so blocking users won't do anything (unless it is determined that these IP's are all from an open proxy). I would request page protection but it is doubtful someone responding will protect the page, even with the history this page has. (Usually people will only sprotect if a page has lots of vandalism in a short time frame). Bringing this up here to get a few more pairs of eyes on the page and possibly find a solution. VegaDark 19:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll add the page to my watch-list. Maybe the link can be added to the blacklist? (WP:SPAM has a link to the meta blacklist I think) ---J.S ^(T/C) 19:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I've already had a couple added to the blacklist, the problem is that it looks like a new link everytime. VegaDark 19:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I should have looked at the page history before I commented. Hmmm... I'm going to check the IP addresses. It might be possible to block a range and catch'em.

If not... our only option is to watch/revert until they get board. ---J.S ^(T/C) 19:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• 75.27.216.172 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - SBC Internet Services SBCIS-SBIS-6BLK (NET-75-0-0-0-1)
• 200.203.49.170 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - Brasil Telecom S/A - Filial Distrito Federal
• 210.92.51.41 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - Korea Telecom
• 216.87.222.52 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - Interland, Inc.

Looks like we are dealing with zombie-computer spam. Not sure what we can do about it. ---J.S ^(T/C) 20:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

You could semi protect it for a day or two. That would do the trick if its anon IPs. --Spartaz 20:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

There is similar activity at pyrrolidine and World Social Forum (which I temporarily semiprotected). Maybe others can watchlist these too. I suspect these few may just be the tip of the iceberg. Is it safe to block (indef or otherwise) the offending IPs as open proxies/zombies? --Ed (Edgar181) 20:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

No point in blocking, they only ever edit once. ---J.S ^(T/C) 20:42, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, some of them edit more than once. For example 122.32.18.84 (talk · contribs). Don't know if that changes anything though. --Ed (Edgar181) 20:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Umm ah. Well, either way, a block won't be effective to stop the spam since they are switching IPs so often. ---J.S ^(T/C) 22:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• It's not the only article that's been targeted, so I've listed the main spammed domains at m:Talk:Spam_blacklist Guy (Help!) 23:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia promoting small wikis

Unfortunately some Iranian wikipedians has started another wiki for Iran related articles. The reason seems to be that wikipedia guidelines and policies was not tolerable for them. For example User:Zereshk wrote on his talk page:

"I may manage to spend the time editing some articles on the WikIran project. WikIran is a far more reliable source on Iran, far from partisan propaganda editors and sadistic admins." [3]

And he wrote on Persian Wikipedia village pump:

این حقیر و برخی دوستان دیگر که جانمان از ویکیپدیای انگلیسی به لبمان رسیده خود دست به راه اندازی پروژه جدید و مشابه ای زده ایم تا بلکه بدور از هیاهو و جهت گیریهای سیاسی به نوشتن یک دایره المعارف بی طرف, غنی, و ویژه ایران بپردازیم.

means that:

We (He himself and his friends) are completely hopeless from English Wikipedia so we are going to start a simillar project to...

And that project is WikIran. Most of it's articles are completely copied from english wikipedia. I have no problem with that project but they are abusing wikipedia to promote their website. As it said on WP:EL#Advertising_and_conflicts_of_interest:

Due to the rising profile of Wikipedia and the amount of extra traffic it can bring a site, there is a great temptation to use Wikipedia to advertise or promote links. This includes both commercial and non-commercial sites. You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent, even if the guidelines otherwise imply that it should be linked.

It's against guidelines to put huge number of links to that website. I informed that user about this two days ago [4] and today I removed those advertising links to that wiki (about 50 links) Special:Contributions/Armandeh But now User:Khodavand (which he is from that wiki as he stated on his talk page) reverted them all. I don't want to start an edit war. Please warn those users to stop advertising on english wikipedia. Forgetting that guideline, I remember that when I started to conribute on WikiTravel they told me not to link to LonelyPlanet website as we are trying to write the same things here. This is similar to what is happening to Iran related articles on English Wikipedia. Hessam 23:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

There is a built in way to cross-link...why don't they use that? ---J.S ^(T/C) 05:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean by built in way? You mean interwiki? Hessam 08:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Isn't the right to fork true of all Wikimedia projects? That site will still be GNU licensed since it borrows existing GNU material, which means Wikipedia can use any improvements they create. Please explain further if I'm missing the point...I don't see a significant difference from other forks and mirrors who accept advertising. Durova^Charge! 06:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem is when the forked project tries to add links to itself from Wikipedia. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 07:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Taking into account the number of links being inserted, and the fact that User:Zereshk, an experienced editor, created a blatantly unacceptable (notability guidelines) article about his wiki (which is being discussed on AfD), I can't help thinking they're trying to use Wikipedia as free publicity/a recruiting ground for their wiki. yandman 08:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see what I missed... this project is not an official wiki. Never-mind about my suggestion. Nuke any wiki-spam as if it wasn't wikispam. No special rules apply. ---J.S ^(T/C) 15:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Just for the record here, I can safely claim that over 75% (if not more) of the entire content of English Wikipedia's articles related to Iran was written or coauthored by me. Before I came, all of Iran's articles were mere stubs or non-existent. You can check my content edits, which near 20000. So the least I expect, if not any gratitude for helping turn WP into the first source of information for Iran, is for people to stop using WP as vehciles of personal vendetta against me. (Ive already posted an example of admin User:Armandeh's vulgar posts to me here). If you want to accuse me of something, at least have a good reason, and accuse me of something, not because I helped expand WP and WikIran.--Zereshk 03:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I consider this as a Personal Attack. Experienced users know that If someone has huge number of contibutions on wikipedia it doesn't mean he is good user either. For example they will look at your block log and find out your spamming background. As I'm an administrator on persian wikipedia I know what you do to gain votes from other projects to destroy AfDs or Arbitrations.[5]

