Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive115

Nobody watching the Arbitration enforcement subnoticeboard?

No administrator has replied to my comment posted two days ago at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement, and I have noted a similar complain about the lack of administrator involvement from the user who posted a question few days before me. So please don't hesitate and read that subnoticeboard. Thanks, -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 02:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, now at least I know it's not only me :-) See above, same issue at the BLP and the COI noticeboards. But go to AN/I and see how quickly someone says I need to "calm down" when I'm 100% calm :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Calm down, Sandy, please ;o) ➔ REDVEЯS likes kittens... and you 09:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Arsensalsa

Resolved

Hopefully, I've come to the right place. I often try to help out at the Help Desk and a few days ago came across this: Wikipedia:Help desk#User:Arsensalsa. I tried to help but it's all gone a bit wrong.

Apparently, what happened was User:Arsensalsa moved their user page to a main namespace article Arsen Salsa. Another help desk helper tried to move it back, but made an error and moved it to User:Arsen Salsa instead (making a double redirect). In response to their help desk question, I tried to fix the problem, but was not aware of the double redirect issue until after it all went wrong. I found I could not move User:Arsen Salsa to User:Arsensalsa because there was already something there.

Since then, the main namespace article has been deleted, leaving User:Arsensalsa redirecting to the user page of a non-existent user, User:Arsen Salsa. It would be great if you could fix this mess, moving the content & history of User:Arsen Salsa back to the real user User:Arsensalsa and deleting the User:Arsen Salsa page altogether.

Apologies for any inconvenience. Astronaut (talk) 13:59, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Unclear copyright

Hi,

I am a new sysop, trying to cope with copyright issues. I've been following the contributions of User:Marina T.. Many of this user's image uploads seem problematic. At one blatant copyvio case i speedied one image, but others look like a gray area.

I asked a question about it on the Copyright FAQ page, but got not response yet.

Any help will be appreciated. If there's a better place to ask this, please point me there and accept my apologies. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 16:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Streamlining "Did You Know?"

I’ve noticed lately that DYK updates are a little slow coming at times, and some of the DYK regulars are rather vocal about seeing it updated often. The process in place right now is a pretty lousy one. The process could be improved and updates always made on time by borrowing Raul’s process for Today's Featured Article. I bring this proposal here since administrators are the ones tasked with seeing this updated every six hours.

Instead of constantly updating {{Did You Know}}, we should create individual pages for each set of hooks to be put on the mainpage, like so:

• Wikipedia:Did you know/December 6, 2007/0
• Wikipedia:Did you know/December 6, 2007/6
• Wikipedia:Did you know/December 6, 2007/12
• Wikipedia:Did you know/December 6, 2007/18

and so on. The pages will update each day at the 0th, 6th, 12th, and 18th hour UTC. The actual update will happen without direct admin intervention automagically. We’ll replace the {{Did you know}} code on the main page with {{Wikipedia:Did you know/{{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTDAY}}, {{CURRENTYEAR}}/{{#expr: {{CURRENTHOUR}} – ({{CURRENTHOUR}} mod 6)}}}}. Of course, to keep the would-be Main Page vandals at bay, the titles for the pages would need to be protected in advance, either at Protected Titles or by IARbot. We'd also have to create a page with updating instructions.

There are some immediate benefits to this approach:

• It allows admins to work ahead on DYK. In one sitting, an admin could queue up the hooks for a couple day’s worth of DYKs. In the meantime, other admins can add new sets of hooks for later on.
• Any editor who spots an improvement to the already created hook pages can post an {{editprotected}} request directly to that talkpage, often before it even goes to the mainpage.
• It would be easy to make a warning template using the #ifexist parser function to say "Hey you! Admins! The next set of DKY hooks is not made yet. The next update is at 18:00 UTC. Chop chop!" We can make it big and red and threatening, and include it at the top of WP:AN and WP:ANI. No bots needed. The template would only show if the next page to be included had not been created yet.
• I keep a lookout for typos and other errors on Today's Featured Article at User:HiDrNick/TFA blurbs. It would be easy to create a similar page for the upcoming DKYs, both so that admins see at a glance how far ahead the updating is done, and to keep as many eyes on the upcoming hooks as possible.

Thoughts? ➪HiDrNick! 06:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

That strikes me, for one, as a supremely fine idea. Joe 06:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Isn't this something that is best discussed at Wikipedia talk:Did you know? --Edward Morgan Blake (talk) 08:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

It sounds like a good idea, anyway: For instance, a day or two ago, we were working on 6-day old tags still (which we're not supposed to do) - but the second update of the day came about 5 hours late. [I'd have fixed it myself, but I was at University]. Adam Cuerden ^talk 08:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I've added a note over there directing interested parties to here. I checked out Template talk:Did you know before posting here, and it looked like clearly the wrong place to post. I didn't realize that there was a WT:DYK. ➪HiDrNick! 09:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't like this idea. It effectively shuts out non-admins from most of the updating process. I've just started working in this area and I've found it's something I enjoy, if it's going to be left entirely up to admins, with me having to post an "editprotected" request every time I want to experiment with even a minor tweak, then there is no longer any incentive for me to participate.

Also, in regards to the "big warning template" to post on AN/I, I'm certainly in favour of that, but then if we are going to have regular warnings on AN/I, I think the problem is largely solved in any case, because my guess is that there are generally plenty of non-admin interested parties hanging around who would be more than happy to post a "big warning template" whenever the update is 15 minutes overdue :) Gatoclass (talk) 09:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I like the idea of automating the process to ensure regularity of updating and easing the process of making Main Page changes. When DYK is delayed, it reduces the number of opportunities for new articles to make it to the main page, which is frustrating for those waiting to get on. (Also, as a new admin with a few DYKs under my belt, I'd be happy to lend a hand but at present am a little nervous about stuffing up!) However, I take Gatoclass's point about involving non-admins in selection. Why not, as now, allow non-admins to add suggestions to the update until it has been completed and is ready for the main page, and only then give it full protection? Excluding non-admins from selecting suggestions from the list of candidates and adding them to the update will in fact increase the load on admins rather than reduce it. Bencherlite^Talk 09:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

One thing that might be more useful is to have some way of automating the crediting. Distributing 10-30 templates throughout the project - talk pages, article pages, etc - and having to manually prepare the contents of each template is annoying. Surely it could be at least partially automated. Adam Cuerden ^talk 10:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

That's a good idea too. Crazy that something like that isn't automated IMO. Gatoclass (talk) 10:19, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[Edit conflict]: Excluding non-admins from selecting suggestions from the list of candidates and adding them to the update will in fact increase the load on admins rather than reduce it. - Bencherlite

I think you are correct on the last point. I almost singlehandedly did two updates yesterday because no-one else seemed to be around, if I hadn't done so someone else - probably an admin - would have had to do the job instead.

As to "why not allow non-admins to add suggestions until it has been completed, and then protect" - might I suggest that the page be protected automatically at a certain point in the process? Let's say, the page is protected one hour before it is due to be posted. If it's not finished at that stage, an individual or bot can post the "big red warning" at ANI.

Having an auto-protect feature would not only obviate the need for manual protection, it would also let all users know exactly how long before the page was to be protected, so they could keep working to improve the update up to that point.

If there's to be an auto-protect though, might I suggest that the auto-protect also generates an auto-warning on AN/I for some admin to go and validate that the page is actually in a fit state to be posted and that it hasn't been vandalized. In that case you could dispense with the "big red warning" altogether because there would be a reminder on AN/I to check the update every six hours anyway. Gatoclass (talk) 10:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Just to take the idea a little further, you could have some sort of admin validation process to stop the update posting if no-one had checked the contents. In other words, it goes like this: an hour before the update is due, the update is auto-protected and a message generated on AN/I for someone to go and check it's okay. The admin checking that it's okay then has some sort of admin-only button he can use to inform the software the update has been checked and is good to post. If no admin hits the button by the time the update is due, the software does not post the update but instead sends another message to AN/I saying it's still waiting for confirmation. Gatoclass (talk) 10:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

• I know this might be a dumb idea, but is there a way to have certain users given Admin powers, but restricted to DYK duties only? That way, we won't have the lags in updating and whatnot because we can have a healthy pool of admins to update as needed. --293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 11:25, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I hate to be the knee-jerk opposition to change here, but non-admins do so much of the next update template that I'm not sure if this is a very good idea. Also, in my experience, the DYK regulars don't complain much about the next update being late. I think the regulars are used to it. Newcomers to the project often complain, but it's worth bearing in mind that "6 hours" and "5-days-old" are just arbitrary goals to keep the pressure on. Ninety percent of the time it's not a problem to have a 6-day-old hook and a template that's updated every 8 hours. Why would it be? The purpose is not rules for the sake of rules. The purpose is to get recognition and incentive for people who start good new articles instead of stubby ones. Unless the project is overlooking lots of good hooks (and this very rarely happens) then I don't think we should rejigger the mechanism. --JayHenry (talk) 15:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems like a good idea in principle to me, but it needs to be unprotected. What if we got rid of the automation, but did have the pages for each update? Whoever is updating simply looks at the page history and can evaluate the edits of anyone they didn't recognize to make sure they were constructive (and make sure it was updated at all--the possibility of that mistake seems as likely as intentional vandalism). As it is, the next update template is unprotected, and is often filled by non-admins (like Gatoclass) which greatly helps the admins (and gives them valuable experience too, if they're interested in an RFA). I do like the idea of being able to plan the updates in advance, though. That seems like it might go smoother. Rigadoun (talk) 15:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

No. Technically, it is impossible. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 20:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

This wouldn't have to exclude non-admins from the process at all; in fact, the idea is to take away a lot of the load already borne here by admins. All editors would still prepare sets of hooks to go on the mainpage, they would just post completed sets to a new (unprotected) holding page where they could be reviewed by other editors until an admin comes along, verifies that the content is appropriate for the mainpage and has not been vandalized, and posts them to the end of the existing queue. Since an admin could post a few sets of these at a time, DYK would be updated like clockwork with less admin work and little change in the actual selection process used now. Basically, instead of working on the set of hooks to be posted in a few hours, you might be working on a set of hooks that would be posted in 54 hours or so. ➪HiDrNick! 18:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's fine, but it doesn't address the problem of the updates being chronically late, which is the subject of this thread. I think I'd be satisfied at this stage with auto-alerts to AN/I every six hours. If the update turns out to be not ready, then the clock can be reset from the time when the next update is posted. Gatoclass (talk) 20:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

• This doesn't strike me as a particularly good idea. DYK, unlike the other sections of the main page, has a requirement that an article needs to be created recently. That doesn't really allow to effectively use a subpage model, as the pages can only be worked on for a few days before the deadline. Additionally, having more pages requires having more pages in one's watchlist, which then allows for errors and mistakes to be harder to find. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 20:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
• I and a few others are working on a few ideas to get the whole process streamlined and a bot or two involved to help with the checking of articles and such. WT:DYK is a much better place for this whole conversation. spryde | talk 21:25, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, how about something like this:

Create a set of 28 pages, 4 for each day of the week like

Template:Did you know/Monday/0

Template:Did you know/Monday/6

Template:Did you know/Monday/12

Template:Did you know/Monday/18

Replace the current {{Did you know}} on the main page with {{Did you know/{{CURRENTDAYNAME}}/{{#expr:{{CURRENTHOUR}}-({{CURRENTHOUR}} mod 6)}}}}

Which for Tuesday at 06:36, returns {{Did you know/Tuesday/6}}. This means that the pages would only be protected when they are on the main page (through the cascading protection) and would otherwise be open to add new hooks.

To prevent people from disrupting them immediately before they get on the main page, another cascade protected page, Wikipedia:Did you know/Next hooks could be created with {{Did you know/{{#ifexpr:{{CURRENTHOUR}}>18|{{#time:l|+ 1 day}}/0|{{CURRENTDAYNAME}}/{{#expr:{{CURRENTHOUR}}-({{CURRENTHOUR}} mod 6)+6}}}}}}. The #time: function is so that it will transclude the next day's "0" hour hook if it is after 18:00. For Tuesday at 06:36, it returns {{Did you know/Tuesday/12}}.

This set-up allows any user (or the templates can all be semi-protected) to make the updates and gives a six hour window before they are on the main page where they are full protected for admin review. It allows updates to be made well in advance, without creating 4 new templates every day, the old ones are simply overwritten. Except for the initial set-up and fixing any possible issues with the next update, this would not require admins at all and as the pages cycle, there is no reason to constantly create new pages and DYK people can have all 28 on their watchlist. Mr.Z-man 21:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I've created an example of what the system could look like in my userspace. See all the pages here. I created example pages for today and tomorrow (UTC), using the current hooks and the archive. Mr.Z-man 03:05, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

In principle I'm not against giving a system like this a try, but again I come back to the fact that this thread was started out of concerns regarding the chronic lateness of the updates, not the best way to organize their creation. I don't see how this proposal is going to have much impact on the former.