I want you (All admins) to watch this AfD against invited voters as spamming is going to happen again [6]. Hessam 08:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

See here for a more general question. yandman 09:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Mainpage

Am I the only person seeing that image on the FA Yarralumla, Australian Capital Territory? --maclean 01:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC) --

Image:Weston_Park_Yarralumla_crop.jpg? --Deskana (For Great Justice!) 01:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

It was a little more vulgar than that one. It was on for about five minutes so I thougt I say something. Next time I'll purge my cache before speaking. Sorry for looking dumb, I'll go back to my corner now. --maclean 01:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

No, nothing to apologize for, this is the doings of a pernicious vandal; please do report these things as soon as you see them. Thanks. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-03 02:50Z

Was the image on the Main Page or on the article itself? Both the image and the blurb on the Main Page have been protected, so it shouldn't have been on the Main Page. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

It appears that it was the article itself. The template vandal did it through minor templates within the article. Metros232 01:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Is there anything else we can do to stop this guy besides pre-emptively protecting templates? -- tariqabjotu 04:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

We coudl ask him politely. Anybody have his email address? Hbdragon88 05:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

{{bite}}

Hey peeps. I got fed up with WP:BITing, so I created {{bite}}. Use it on those overzealous NPP individuals who mistag newbies' articles within seconds of creation. See e.g. my inaugural use of the template here in response to this. Emendations and feedback on the text of the template will be appreciated etc. The syntax is ths usual: {{subst:bite|article name}}. Thanks. - crz crztalk 02:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The stop sign and the "completely unacceptable" might be a little too aggressive. After all you don't want the template to break WP:BITE for the newcomers to NPP ;-) Prodego ^talk 02:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Personally, I don't think such a template is helpful. Even if the wording ("completely unacceptable", threatening a block) was changed to be less confrontational in tone, I think a personal note of why you disagreed with the tagging of a speedy deletion is much better than placing a template that really doesn't explain much, especially given that the person who tagged the article in the first place may be inexperienced, and the template itself may be seen as a form of biting. Thanks. Flcelloguy (A note?) 02:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

A block threat too? I didn't notice that, that is a bit over the top. Prodego ^talk 02:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• (arg 3x edit conflict!) I already changed your wording [7] to avoid biting NP patrollers. :) —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-03 02:41Z —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-03 02:43Z

(edit conflicts) If this is your first template, will I be in trouble if I speedy it? I would modify some of the language in the template a bit (unless you are going to create multiple levels of warning here, which would probably be overkill). Here are my first-cut suggestions (language suggested to be deleted in strikeout, to be added in italic), I'm sure there will be some others:

"Please do not bite newcomers! Wikipedia grows by making new editors feel welcome and giving them time to learn how our website works. See WP:BITE. Your tagging of /article name/ for speedy deletion was completely unacceptable not appropriate because its author is a newbie relatively new editor and had not had time to develop the new article, or the tag was applied inappropriately page did not warrant speedy deletion, or both. Mistreating newcomers discourages them from contributing and becoming productive editors here. Repeated instances may result in a block. Thank you and please let me know if you have any questions."

This template would only be appropriate in clear BITE cases. In good-faith cases, a more tailored warning should probably be used. Newyorkbrad 02:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

(lotsa conflict) Well... Have you not seen those certain users who bite by the dozen without so much as a note? I think the eventuality of a block is not farfetched, though I've certainly never done it nor seen it done. It's been removed, regardless. - crz crztalk 02:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think anyone disagrees with the concept of telling the recidivist biters to ease up. I think WP:BITE when correctly applied is a great thing about this site. It's purely a question of style and wording. Newyorkbrad 02:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I made it much less confrontational (perhaps too much so), so take another look. Prodego ^talk 02:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Awww peeps - you have emasculated my baby. Now the warnees would simply scoff at it. At least put back the hand! - crz crztalk 02:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

It's an issue of irony/hypocracy - biting someone when asking them not to bite. I suppose we've inadvertently bitten Crzrussian with all the edit conflicts here, biting him when asking him not to bite when asking others not to bite, sorry about that :) —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-03 02:58Z

P.S. "new levels of meta-irony" —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-03 03:00Z

's ok. I am not a newb. I am unbitten. I will probably create a private text that's a lot stronger than this and use it on severe offenders. I think y'all are way too soft on these people. They are seriously the #1 bane of Wikipedia, worse than the edit warriors. n00bs are our biggest asset, and I have already heard a hundred times on and offwiki that we are regarded, rightly or wrongly, as a bureaucratic morass where good faith contributors who don't know our ways have to put up with overzealous NPP goons competing as if for first place in some perverted contest with their fancy Javascript tools. I have posted last week about WP:NPW, asking if people thought that thing was deleterious to the project overall - there were no takers. Seriously though, the problem needs solving. I've been making trouble at RfA with it for a couple of months now, but that apparently did not strike enough fear into the relevant hearts. If the crz problem-solving methods are too rough-hewn for all of you, I understand that, but then do better things yourselves, please. - crz crztalk 03:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

btw, does anyone know the definition of "hypocracy"? Does "rule by the lowly ones" fit? lol - crz crztalk 03:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Noob-biting is the number-one bane of the 'pedia? I would've said lack of sources, but maybe that's just me. Anyways, I understand where you're coming from about the NPP thingy - this automated new-page-patrol tool surprised me too. (The again, I couldn't even figure out how to install AWB once I downloaded it, so maybe I'm not one to comment on these tools.) But giving stop-hand emblazoned, robotic, and somewhat patronizing warnings to contributors who are working, in good faith, to clean up the encyclopedia isn't going to help. Why not just type them an explanation of what actions of theirs that you disagree with, direct them to the relevant policy, and save block warnings for when they haven't stopped after two or three personalized, situation-specific warnings? In short, I think the template isn't really going to work out. Picaroon 03:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