In regards to the proposal itself, it seems unnecessarily complex to me. If you think an update queue is a good idea, what's wrong with just allowing the next two or three updates to be listed on the same page as the current next update page? It might be worthwhile at least trying that to see if queueing is of any benefit before we start thinking of more elaborate queueing schemes. Gatoclass (talk) 10:26, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, from what I understand, the problem is that you need an admin to move the update from the update page to the protected template. With what I proposed, you really don't need an admin at all. Instead of the non-admins putting the update on a next update page and then going to ANI when no admin moves them, they put them on a page that will be transcluded onto the main page automatically at the correct time and you remove the extra step of moving them to the protected template. The only reason to go to ANI then would be if something needs to be corrected on the page that's currently on the main page or the next one. I really fail to see how automatically complaining to ANI is going to do anything more than annoy and fill up the page with DYK update requests. Mr.Z-man 15:49, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

As with Gatoclass, in principle I'm not against giving this system a try. (We should note, of course, that it's quite the opposite of streamlining.) For one thing, I don't think "Having the update done well in advance" is a goal we necessarily want to pursue. We already get complaints, sometimes pretty savage and disheartening, every time a hook doesn't get properly screened. If we reduce the amount of time on the suggestions page, we reduce the amount of screening. Having some flexibility is good. For example, there's not a lot of people around from 4-12 UCT on a Saturday. Americans are going to sleep, the Brits are just waking up, the Australians are out partying and sometimes the template doesn't get updated. With this system of locking templates, if a non-admin doesn't do it, then you have a sort of race against the clock scenario to find an admin who's willing to update the template and walk him through it before a blank DYK page goes up. Will there be an easy way to tell what hours are ready and what aren't? Other than adding 28 pages to the watchlist? I guess I still have a lot of unresolved concerns about why we're making this change. (And actually, I don't understand why we're having the discussion here instead of with the people who actually update DYK). --JayHenry (talk) 15:46, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, the current method requires an admin to do the update within a very short timeframe. The system I proposed only requires an admin if no one has prepared an update within 6 hours of it getting on the main page (and the timing for autoprotection of the next update could be adjusted as well if 6 hours is too long). Unless you get an adminbot to do the updates, there's no technical way to ensure that updates are done in a timely manner using only 1 template. The TFA, "On this day," and the POTD all use a date based template system. ITN doesn't because it is updated on an irregular basis. Mr.Z-man 16:00, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Wait a second, do I understand correctly that people have been starting ANI threads when the update is 1 or 2 hours late? If so, we can add a notice on various places explaining that this is not necessary and should not be done. Rigid six-hour updating, in my opinion at least, is not one of DYK's purposes. The purpose is to encourage the creation of good new articles (instead of forgotten stubs) through a system of recognition and eyeballs to an interesting element of the new article. Right now we're not back-logged at all, and so if the weekend updates are a little slower it actually gives hooks a little more time to be reviewed at the suggestions page. --JayHenry (talk) 17:17, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Regardless, I think there is some justification for creating multiple updates ahead of time. I could have done two or three myself in the last few hours, but I didn't because there is no place to put them. I guess I could have queued them on the "Next Update" page itself, but since I don't know the mechanics of updating, I'm not sure if that's practical.

As for people complaining about DYK being only a couple of hours late, I agree that an hour or two isn't much of a problem but only today it was more than six hours late again. A few days ago IIRC it was more than ten hours late. Gatoclass (talk) 17:56, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Coped from Wikipedia talk:Did you know:

I really think it'd speed up updating if we could come up with some way to use a bot and templates to clear the credits section, flagging up anything it can't deal with somewhere where it can be done by hand.

Here's how my ideal bot would work:

An admin reviews the prepared next update, then pushes a button. This button will only work if an admin presses it. The bot copies the prepared section to the front page template and the archive. It then goes through the credits sections, and handles all of them that are properly templated, then sets up the page ready for the nextt update, keeping only crediting work it was unable to deal with. The admin does any remaining notifications by hand, checks the next update is good, and is done. Should no admin press the button within an hour of the time it should have been, a message appears at the top of WP:ANI. How close we can get to my ideal, I do not know. But that's how I would work it in an ideal world.

In an even more ideal world, the bot could also be given a list of trusted non- admins eligible to press the button. Adam Cuerden talk 19:54, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Im going to write that bot, and Ive got some ideas that will make it even more user and non-admin friendly, along with being on time. :P Ill work on a method, and hash out the details on the DKY talk page and with DYK regulars. β^_command 17:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the current system is very good. The problem isn't filling the next update. The problem is moving that template to the main page. If you do too much ahead of time, this will take away time for hook improvment and rewriting and getting non-compliant articles to standard.

If you really want a bot, then we need to extend the deadline by 1 day to 6 days. On the early part of day 6, admin could move the next update page to the bot transfer page. There would then be 2 updates for the bot to move. Admin would still have to add to the bot page every 6 hours but with 2 updates there, there would be more leeway. Even after 12 hours, the admin could catch up and move 2 updates to the empty bot page. Chergles (talk) 19:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I think this problem will be solved in a few years. WP is growing. As there are more admins, a few of them will do DYK work. Look at some of the articles from 2004. Some of them were short stubs but are FA now. Chergles (talk) 19:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The Prisoner

Just come here for advice, really. An anon IP User:86.149.192.133 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) edits nothing but this article, and all he ever does is remove an external link to "The Prisoner Appreciation Society", which is slightly more than the usual fanclub, as it has produced some credible analysis over the years. I am aware that there was a split in this organisation some years ago and wonder if this is somebody disgruntled. The diffs are [1], [2], [3] and [4]. I left him a notice asking for consensus here, but no reply. Now, if I ask for page protection, it is likely to be refused, because the vandalism hasn't reached the level where it would normally be applied; similarly, if I report to WP:AIV, it would not be regarded as critical enough. However, this guy will be back. Do I wait until he does it again and then report? I have tried to WP:AGF but he doesn't seem keen on talking. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 01:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

• The Prisoner Appreciation Society has been around for long enough to build up some credible history. As such it is in my view a significant club, at least sufficient to justify a link in The Prisoner. Last time I was at Portmeirion I seem to recall that they were running the Prisoner shop at No. 6. Guy (Help!) 15:41, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

And paradoxically, the IP address resolves to Ipswich, the erstwhile, if not current, PO BOx for this organisation. Curiouser & curiouser. Be seeing you. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 16:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

IP addresses are funny things - i'd rather die than live in Ipswich! I have left comments for you on the IP address talk page as to why those edits were being made (as for some reason I could not edit yesterday). Feel free to copy them here if you wish. Just to summarise, it was agreed that the link should not be added to the article, the comments you make above are incorrect, as is Guy's response. Cheers :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rickd2007 (talk • contribs) 18:25, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

<----outdent Replied on IP talk page. Probably to nobody's satisfaction. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 23:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Somebody is messing with the webpage's format

Resolved

Can somebody take a look at this page Juan Manuel López (boxer)‎ and fix whatever the hell is happening there? to be precise I'm getting a image of someone's "package" over the article, superimposed if you will and the addition of such a image is not present in the article's history so I guess a hacker is messing with the page. 24.139.156.65 (talk) 16:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

There was vandalism to a template that is probably included in the article. I can't check which, as I'm at work - but I believe it might be a template associated with an olympic medal, maybe? There is a thread at WP:ANI that discusses this issue, and - if it isn't corrected by now - it will be fixed soon. I've taken the liberty of copying your report to that page, so they have additional data to fix the problem. Thanks, ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 17:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