(de-indent) I've said this on a couple of RfA's, but nowhere more public: as much as I agree that some of the NP patrollers think they're playing an MMORPG and are leveling up by racing each other to bad articles, is quick speedy-tagging really "biting"? If I were a newcomer who had written a blatantly deficient article, I'd like to be informed of it quickly, rather than coming back a few days later to find my one creation swept into the wastebin hours after I considered it "finished". We'd also like to see enthusiastic newbie effort going toward something productive - even a well-written and polished article about a lame garage band is still an article about a lame garage band; no sense in letting them pour more time and effort into something that is never going to pass muster. Also, obligatory general objection to talking in templates. Opabinia regalis 03:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

It's mostly the immediate mistagging that I am worried about. "Jane is stupid" can be tagged before creation for all I care. It's good faith legitimate efforts that are getting swept up. As for refernencing, we can always fix it up over time in established articles. But without contributors we are dead. - crz crztalk 03:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I've seen the kind of biting you describe sometimes, but agree with Picaroon that it's not the "#1 bane". I think the first message should be a very friendly reminder, not a threat to block. Anyway, you're free to use stronger wording, I just wouldn't put it in a template. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-03 03:54Z

But there are plenty of "good-faith" but totally misguided new articles created - mostly people's garage bands, from what I've noticed. Does tagging these fall under your definition of biting? To pull a random example of the speedy queue, I doubt the creator of Phazm meant it in bad faith, but there's nothing encyclopedic about it. It was tagged 3 minutes after creation and a talk-page template was left for the author: is that a bite situation in your view? Opabinia regalis 04:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is having a problem with incivility in general (anyone biting anyone, not just newbies) and with oversensitivity about being bitten (Bob:You were rude - you should be blocked for always being so incivil. John:No I just disagreed with you. Tom:Well as his friend but uninvolved in this fight, I'm going to block you. ...) I'm not sure the problem is getting worse, but we certainly aren't handling it well. WAS 4.250 04:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• Two things: First, repeated and unashamed WP:BITEing is disruptive. We can block for that. A personally written warning is likely to be of more help than a template, though. Second, placing obstacles in the way of patrolling and tagging new pages might well be counter-productive. It has been noted that spending too much time at The Frehose Of Crap makes one jaded. We should recommend that people take time off to do Other Stuff^TM. It is not easy to tell the difference between version 1.0 of a band vanity article and version 1.0 of a valid article, so perhaps we should soften the wording in the {{db}} class templates to point out that this is not personal. Guy (Help!) 12:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• • Hahaha - crz crztalk 13:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Isn't this a simple rehash of the perennial proposal that articles may not be deleted within a certain time period after their creation? >Radiant< 14:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't it take like several hours before an admin even sees a speedy tagged article nowadays? Anyway stuff that really doesn't meet a CSD is still hopefully untagged by the admin. I create plenty of articles and nothing ever gets tagged for speedy deletion... create decent articles (formatted, categories, etc.) and you don't have to deal with people on the lookout for bad articles. Pretty simple. --W.marsh 14:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

No. Herbert Saffir was tagged within 20 minutes of my re-creating it, and speedied 3 minutes after it was tagged. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Argyriou (talk • contribs) 17:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC).

Looks like you lost the csd lottery then. Lame, yes, but I'm not sure there's much we can do about it. Someone has to go first. --tjstrf talk 18:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

An incivil template is not the awnser to incivility. Part of the problem with wikipedia is TOO MANY DAMN TEMPLATES. :p Just say what you want to say. ---J.S ^(T/C) 15:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Somebody drops that nasty template on me and it will be deleted without comment. Removal of garbage is not biting newbies, it's cleaning up trash and vandalism. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• Well, it can be both, I guess. People doing new page patrol should take care when deleting a page to welcome the users and try to leave a friendly and positive message (I use {{chinup}}). Pages can be trash but their creators may still have potential. You never know who's going to grow into a good contributor. Herostratus 05:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I got jaded doing new page patrolling, but a monh or two ago, I tagged many, many articles within a minute of creation, and yes, quite a few withing seconds and often got beat to it by others doing NPP. Apart from obvious spam, I tagged many articles with db-bio for being non-notable. Now one could argue I should wait an hour or two and come back and see if the user added more info, but the whole system of tagging gives the user a chance to say they are going to add to the article with a holdon. Sometimes admins would remove the speedy tag and change to a prod if they felt there was some doubt and I think this works well. If I have to wait an hour to check the article again, it's a no go, on a busy night I might tag 50-100 articles, and there is no way to keep a notepad of articles and wait and see if certain articles improve. If I felt that I'm going to be tagged for biting when I'm doing vandal fighting and new page patrol, I would be hesitant to bother to do the work. --ArmadilloFromHellGateBridge 06:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that many articles can and should be speedy tagged instantly, but for those where additional work may show the required notability (say, articles about bands), waiting a bit can't do much harm. However, this means that we need more people doing time-delayed new page patrol (TM), i.e. going to the new pages, moving down to the 500th or 1000th most recent raticle (some 12 hours old or so), and start digging through those. It is amazing how many of those pages are still fit for either speedy, prod, or merge... Fram 09:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Deltabeignet

This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above.