SadPhony (talk · contribs) made a vandalous edit to Template:MedalSport that was the culprit. It was reverted by User:Edokter about 20 minutes later, the template was protected by User:Ryulong, and User:David D. blocked the vandal for a month. Andrwsc (talk) 22:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Winter Soldier 2

The above Request for Arbitration has now closed and the final decision is available at the above link. Both User:TDC and User:Xenophrenic are prohibited from editing pages related to the Winter Soldier Investigation. Should they violate this restriction, they may be blocked for the duration specified here.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee,
Anthøny 20:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:RFCU and WP:SSP results

Can an admin please take a look at Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Richprentice (see SSP case) and decide what to do with the identified socks? --EoL talk 22:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Think that's sorted. Blocked all the sock accounts indef and the main account for 72 hours - probably best to leave the IPs alone, blocks there would be fairly pointless. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 22:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

user edit summary, "Undone by Bot"

Resolved

 – Blocked by Scien. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 10:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Bot2112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam), claims "Undone by Bot" or "Undone by Wiki Bot", and appears to be IP 67.40.80.201 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
based on the recent edits on GM LS engine. Seems the contributions consist of reverting nonsense. thoughts?--Hu12 (talk) 23:25, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked based on a username violation...WP:USERNAME: "your username may be blocked if it looks like a bot username, especially names that end in 'bot'; such account names are reserved for approved bots". — Scientizzle 23:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Xeraxes reactivated

This inactive duplicate account ("sockpuppet") has been reactivated in December 2007 apparently in order to force unsound POV attitudinizing at Alexander the Great; the user history tells the story. act or not, as you see fit: I need not be contacted on this matter, as I am not involved. --Wetman (talk) 02:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see any evidence this is a disruptive WP:SPA. The article is not a recreation, I suggest you assume good faith and that this is a user that comes back after a year. Or am I missing something? -- lucasbfr ^talk 15:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Technical glitch that can't be reverted

Resolved

I don't know if this is the place to report this kind of thing, but I can't see how to remove a certain piece of vandalism. See [5]. For some reason, the word "orgy" does not appear on the edit screen and I can't remove it. Any help here would be great. Ripberger (talk) 07:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Template vandalism. Somebody else fixed it. --Kaypoh (talk) 07:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah! I never would have checked the template. Thanks! Ripberger (talk) 07:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

:) --Kaypoh (talk) 07:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Selective Deletion Request: White House Phone Number

An internal White House phone number was posted in this revision of Dana Perino. This single revision should be deleted per Wikipedia:Selective deletion as it contains sensitive information. As I am not an admin, I pass this on to all of you.--CastAStone/^/(talk) 15:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this is warranted, the number is listed pretty much everywhere. -- lucasbfr ^talk 15:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Block review of User:WJH1992

WJH1992 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hi, I would like a block reviewed. I have indef blocked User:WJH1992 for small but ongoing disruption. This user is not a vandal, but is completely uncommunicative (doesn't even use edit summaries, blanks talk page, ...), doesn't seem to listen to any advice and/or warnings, and is in general a waste of time to a number of editors. He makes many, many very small edits, all of which have to be checked because at least half of them have to be reverted, because he doesn't follow the MoS, replaces images with image missing templates, replaces correct links with links to redirects, and so on. Individually, none of these edits is worth a fuss, but when it is about over a 1,000 edits in some five months (minus more than a month he has been blocked in total so far). I'll give one example: on LDV Pilot, he has in two months time been reverted eight times by four different editors for making the exact same edit[6]. While I feel that indef for small infractions may be harsh, I see no other solution for the moment. I suggested to help him (as a kind of mentor), and pointed him to Adopt-a-User as another possibility (since I had already blocked him, so perhaps he didn't trust me or so).[7] Fram (talk) 09:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• I don't know, but an indefinite block sounds a little harsh. You said in a couple of your warnings that he had been making some good edits, as well, and those and the block length don't mix well, in my opinion. I think it would be better if the block is reduced to a lower time, and have someone talk to WJH (someone uninvolved, of course), see if this can be sorted out properly. Although it seems as though the patience of those who deal with him is running out, I really don't think an indefinite block is necessary at this stage. Spebi 09:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  • If anyone uninvolved is willing to mentor WJH1992, and if WJH1992 is willing to be mentored, I have no objection to a reduction of the block or an unblocking. It's a pity to block someone who is not a clear-cut vandal, but continuing in the same way was not really an option either. Fram (talk) 10:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
• Indefinite sounds good, which is not "infinite", but "until the user starts to play nice with others". The user clearly acknowledged the warning and knew he was going to be blocked. If the user requests unblock and shows any promise of better behavior, unblock, but there seems little reason to believe in any specific block time. Kusma (talk) 11:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  • With or without someone willing to mentor him, the onus is on him to promise good behavior if he's unblocked. I've looked through his entire history of edits to his own talk page, and only see two responses to warnings (he managed to get blocked not long after each, anyway). I agree this was a good time to show him the door. Someguy1221 (talk) 11:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
• Consider the LDV Pilot edits. The thing is that (according to the established view of English grammar at any rate) WJH1992 is right and is improving the article with those edits. All of those editors that have been reverting xem are wrong.

  Xe is applying (one view of) a rule of English grammar known as the sequence of tenses. It's a pity that we don't have an article that would explain it. (The nearest that we have is User:Schoen/Sequence of tenses.) But you and they can read about it in a large number of books on English grammar. You have blocked an editor in part for editing with the aim of correcting the grammar of articles. Further, we have several editors who are reverting attempted grammar corrections, calling them "vandalism". Those are entirely the wrong things to be happening.

  Kierant, Pyrope, and Fram, consider this a rebuke: Good faith attempts to correct the grammar of articles are not vandalism, and it is wrong of you to be treating them as such in your edit summaries and by your use of the vandalism rollback tools. This is not the first time that I've seen genuine attempts to make the encyclopaedia better rebuffed as "vandalism". Doing so is wrong. Uncle G (talk) 12:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