As a show of good will, Deltabeignet's IP (static and unshared) which was used for the anonymous edits has been soft-blocked so that he can only edit with his account. Deltabeignet has already admitted it and has promised not to repeat the behavior. The case is dismissed and can be reopened if the problem resurfaces again.

For the Arbitration Committee --Srikeit 06:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Selective deletion for vandalism?

I have a question about version deletion. WP:DGFA#Version deletion says only to do version deletion for vandalism in extreme cases like where personal information is revealed, etc. Is it a common practice? Does it have to be agreed on somewhere? If there's an article whose last 50 edits going back 6 months is nothing but simple vandalism, is it okay to delete those last 50 edits? —Wknight94 (talk) 15:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• Generally it's seen as a waste of administrator time to delete simple vandalism. There's no real harm in leaving it around... and there are literally millions of instances of it sitting around. I mean, if you really want to I seriously doubt you'll catch any flak, but it just is a bit unusual. I don't really see the point though personally. --W.marsh 17:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Does it cause any GFDL issues like WP:DGFA mentions? —Wknight94 (talk) 17:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Not usualy... unless the vandalism was "fixed" and incorperated into the article. Otherwise, if it's just reverted it's not part of the chain of edits. ---J.S ^(T/C) 17:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Modify template

Could someone please modify Template:DANFS, a protected template, so that it adds all pages on which it's used to this category? Nyttend 20:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Done – Gurch 20:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Protection

Kriss Donald Re: Users cannot get along obviosly angry. Tried to help but seems like there is not much I can do. Request protection for 1 day at most to let them cool down. Thanks for your time, --Darkest Hour ^$_$^$_$ 20:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Darkest Hour. I have avoided editing the article so far so do not really need to cool down. The other people who have edited are an unregistered user and "strothra". If anyone would care to go through the discussion page they will see that I have had lengthly discussions with those who disagree with me. I have outlined my position and where I believe undue weight policy supports it. I think it would be more useful for people to contribute to the discussion and address the issues on policy, rather than locking the article. --Guardian sickness 21:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Be ready for some POV edits to narcissism articles

Hi folks, apologies for the long post. The following is a chopped-down letter sent by a "Sam Vaknin" to some of his mailing lists... the general gist of it is that we can expect several POV edits to List of further reading on narcissism and narcissistic personality disorder, Narcissism (psychology), and Narcissistic personality disorder. Some would be good, but I think we should put these three articles under greater scrutiny for a little while. --Deathphoenix ʕ 20:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

... BUT

There is something you can do.

The Wikipedia entries for Narcissism (Psychology) and Narcissistic Personality Disorder are laughable and contain numerous inaccuracies, urban legends and utter nonsense.

Some parts of the entries are borrowed verbatim from my work (without attribution or credit, without my permission, and despite numerous protests and notices of copyright infringement issued by my publisher). But about 60% of the text require urgent revisions or outright deletion.

Anyone can edit the entries. All you have to do is click on the edit button in the upper navigation bar of the article. You can change the text, add external links, add references to literature, citations, and anything else you deem relevant. I encourage to give it a try.

Click on these links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_further_reading_on_narcissism_and_narcissistic_personality_disorder

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissism_%28psychology%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissistic_personality_disorder

Have a great year!

Sam Vaknin

--Deathphoenix ʕ 20:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• If the article really is based mostly on a copyvio we should reduce it to a stub and just start over. --W.marsh 21:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • That's assuming it's true. If it is, I'd agree, but I'd like to see what portion of our text he feels is copyvio before we start stubbifying it. --Deathphoenix ʕ 21:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, he may mean that 60% he agrees with so assumes is based on his work :-) Guy (Help!) 22:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

As you can see from these diffs, most of the complainant's work has been expunged from the articles

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Narcissism_%28psychology%29&diff=98281543&oldid=30605408

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Narcissistic_personality_disorder&diff=98238115&oldid=34362845

mostly on the grounds that it was neither accurate, cited nor verifiable, and replaced by accurate, verifiable text instead from a number of sources.

I have personally asked the poster, on more than one occasion, to specify any text he feel is in copyvio and I will, remove it (which he cannot do himself as he is on indefinate ban for repeated sockpuppetry see User:Samvak) I have yet to recieve an answer. --Zeraeph 00:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I have just blanked a small section of Narcissism (psychology) [8] that he might claim was a copyvio (see [9], though he reposted it himself after it was blanked due to copyright concerns [10]. It seems best to blank it, partly for the sake of peace and quiet and partly with the intention of re-writing it in a properly cited and verified form. It is the only possible copyvio I can find in any of these articles --Zeraeph 06:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Threats

Editor made a veiled threat to have me blocked [11] and again another veiled, but somewhat more direct, threat [12]. --Strothra 20:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I was just trying to let you guys know that things did not have to be so heated. If you did not realize I spoke to the other guy(i dont know who)at the help desk. Now I would like to state my comment again, Can we talk like civil humans with out acting liking raging hulks? One last thing I am quite new (2 or 3 mths). Now all I wanted is to settle this nicely. Now this is not a threat, I will bring in some one I know will help. She is quite kind and patient. So just stick it out, have fun. Thanks guys, --Darkest Hour ^$_$^$_$ 20:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