  • I don't think I ever called him a vandal, I explicitly started this post with "this user is not a vandal". The admin rollback tool is also allowed to use when reverting "large amounts of mistaken edits". Many of his edits were mistaken, some were apparently debatable. I don't see how the "is" version violates e.g. this. The "is" relates to a fact, a definition, while the "was" relates to an event. Mount Everest is a mountain that was first climbed by Hillary. Gondwana was a continent that was first described by someone (it doesn't exist anymore). Mona Lisa is a painting that was created by Da Vinci. Fram (talk) 14:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  • G, you boldly stated that WJH was right and we were wrong. I do notice though, that both the examples I found when looking for "sequence of tenses", and the edits you so far have made on User:Schoen/Sequence of tenses, only indicate (logically) that "The Mini was a car that is produced in..." is inccrrect, but not that "The Mini is a car that was produced in..." is also incorrect. Fram (talk) 15:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
    • I did qualify that several times. As you can tell from xyr username alone, without even reading the potted autobiography that xe wrote, the user is still of school age. There are various lies-to-children that are told at various levels in schools about the sequence of tenses, notwithstanding the various schools of thought amongst grammarians and linguists. What this editor was doing with the grammatical changes fits a somewhat oversimplified idea of the sequence of tenses, namely that the main and subordinate verbs must agree in tense. (Several sources call it agreement of tenses rather than sequence of tenses. There was a whole discussion by scholars in the early 20th century in a journal called The Classical World as to what this grammatical feature should properly even be named, arguing about whether it is a sequence, a harmony, or an agreement. Such discussion in part hinged on arguments about the implications of each name.) The editor was aiming to correct the grammar, to be in line with what xe apparently thought to be correct grammar. As I wrote, it was an attempt to correct the grammar, made in good faith.

      By the way: Go and look at some of the things cited in the further reading section of the article and some of the many other sources on this subject. Not everyone agrees with the Columbia Guide. Some sources propound an "attracted sequence" rule and then give long tables of exceptions that don't fit it. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 17:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

      • Well, those qualifications did not seem to be in place in sentences like "All of those editors that have been reverting xem are wrong." I wonder what tense they teach the children to use for "The Mini is a car brand that was owned by a British company and is now owned by a German company"... And you didn't qualify it as "according to what they are teached at school", but "according to the established view of English grammar"... (Oh, and he is a he, no need to use those ugly constructions[8])Fram (talk) 20:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
        • They were in the sentence before, in parentheses. Since the invention of the paragraph, sentences no longer need stand lonely and forlorn. They can have other sentences to help them. ☺ And if you want to try to pry apart the established view and the view that is taught to most people, you have a hard task ahead of you. It's not simple, and it has little to do with the point that I actually made, which is that it is wrong to treat good faith attempts to correct the grammar of articles as vandalism. Uncle G (talk) 02:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
• I've yet to indef block anyone, rather only to place 3 months at most. Not that I'm telling you to do it, but I would unblock and re-block for 1 month. Bearian (talk) 13:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  • And in what way would this one month block achieve what previous week and two week blocks have not? Fram (talk) 14:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
    • it would avoid the appearance of an indefinite block based on such a minor thing as quarrels of grammar. This is the sort of thing that should not be escalated, lest we appear ridiculous. DGG (talk) 18:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
      • ...and removal of perfectly licensed images, and the impossibility to have any discussion with the user, and not following the MoS (understandable when adding content, but not when you change from the correct MoS to some other version), and changing two perfect links into one bigger one that then redirects to the first of the two earlier links[9], and adding unreferenced speculation[10], and so on and so on... Focusing on one tiny aspect of this block while ignoring the overall picture could also make us appear ridiculous. But again, if anyone so critical of the block is willing to mentor, and if he is willing to be mentored, then I not only agree to a block reduction but have no problem with an immediate lifting of the block. Fram (talk) 20:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
        • Again, there's quite a large lack of assumption of good faith on your part. Changing "Brighton, East Sussex" into "Brighton, East Sussex" can easily be seen as a good faith edit. New editors seeing the vast number of U.S., Canadian, and Australian articles that use the so-called "comma convention" can well be excused inducing from those data that that style is intended to apply to all placenames in all countries. Indeed making this convention universal is a perennial proposal. Uncle G (talk) 02:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
          • Where did I assume bad faith? I am pointing out some examples of edits of WJH1992 that are not helpful and need to be reverted. I am not saying that they are vandalism or that he is deliberately making Wikipedia worse. Please read my previous comment again. The problem, as explained numerous times now, is that all his edits (and dhe makes many, many edits, without any edit summaries) have to be checked, to see if they are plainly wrong, misguided, not helpful, or (in some cases) actual improvements. I have no problem with aan editor needing guidance, advice, help, ... but this editor is not responding to anything, not even offers to mentor him or suggestions to go to adopt-a-user. He is a well-intended waste of our time. Instead of nitpicking and misreading comments, have you actually a proposal on what to do with this case? Fram (talk) 05:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I strongly sympathize with Fram here. One of the frustrating parts is that he immediately deletes criticism from his talk page rather than responds to it; you have to look at the history of his talk page, and click on every link to see just how much criticism he has received, much of it quite constructive, if only it had been reacted to. If there isn't a dedicated mentor volunteer, I will, unfortunately, have to support the indefinite block. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

This is a problem that has started to get more visibility: good-faith editors who make dubious contributions and consistently refuse to respond to all attempts to discuss those edits. This is the second one I've heard of in the last 25-30 days, & I personally have encountered one other case in the last 6 months. I hate to propose a new policy, but if this isn't covered explicitly by an existing one, then we need to either add it to one -- or create one. -- llywrch (talk) 19:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Removal of sexual abuse claims at American Boychoir School

The American Boychoir School has been the target of several claims regarding sexual abuse of students. The school's Wikipedia article reflects these claims with a variety of reliable and verifiable independent sources. There have been several attempt to remove this information over the past several weeks, all of which have been reverted. A recent edit by User:Dj Downing of the article removed all details of sexual abuse claims, noting in the edit summary that "lawsuit settled, plaintiff agrees not to post this type of information on internet. Management of The American Boychoir feels this is continuing to damage reputation of schoo[l]". Above and beyond the fact that there is no information provided to support the existence of a settlement and the fact that neither I nor Wikipedia are parties to this lawsuit, the claimed terms of the settlement do not negate the fact that reliable and verifiable independent sources support an extensive array of allegations regarding abuse that may have affected the plaintiffs involved in this alleged settlement as well as others who did not take part. As such, I reverted the content deletion and explained my actions (as I had previously) on the user's talk page, noting that even under the terms of the settlement described in the edit summary, the settlement would not wipe out the past or negate the fact that these allegations had been made in the past and that removal of sourced material from Wikipedia articles is not an acceptable practice. A Google News search finds no evidence of a settlement that would meet the description in the edit summary, though this article discusses a settlement with one individual and addresses continuing efforts at litigation by other parties. What should our stand be in this situation and how should we address potential concerns that the organization's reputation might be negatively impacted by claims made against it that are properly supported within an article. Alansohn (talk) 18:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored. I say ignore them, just make sure our sourcing is sound. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

suggest bringing to the BLP noticeboard WP:BLPNDGG (talk) 18:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• O noes! They got sued IN A COURT OF LAW IN TRENTON, NEW JERSEY! The article looks acceptable at face value, sources are sound and as long as we pay careful attention to any comments from the school (particularly in respect of using "X stated Y" or "the court found Z" rather than necessarily stating Y and Z as fact), then I see no problem. If whitewashing continues we can protect the page. Guy (Help!) 19:01, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