It should be pointed out that this issue arises from the article on the racist killing of Kriss Donald. An unregistered user had been reverting this article, which I have contributed to in a lenghtly discussion. I am still learning about Wikipedia and its policy, but have never come across a user like Strothra. He has threatened to have me blocked from editing for removing information which does not conform to the undue weight policy [[13]]

He seems to have contributed about 8 or 9 words to the discussion and considers himself not just beyond reproach - but beyond discussion. It just won't do. I have tried for many months to achieve balance in discussing this article with those who disagree with me, but Strothra and an unregistered user have other ideas on "civilised discussion". --Guardian sickness 20:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

As a yank, I am unaware of the circumstances surrounding this murder; however, based on the article itself (the sections OTHER than the one disputed), it seems that removing an entire section based on the debate regarding racial motivation is NOT in line with the undue weight policy (at least, not in the way you are applying it). It seems to be far too long in comparison with the rest of the article and should be trimmed and significantly rewritten, but I don't think it should be removed entirely, unless your position is that a negligible number of people call the murder racially-motivated, which if true makes the uncontested sprinklings of racial motivation/tension throughout the article incorrect as well. —bbatsell ¿? 21:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I re-read that and am not entirely sure I conveyed what I wished to express clearly. Basically, it's okay to have minority viewpoints in articles as long as they are sourced and they are not misrepresented as majority viewpoints. It seems that your argument has been that the views are so far in the minority that they should not be represented, but the section you have removed cites some fairly notable sources espousing that viewpoint. Thus, they should be represented, but the section should be slimmed down significantly. Regards, —bbatsell ¿? 21:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Bbatsell, you will see in the discussion that I have taken issue with the inclusion of those who claim the murder was not racially motivated on the grounds that they are a tiny minority. Wikipedia policy states “If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents.” The crux of this issue is whether one professor of politics, and one BBC investigative journalist can be described as "prominent". My contention is that they are not prominent and in the waves of coverage surrounding the case in the UK their views constitute those of a tiny minority.

The policy seems quite explicit and I do not believe my interpretation of it is flawed. I would like to ask you and anyone else who reads this how that section of the article can possibly be consistent with the above Wikipedia policy on "prominent adherents"? I just don't see it and have consistently argued my point based on policy. --Guardian sickness 22:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I guess it would depend on how prominent those two particular people were (if there really are no other people espousing that viewpoint). I did completely misread your position, though; I thought you were advocating that the majority position is that the murder was was not racially motivated, so for that I apologize. I think a small section on the opposing viewpoint is going to be the easiest solution and will garner consensus, as long as (as I wrote above) the text does not represent that the debate is a large or contentious one, but rather one held by a few, and then they would be named. I think the reason this particular debate became a larger one is because the section (which was long) was removed entirely, rather than edited down to be a more accurate representation of the truth. That is what I think is the best course of action to take. —bbatsell ¿? 22:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

“ Please be aware that these pages are not the place to bring disputes over content, or reports of abusive behaviour — we're not referees, and have limited authority to deal with abusive editors. We have a dispute resolution procedure which we recommend you follow. Please take such disputes to requests for comment, requests for mediation, or requests for arbitration rather than here. Please do not post slurs of any kind on this page, and note that any messages that egregiously violate Wikipedia's civility or personal attacks policies will be removed. ”

Thanks, ---J.S ^(T/C) 22:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Squidward Tentacles

Came accross Squidward Tentacles (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) on WP:AIV after s/he got blocked. It seems to ring a bell about my early wiki days when there was a Squidward vandal. Coincidence or pattern? Agathoclea 20:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I've been talking to the blocking admin about this, and I'm not sure. I don't think its SQUIDWARD as the deleted LTV page on them said it was entirely an open proxy ip vandal. Page is [14] if other admins want to look at it, it was blanked by Jimbo as a courtesy when he was having conversations with the vandal. Syrthiss 21:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

A petulant and totally unjustified block

User:InShaneee blocked me for 24 hours, accusing me of vandalism [15]. I just wanted to bring to someone's attention the fact that this was utterly untrue, and InShaneee blocked me simply because I removed a tag claiming an article for his 'paranormal' wikiproject, because the article had nothing to do with the paranormal. I found this extremely offensive and would like someone else to offer their opinion on this admin's actions. It really won't take you long at all to assess whether I vandalised anything - I've got very few edits. Special:Contributions/81.178.208.69 lists all of them (less than 10). Thanks. 81.178.208.69 23:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Well just to note that Red Rain in Kerala does seem paranormal. You should first discuss the changes on the talk page first. — Arjun 23:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• Eh it really doesn't look like the anon did anything but edit war with Inshanee on the talk page. InShaneee shouldn't have blocked someone he was in a dispute with, such as it was, and shouldn't have said it was a block for vandalism when it clearly wasn't. The anon should have discussed the issue rather just edit warred. But the block has expired and there's no sense crying over spilt milk, really. --W.marsh 23:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I would have discussed, if I hadn't been prevented by being blocked. The point is less whether red rain in Kerala is paranormal or not (and I don't see how organic material in comets could remotely be considered paranormal), than whether this admin acted appropriately by a) blocking someone he was in dispute with, and b) giving a dishonest reason. I think it's very patronising to talk of spilt milk, when this is not about my block but about an administrator who directly contravened policy. That's rather more important and should, I think, be taken a little bit seriously. 81.178.208.69 00:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