You know one of these days one of the randomly inserted unsourced claims is going to be true and we are going to get hammered for ignoreing a cry for help.Geni 23:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure it happens all the time. Unsourced claims are just that: unsourced. That's not a judgment on their truth. Verifiability, not truth, as they say, and often much to the chagrin of people who know damn well it is the truth. Sad but probably for the best. Guy (Help!) 23:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

A cursory reading of the article seems show that the abuse section is referenced. The section does not overwhelm the article by length. It is possible that some plaintiffs (former students) signed settlement agreements. As part of the settlement, they may be prohibited from editing about the school. However, others who did not sign the agreement (such as you or me) can edit. As WPedians, we should edit responsibly. This subject should be approached with care, keeping in mind the feelings of all involved, making sure that the references are of the highest possible quality, etc. Disclaimer: I have no relation with this school. In fact, I've never heard of it before. Archtransit (talk) 00:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Hard block of a free dialup ISP for low-income users

Resolved

Jimmy Wales recently forwarded an e-mail from a Wikipedia contributor to us in OTRS (ticket #2007112610017678, if any other OTRS agents want to take a look) writing in dismay that this ISP, which is his only means of home Internet access, has been hard-blocked indefinitely. It seems this ISP provides free dial-up access to many low-income individuals in Washington State; however, the ISP's entire CIDR block was hard-blocked indefinitely by Jpgordon on November 6th as an "open proxy," preventing all edits from the ISP even from logged-in users, under the justification that an abusive user could theoretically call into one of the ISP's access numbers via long-distance and use it in proxy-like fashion.

Due to the potential for abuse, I can understand why a rangeblock may be justifiable as a preventative measure - however, given the large amount of good-faith users on this network as well, I echo this contributor's concerns that a hard-block may be too heavy-handed in this instance - many users of this ISP have no other means of home Internet access available. AFAIK, the range has not been a particularly disproportionate source of abuse in relation to any other ISP. The abuse potential is also much lower than an open proxy - the costs of long distance calls aren't particularly attractive when free Internet is available at the library or Panera Bread down the street, and unlike an open proxy, which can generally provide solid anonymity, a dial-up ISP is aware of the landline phone number of every user that connects, and is thus far more equipped to respond to abuse and identify the persons responsible.

For these reasons, I would like to propose reducing the block on this range to a soft block on anonymous users only, with account creation disabled, to allow legitimate good-faith users to request an account via the usual channels and edit while logged in while still filtering out most abusive users; it seems counter to the spirit of our project and the Foundation's goals to block all users of this ISP, many of whom are low-income individuals who cannot afford other forms of home Internet access, from editing Wikipedia completely. While I have requested agreement from the blocking admin to reduce the block to AO ACB, he insisted that a hard-block on this range was consistent with community consensus, so I have decided to request input from the community here: does the community agree that the entire ISP should be hard-blocked and prevent all users of this ISP from editing Wikipedia, or would it be wiser to reduce it to a soft block so good-faith contributors can request an account and log in to edit? --krimpet⟲ 00:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Support for Krimpet's proposal. Wikipedia should exist for the benefit of all, regardless of income. DuncanHill (talk) 00:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
• I can certainly understand the logic behind a hard block, but I think reducing this down to a soft block is appropriate given the circumstances, expecially given the request from a good fair user. Maybe block account creation to be on the safe side. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

In this case only I would support this. Prodego ^talk 00:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I too agree that account creation should be blocked, as I detailed above; that way good faith users can still request an account through e.g. unblock-en-l and then log into edit, while still leaving most abusive users out in the cold. --krimpet⟲ 00:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, sounds good. DS (talk) 00:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• At the risk of soapboxing, this is the sort of scenario where it would be really useful to have individually assignable IPblock-exempt implemented. It would allow us to hardblock IPs whilst also enabling the accounts of good faithed users to continue editing from those IPs. WjBscribe 00:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I think it's something we should certainly have as an option, even if it involves going to a steward to ask for it. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

    I would have thought checkusers would be the best usergroup to be given the ability to assign the permission, as they are best placed to monitor potential need and abuse. WjBscribe 00:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

    • I don't. Too messy, too hard on users who want accounts. Prodego ^talk 00:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
• Support. bibliomaniac15 00:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
• Support. for proposal.--Hu12 (talk) 00:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• How does the ISP provide access to people? --bainer (talk) 01:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I am just curious what ISP does this range belongs to? Because whois appears to point to blue frog mobile which does not look like an ISP to me? --WinHunter ^(talk) 01:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

The CIDR range is indeed 64.40.32.0/19, registered to "US Network Services" of Seattle, WA, presumably the upstream provider of NoCharge, who is the ISP in question. (Regarding Thebainer's question: dialup.) --krimpet⟲ 02:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• The proposal sounds good, but are you sure that that is the right range? I was thinking this was going to be about the nocharge.com range. Mr.Z-man 02:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
• I agree with Krimpet's assessment. Dekimasuよ! 03:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
• There's a big difference between a pure open proxy, on one hand, and an ISP with inadequate subscriber differentiation capabilities, on the other. Keep in mind that, for years, it was almost impossible to block AOL users for the same reason. Yet we didn't block AOL as an open proxy. The same applies here. We shouldn't block legitimate ISPs simply because they aggregate IP addresses in a manner we find inconvenient. AOL was much larger, and yet Wikipedia survived the vandalism and abuse that came from there. We'll survive this, too. *** Crotalus *** 04:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
• Agreed, particularly with Crotalus horridus's AOL analogy. Low income people have particular reason to access a free online encyclopedia since economic hardship may curtail their access to other reference sources. Durova^Charge! 05:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
• This is not "inadequate subscriber differentiation capabilities" - they don't ask for any authentication, you dial in to the local number and you're on the net, period. No account needed. It's the dialin equivalent of an open IP proxy. I don't mind the idea of taking them to AO-no-account-create blocking, but let's not create a false impression of what they do. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Even if anonymous login is allowed, it's still fundamentally an ISP and not an open proxy. It's not out of bounds to tell a user not to connect to an open proxy and to instead go directly to the Wikipedia page. It's much more unreasonable to tell them they have to switch to a different ISP in order to edit — especially when this might involve substantial inconvenience and/or financial expenditure. *** Crotalus *** 07:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
• I've looked through the OTRS ticket and checked some of the background here and yes, I'd support a softblock of this range, with ACB enabled. There's likely too much collateral damage here - Alison ^❤ 06:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