No, the point is if the article is under the umbrella of a project your not associated with at all. InShaneee should have gotten someone else to block you, but the block was valid. ---J.S ^(T/C) 00:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict and beaten to the punch by JS) Please keep in mind that the template you removed simply indicated the article was being watched or edited by a Wikiproject; in this case, it does NOT mean that the incident is definitively related to the paranormal or any such thing, it simply means that the Paranormal Wikiproject has agreed to contribute to the page (because of the proposed theory discussed on the article page). Removing content from talk pages while not refactoring or archiving is vandalism and you should have been blocked in my view. With that said, InShaneee should have asked another administrator to review the situation and take appropriate action. —bbatsell ¿? 00:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

What utter rubbish. Wikipedia:Vandalism says nothing about removing things from talk pages automatically being vandalism. You obviously don't understand the policy. Did you look at my edit summaries? Did you notice that I am not the only one who doesn't agree with this wikiproject sticking their noses in? And the article was getting on just fine without 'paranormal' people getting their project onto it. It's not like anyone asked them to help, as you seem to be implying. 81.178.208.69 00:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Separate from the merits of the block, I'm concerned that this editor apparently posted the "unblock" template at 11:38 (UTC) today, no admin reviewed it, and the block remained in effect unreviewed until it expired by time at 23:34. I am wondering if there was some problem with the unblock template, or whether the requests listed in "category:requests for unblock" should be listed in time order or should have the time of the request accompanying the username/ip. Newyorkbrad 00:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I normally review the unblocks each morning, but today I was working on my new bot. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 00:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The template isn't "broken" ... it's just that, honestly, who are these admins who are updating the What links here to {{unblock}} often? I haven't seen them. HighInBC says he reviews them once a day. That's more often than 99% of the other admins out there. --Cyde Weys 01:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

As I understand it, an admin doesn't have to check for links to the template; aren't all pending unblock requests listed at <category:Requests for unblock>? I still think it might be helpful if they could be listed in the order the request was posted, or marked with which ones have been reviewed by a previously uninvolved admin and which haven't, or something. Newyorkbrad 01:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Explaining to 81.178.208.69 why the Wikiproject tag is no big deal is all well and good, but I'm afraid it doesn't do much to address what I'm having a rather hard time not interpreting as an abuse of the block button by InShaneee. Instead of criticizing 81.178.208.69, we should be apologizing. As far as I can see, he wasn't even warned about our policies regarding edit-warring; and to call what he did "vandalism"... well, go read Wikipedia:Vandalism if you think it might have been. It wasn't. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 00:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I have to concur. Initially both this IP user and Inshanee were using Edit Summaries to discuss the issue, rather than using the talk page. That's a bad idea, but far more forgivable for a newbie than an admin. Inshanee then both warned and blocked the IP at virtually the same time - telling him that he was the only one who disagreed, and for the first time telling him that he should take it up on the discussion page. [16], [17] (I've got to wonder how the IP was supposed to do that given that he was being blocked. In any event, Inshanee hadn't followed his own advice, so it's hard to expect a newbie to know to do so.) Look, we've been over this ground before - it's "spilled milk," but I'm afraid we do need to address this incident in at least some form (particularly since it involves biting a newcomer). Just my two cents.--TheOtherBob 00:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I've left a note drawing InShaneee's attention to this discussion. Newyorkbrad 00:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Concur with Bunchofgrapes and others above. Even if it had been vandalism, this block would be wrong, and criticizing 81.178.208.69 when he takes it to the administrators' noticeboard is even more wrong. Admins are supposed to be held to a higher standard, newbies are supposed to be cut extra slack, and all editors are supposed to be warned before they're blocked, unless there's some extraordinary hurry about it. 81.178.208.69, I apologize for Wikipedia. Bishonen | talk 00:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC).

Well he did edit war rather than discuss. I don't buy that admins are never allowed to critisize new users/whatever subset of users, the new user here was acting in good faith but still sort of in the wrong and that he was edit warring. This was a situation where you expect an admin to try to help a new user understand what's going on and the need for discussion, rather than just block them and walk away. Still, if you get reverted, new user or admin, the best thing to do is post an explanation and request an answer, not just keep reverting back and arguing in edit summaries. --W.marsh 01:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

This seems to be an increasing problem of administrator's overstepping their charge. (I expect this will be reverted simply for saying this). --FuitOfTheLoon 01:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Administrators are human beings. Some make mistakes once in a while. There are over 900 of them and it's unfair to characterize the good, hard-working administrators that are out there like this. --BigDT 01:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I did just block said user. However, he's Cplot (talk · contribs), so he's used to that. Cheerio. Mackensen (talk) 01:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

LOL, well, at least you didn't revert him just for saying that. ;) --BigDT 01:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

No good faith edit is ever vandalism. But more importantly than that ... any time we add categories or talk page headers, we need to keep things like this in mind, because they can be offensive. If you add something to a Wikiproject, you are characterizing that topic, even though that isn't necessarilly your intention. If you characterize something that is important to someone (like their religion, culture, viewpoints, etc) as something that it is not, that can be offensive and should be discussed. --BigDT 01:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I think the project template thing is getting out of hand. I have removed a project template from an article talk page[18] because I thought it was completely inappropriate to the article. -- Donald Albury 02:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Good grief! Blocking someone because edit warring over a template? What the...? No. Just plain no. Even if a person is 100% wrong according to every reliable source, you talk. You try to explain. You work with them. You listen. You do not block. I'm with the above. We draw breath only as long as we keep conversing, keep learning, keep improving. In this particular case, things are even worse. Unless there is a massive history here that the blocking administrator didn't feel like sharing, these blocks are out of line. Geogre 03:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