This is another example of why the "no open proxies" rule is stupid and should be abolished. Don't forget the millions of Chinese users you are banning from Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.189.60.171 (talk) 05:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Er, no "no open proxies" makes good sense on a number of levels, but this block seems to have been used presumably by one person running Tor or some such; I suggest we ask Jpgordon for the background. Guy (Help!) 15:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• I had planned to wait and see if Jpgordon would comment, but I see he's replied several times on his own talk page. If a checkuser comes forward and reports that there is or has been significant abuse on this ISP, I could revisit things -- especially if the abuse is recent and/or ongoing -- but until some more evidence is available, I'd also favor a softer block. If account creation remains disabled, users needing help can contact unblock-en-l. – Luna Santin (talk) 06:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

There does seem to be a strong consensus from the diverse cross-section of the community discussing things here that reducing the block to AO ACB is the best option. :) Per the feedback here, and that the blocking admin has agreed to accept community consensus on this issue, I've gone ahead and reduced the block to anonymous only, account creation disabled. --krimpet⟲ 07:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• Sorry if I'm putting my feet in the dish, but I think there should be no double standard between {{TOR}} (and other anonymizers) and this IP. Why should users from this ISP be allowed to edit when people having to rely on TOR for anonymity reasons aren't? Yeah I know, it is nice to have people who can't afford to use an other ISP to access the Internet here, but I guess this IP was hardblocked by jpgordon after it was abused. (And really, the Foundation should really address "Should Open Proxies be hardblocked?" one day, we definitely are unable to reach a consensus on that) -- lucasbfr ^talk 15:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

The more I think about it, the more I am unable to make up my mind here (I assume they are able to restrict access to their network, and keep logs), so if the OTRS ticket is convincing, why not... -- lucasbfr ^talk 17:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

If we're looking for a difference, I'd say the potential for abuse seems smaller on an obscure dial-up connection we can pretty easily reblock in the event of problems. I do agree, though, I'm not entirely happy with what seems to be a double-standard. A better all-around solution would be great. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

BJAODN attribution by temporary undeletion

I run one of the off-site projects that hosts a fork of BJAODN- basically, a direct copy from Wikipedia before it was deleted.

The problem is, we need to attribute the edits on each page per the GFDL, but I don't have access to the page history.

I'd like to bring a proposal to the table: undelete and userfy one page of the original BJAODN at a time, to copy down the edit histories for attribution.

My question is, would administrators be willing to do this? Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 12:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• The problem with the attribution of BJAODN is not with the page itself, it's with the edits that make up the page, so unless you have a way to correct this, I'm extremely reluctant to undelete it. Ryan Postlethwaite 12:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Nearly all the edits making up the page(s) were copy-and-paste from other articles. If the original articles are noted, it should be possible to find the edits that added the guff, although it isn't a job I would like to take on as it could take hours to track each one down. ➔ REDVEЯS likes kittens... and you 13:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

If Nwwaew will state that he is willing to search the records of the individual articles, then I think the admins should allow him this option. Od Mishehu 14:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

That's fair, and something which I am willing to do. Ryan Postlethwaite 14:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

As long as it's deleted after Nwwaew is finished, I don't see a problem. — Save_Us_229 16:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

My thinking would be to undelete only the page I was working with at a time, with full protection enabled on it, then delete once I'm done working with it. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me)(public computer) 00:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Admin adoptions?

Is there such a thing as a new admin being adopted by another admin? I know about WP:ADCO, but that's for "Administrator hopefuls" - what I'm looking for is an admin willing to answer my newbie-admin questions. Thoughts? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 17:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Have you tried Wikipedia:New admin school? It'll really help you learn the ropes. I guess I could also take you under my command if you want/need it? Ryan Postlethwaite 17:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to drop a line to me anytime you like and I'll do my best to answer :) - Alison ^❤ 18:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that you'll find that most admins are quite willing to help out with questions about adminship (including me ;) ). Personally, if I have a question or want review, I go on IRC (see WP:IRC) and ask in #wikipedia-en-admins for comments or input. Hope that helps, Nihiltres^{t.l} 18:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Have you signed up for Wikipedia:IRC channels/wikipedia-en-admins>? That's a good place to contact experienced administrators. - Jehochman ^Talk 18:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Although that leaves you open to accusation of cabalism. If you ask your questions on-wiki, you avoid that kind of shit. Wait, that's not true; if you do it on-wiki, you get the shit upfront rather than pushing it in a wave in front of you. My advice would be to trust your judgement. You've been elected because a supermajority of others here do. Just refer your first indef block to AN, and listen to the first editor in good standing who complains about a deletion. And remember that you have protected the wrong version of whatever you protected, no matter who tells you you were wrong. Other than that, it really is no big deal. ➔ REDVEЯS likes kittens... and you 22:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks - I hadn't known about the IRC channel, so I'll check that out! And yes, I know I've protected/deleted the wrong article - I just want some guidance on how wrong I'm going to be :) Besides, there is no cabal! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 22:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Just ask whoever, they will help you out. Prodego ^talk 23:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe that Redvers is referencing The Wrong Version. Strap on the muck boots, be willing to reverse yourself if you were wrong, and ask anyone for help. Keegan^talk 05:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Restoration to different address?

Resolved

 – restored other subject to Frank Lowe (advertiser)—Random832 00:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Versions of the article Frank Lowe up to June 22, 2007 were about an advertising executive. There was a consensus to keep in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frank Lowe, but then deleted in a prod later, which should have been invalid because prods shouldn't be used for articles previously discussed at AFD. Then, someone created the article currently at Frank Lowe, which is about a musician, which meets notability requirements and should be kept. (The log is more complicated than that because early versions of the adman's page were speedy'd per A7, and the first draft of the musician was copyvio, but both of those issues were apparently fixed.) So basically, I think the original article should be restored, but I'm not sure how to do that when there is a current article there about a different topic whose history should not be interfered with. As for where they should go, perhaps Frank Lowe should be a disambiguation page? The two people seem about equally referred to in top google searches. Rigadoun (talk) 17:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I have restored the advertising exec's article (the non-copyvio version; there was also a copyvio in that history, which remains deleted at Frank Lowe) to Frank Lowe (advertiser) - the musician remains at Frank Lowe at the moment. —Random832 00:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Please take note of User:KNM's uncivil/unethical behavior

Kindly allow me to bring to notice User:KNM's fanatic action on the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mohandas_Karamchand_Gandhi page. The editor deleted a civil discussion that another user started without notifying the starter of the discussion or myself (who was also taking part in the civil discussion). I view this attempt of User:KNM as a fanatic and propagandist activity in which the editor is belittling other editors, probably because they do not comply with his/her POV. --Roadahead (talk) 18:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