If this isn't reason enough to form an RfAr, I don't know what is. - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

An arbitration case about a 24-hour IP block, no matter what the circumstances, will more-than-likely be summarily rejected by ArbCom. They gave their thoughts on a similar, yet arguably more severe, case[19], two days ago; (0/7/0/0). Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 06:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

This is just the straw that broke the camel's back. This is certainly not the first thing he's ever done, and not the worst thing - and considering that this block is so unbelievably illegitimate and wrong, that speaks to the severity of his other actions. Wheel warring, vindictive blocks, punitive blocks, edit warring, abusing AWB, calling people vandals when he disagrees with their edits, criticizing people for calling others trolls when he does it often, protecting pages to suit his wants and needs, and of course, assuming bad faith. After all of this, I cannot see how he can be allowed to be an admin. He clearly hasn't shown ANY caution after receiving an RfC, where he had many people supporting the idea that he has at least done something wrong, with many agreeing he has acted poorly as an administrator. The man thinks that his role here is to govern the lesser Wikipedians, which he has shown by his constant demands for non-admins to show him respect. - A Link to the Past (talk) 08:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

He's right; that's exactly what I think. --InShaneee 13:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Fraternities and sororities

What do you all think of the massive amounts of external links that are contained in a traditional Wikipedia fraternity or sorority article such as Delta Sigma Pi, Alpha Kappa Psi, Phi Kappa Psi, or Alpha Epsilon Pi? Is this appropriate at all? I posted this to WT:EL a month ago and get a few responses Wikipedia_talk:External_links/Archive_11#Fraternities_and_sororities. I just removed the lists at Delta Sigma Pi [20] and registered a whopping (-23,730) on the removal according to the big bold red numbers on my watchlist (now, granted, that was a large table and I'm sure the fact it was a table added to the size of it). I figure I should probably get a little bit more of input on this before I go any further with such large removals.

I believe that they are unacceptable under WP:NOT as they are collections of external links used to formulate a directory of chapters. It encourages each chapter to post their own link and, for large organizations, that could mean 100+ schools. Thoughts? Metros232 02:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. -- Donald Albury 02:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

That is not what external links are for. EL should be limited to articles that are clearly justified. The national chapter for instance. I don't think any individual chapters could justify a link, unless perhaps there is something extraordinary about them that is 3rd party verifiable. - Taxman ^Talk 02:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely, those are not valid. We used to have chapters writing breathless articles about themselves. They'd go to VfD (it was back then), and the advice was always, either put it in the college or just delete it. So now it seems that they're linking from their national frat/sororities. That's better, but it's still unacceptable. The chapters have plenty of linking-to from the national organizations' own web pages and their colleges' web pages. They don't need to be page rank boosting with us. Geogre 03:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

While we're talking about these, there are also articles for the sub groups of the organisations. I had a quick hand at fighting back the bloat with redirects, but appeared to be going it alone and was mostly reverted. - brenneman 03:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the feedback so far and hopefully will lay my hand at removing a lot of these sometime tomorrow. What is the thought on the lists in general? Is it only to have a list of the chapters without external links? Beta Theta Pi (as shown in the template above that Aaron Brenneman just provided, has a full list of their chapters on their article but no external links for them. Should lists like that go as well as those with external links? Metros232 03:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

• I note that the (few) bluelinks in that template are redirects to the main article. I don't think we need articles on each individual fraternity chapter; for most of them there is little to say beyond what it says in the main frat article. I think this template should be removed. >Radiant< 12:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Repeated link spamming on Phonetics

The account User:Ygwnkm has been used exclusively to repost an external link to Phonetics in violation of WP:COI and WP:EL. I've left detailed edit summaries and multiple messages on the user page. I stopped reverting and another editor took up the challenge only to have it rv without comment by anonymous user Special:Contributions/58.143.172.67. I've entered the case into mediation where it was suggested I bring the case here. Not sure what to do from here. Nposs 02:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and given the IP a good faith spam warning. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 03:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it appears that the anonymous editor is keeping with his consistent link spamming. I have given him a spam 2 template, and if he does it again, I would probably go report this to WP:AIV. It is more than likely that the anonymous editor and the registered account are the same. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 03:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

If anyone is watching, there is a trainwreck going on at the Phonetics and Talk:Phonetics page. The linker has returned and become beligerent. He has not only repeatedly linked the site on the talk page, but now linked the talk from the external links of the article. It would be nice to end this soon. Thanks. Nposs 06:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Offensive picture in Hillary Clinton's wiki

Offensive picture in Hillary Clinton's wiki —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.246.53.173 (talk) 02:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC).

Could you be more specific? This is likely vandalism to a template that has since been reverted (and a "wiki" is not a page, too :))—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see vandalism on the page at all nor do I see anything in the recent changes for templates to suggest any of the templates used on the page were vandalized. Metros232 03:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah, found it. It was Image:Senator Clinton Hillary.jpg. It sat for over an hour in a vandalized state too, *sigh* awesome. Metros232 03:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

That should more than likely be deleted then...—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Cite template

I need a bit of help at {{mathworld}}. Linas keeps trying to change it to "Firstname Lastname" which is NOT the style we use on Wikipedia (see for example any of the cite templates, where it goes "lastname, firstname"). I don't want to get into a revert war, but he just won't listen on his talk page or from other editors at Template talk:Cite web about a month ago. —Mets501 (talk) 03:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

195.188.152.16 blocked

Good evening fellow administrators. I come here a man much vexed. I have blocked 195.188.152.16 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) indefinitely. This is not the first time that I or others have done so. Many of you have unblocked this IP in the past, no doubt with the best of intentions. It is true that we generally do not block shared IP addresses for long periods of time, and certainly not indefinitely. This, however, is a different situation. This is where the real Willy on Wheels edits from. If you unblock this IP, the real Willy on Wheels will create accounts and vandalize Wikipedia. I cannot put the matter any more plainly than that. Now, it is true that this is a shared IP address. However, I and other checkusers can verify that there is little to no activity from this address that does not come from Willy on Wheels. Most of the unblock requests are from Willy's socks. If you really feel that you must tinker with this block in any way, please contact a checkuser and got his or her permission before doing so.

Yours, Mackensen (talk) 03:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Mackensen, I suggest that you put a specific note to this effect on the talk page and in the block log, as otherwise no one will remember which specific IP you warned about. Newyorkbrad 03:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I copied the above note there. However, I've done that before, and been ignored. Mackensen (talk) 03:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Good ... except I equally doubt that admins expect to find useful content on an IP's userpage, so they're not going to look for that either. I suggest an entry in the block log itself along the lines of "Repeated creation of Willy on Wheels accounts, should remain blocked indefinitely, see user page for info" or something like that—in that location, an admin considering unblocking would certainly see. Regards, Newyorkbrad 03:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

You might also want to change the userpage, which says "This IP address has been blocked temporarily."[Emphasis mine] 68.39.174.238 04:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I've left a better block message. Hopefully nobody will unblock after that. --Cyde Weys 04:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure all caps all the time is the best block message, it's hard to read and I suspect it will send some people into vandal-reversion mode. 68.39.174.238 04:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:Thomas Sowell.jpg

Not totally sure what to do about this. Twice I've marked this for deletion under {{rfu}}, and both times it was deleted. User:Ccmg has now uploaded it a third time. He never disputes it, just re-uploads it after it's deleted. I was going to tag it {{Db-repost}}, but that doesn't seem appropriate here. Can an admin give some guidance here? —Chowbok ☠ 05:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

CantStandYa blocked

Due to his long term sock abuse, incivility, edit warring, and 3RR violations I have blocked CantStandYa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) indefinitely. Back in March 2006 we blocked about 30 socks, as reported Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive82#Socks of Shran/CantStandYa, while leaving active one account for him to use. He abandoned that account anyway and promptly created a new set of socks that we only discovered recently (Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/CantStandYa). His various accounts have been blocked many times, for as long as 6 months in one case.[21] Though I expect him to make further attempts to edit he has shown that he can't be trusted to follow community polices and guidelines. -Will Beback · † · 06:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

He wasn't blocked?! He's been listed on WP:LTA for AGES. 68.39.174.238 07:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Please block him for good. I almost left the project because of his stalking and incivility. Jasper23 07:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Foreign Language Wikipedia articles

After reading one of the later comments in this debacle of an AfD, I found this category. Browsing through the stubs in question, I reached the conclusion that very few of them satisfy WP:WEB. Is there something I'm missing (i.e. is the foundation notable enough for every one of its "children" to merit its own article)? If not, can a mass AfD be considered (for all except the most active 'pedias)? yandman 08:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree, being a Wikimedia project shouldn't automatically entitle you to a Wikipedia page. There are tons of tiny wikis no where even near WP:WEB. However, might I suggest seeing if this sort of material on the history and milestones of individual minor wikis would be welcomed if transwikied to Meta? Dragons flight 08:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

It's already here on meta. yandman 08:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

While it's not much content, some of the little wiki pages do have some content not duplicated in that list (e.g. Albanian Wikipedia). So I am wondering whether it would be worth dedicating a page on meta to each project for milestones, history, etc. Dragons flight 08:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah, OK. Sounds like a good idea. Anyone here who can move it all to meta before we start? I don't want the lack of a meta page to be a reason for keeping these NN articles. yandman 09:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Or we could listify it, with wikilinks to the main pages of each. We don't need to do the job of maintaining the "about" document for every language Wiki, though, and that's for sure. Guy (Help!) 12:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

How should we determine which ones should be included in the mass AfD? Maybe a first batch containing all those having less than 10k users (per the ranking at meta)? Or less than 20k articles? Or less than 50k edits? Or all three? Any otherwise notable wikis could always be undeleted (in case we find out that there's been significant coverage of one of these very small wikis). A quick strawpoll, please? yandman 12:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

YouTube and copyrights

You will remember, I think, that a group of editors set off to remove links to YouTube, requiring that before they went back in we clarified the copyright status and encyclopaedic merit of the links. This met with some resistance. There appear to be two camps now, which might be summed up as follows:

• those who believe that YouTube links should go in unless you can prove they are violating copyright
• those who believe that YouTube links should stay out unless you can prove they are not infringing copyright

Guess which group I'm in. The argument rages at Wikipedia:External links/Identifying copyrights in links, Wikipedia talk:External links/YouTube, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington and various other places. It's been moved out of WP:EL/WT:EL.

WP:COPYRIGHT makes it clear that knowingly linking to infringing material is contributory infringement (also that linking to copyvios makes us look bad). Given that many YouTube vids are copyvios I don't think it's excesive to require people to clarify copyright before adding, but there is a small and committed group who are insistent that the default should be the other way round. More input required, I think. Guy (Help!) 10:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, Guy. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 12:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)