You restored the discussion, registered with KNM your objection on his or her talk page, and nothing more needs to be done unless KNM persists. Why did you post this here? --Iamunknown 19:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I noticed [[User::KNM]]'s contribution and duration of presence on Wikipedia. The editor is certainly aware of the Wikipedia policies. The fact that such an editor deleted a discussion (civil objection) and gave no notice of deletion to any of the participants shows prejudice/malicious-intent on part of the editor. Such activities (deletion without notice of objections or discussions) reflect that the editor is either not happy about the start of that discussion or has not learned from long presence on wikipedia. Both, shows wrong traits for being a constructive contributer to Wikipedia. If such traits are promoted or certain editors with such traits rise the ladders being unnoticed and become admins, they will further practice such acts severely undermining the content of Wikipedia. Hence, the report here. Thanks, --Roadahead (talk) 00:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Questionable Site with Excerpts of Wikipedia

http://coffee.geffo.org/coffee-mate/40.html

I only found out about this because I was Googling "Fredil" in English. Ignore the parts that say Viagra, just scroll down to the yellow bar and hover your mouse over it. ♥ Fredil 19:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Nothing happens when I do that. What's your point? --Orange Mike | Talk 21:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

That's a little odd. It seems to be a copy of a Wikipedia talk page, with context that's completely irrelevant to the page, which is just a typical advertising linkfarm. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Does not work in IE (try Firefox). When hovered, it displays large chuncks of Wikipedia talk pages, just to throw off spiders. This site has come up before... long ago. — Edokter • Talk • 21:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism of Nicholas II

The article Nicholas II had been vandalized prior to my involvement with it by User:Finneganw. He had been adding irrelevant images which only add to the page size (galleries on Gavrilo Princip,Archduke Franz Ferdinand,Kerensky,Boris Yeltsin etc). I've been kind enough to suggest that the Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and that such images which have little to do with the subject in concern only add to the article size. However, he seems to insisit that the galleries need to be in the article and continuously reverts my edits. A couple of days ago I have shown him how unreasonable it is to include such images in the article. However, I havent got a reply yet. Hence, regarding as the end of our discussion I reverted his edits. However, he seems to have reverted my edits once again and even pretends to be an administrator by threatening to block me despite the fact that he is not. I've even requested comments for the article and it has passed through all the appropriate procedure. It will be great if someone could resolve this issue.Thanks--

Rustam

01:50, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I blocked for 24 hours to prevent further vandalism and edit-warring, and making points. This will allow calmer heads to settle down, and prevent any immediate messes. Bearian (talk) 02:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC) See User talk:Finneganw. Bearian (talk) 02:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Requested moves

Continuing in the same vein as the previous two threads, Wikipedia:Requested moves has been functioning with only a skeleton staff of administrators (User:Anthony Appleyard, User:GTBacchus, and me) for quite some time now. Two of our main admin closers (User:Stemonitis and User:Duja) are on extended wikibreaks. The result has been that the backlog tag has been up on RM continuously for over a month. Getting even one or two administrators to help out there would be great. GTBacchus and I have ourselves commented on several of the backlogged discussions, which makes it harder for us to close them. I'd like to have a bit more time I can spend doing real editing. Help would be much appreciated.... Dekimasuよ! 03:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I've cleared about half of them, and will pick off a few more later today. Neıl ☎ 10:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that. It's been a big help. Dekimasuよ! 13:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Choosing to vanish

Hi everyone. I opted to join Wikipedia with my full name. Back when I joined identity theft wasn't so much of an issue and employers and the like weren't so internet savvy, so I just used my full name. Always have, always will. About 2006 I saw a respected Wikipedian change their name, amend all their sigs and move on, and thought about it to the point of contacting a crat, Essjay to sound out the process. Essjay talked me out of it. (Ironical, I know). I've mulled it over a lot since, and recently a couple of things have started to impact on me. Press coverage is greater than it was when I joined. Employers, potential employers and work colleagues are more internet savvy, identity theft is rife and my government lost a fair amount of my personal details. I've got kids at school, whose mates are internet savvy. It's becoming an issue that my name is linked to Nazi propaganda, is linked to a wide number of things. It is becoming a problem that up until recently I was the most visible person of my name on the net, and people could piece together a great deal about me. It's become a problem that people don't want to use my services. It's upsetting close family members. So I asked for a name change. And I went about clearing out references to my old name, as I have seen a number of people do. That's when people started to threaten blocks for disruption, although I am unclear as to how I am disrupting Wikipedia. I've pointed people at WP:CHU, the privacy policy on meta, prior convention and common courtesy, but people feel I need to stop. Simply put, I don't think I can. My private life is more important to me than Wikipedia, at the end of the day. I'm asking the community to allow me to change over about another 900 links to my old user name so that in time, I drop down the search engine. I'd like to think we still extend the courtesy enjoyed by other users. I like to think that do the right thing is still the goal around here. So since I've been told in no uncertain terms to come here and ask the communities input, that's what I'm doing. I'd like you to allow me to continue. I hope you will. Thanks for your time. Hiding T 23:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that's perfectly fine. bd2412 T 23:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I support your decision. I also invite you to contact me. Durova^Charge! 23:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I've seen your edits popping up on my watchlist. Once I'd worked out what you were doing, I was fine with it. Carcharoth (talk) 23:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I think generally speaking, after a name change, users shouldn't go changing every previous signature of there's to point to the new username - a redirect is sufficient. This case is obviously different, and a very legitimate reason for changing previous signatures to point to a new username. When Wikipedia first started, users were encouraged to use their real life names but this can in fact have real life implications and therefore, I fully support Steves request to carry on changing his sigs. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I support as well. I would note that the quote you were given from m:Right to vanish was selective. Further down that page (#2 under "Alternative measures"), it specifically calls out replacing signatures as acceptable in such cases. -- JLaTondre 23:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Fine by me. Though I wasn't entirely thrilled with you touching my RfA, you did support... :D. We shouldn't place unreasonable demands on those who choose to edit. And as we know, there is precedent. Prodego ^talk 00:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Don't have a problem with you changing the links. Though, maybe that is a good task for a bot, rather than the edits coming under your account and traceable back to you. --Aude (talk) 00:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I suppose "Hiding" is a temporary account that will be replaced with another permanent account once those replacements are all done. Having done a lot of sockpuppet investigations myself, I would be glad to coach this editor in how to return without raising suspicions. Durova^Charge! 01:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

What, like "don't edit Mozart"? Not sure your "expertise" has that much credibility at he moment.--Doc^g 12:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

To pile on the previous comments, I too fully support your recent edits. You have every right to protect your privacy, and changing the links to your previous username following a username change is more than reasonable. Aecis^Brievenbus 01:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

No problem with that at all.--Sandahl 02:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm with ya, man. I'm sorry to hear how you were unfairly targeted by some. --Tenebrae (talk) 03:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Santa Claus: Think of the children regardless of our policies

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Although there is no problem yet, there is a movement beginning to form advocating to change the Santa Claus page for the holidays to either say he is real, or to hide/whitewash that he is a fiction (current wording: Myth). Since this violates policy (WP:NPOV, WP:V) and guidelines (WP:CENSOR), I wanted to give a heads up that this might become more of an issue as the holiday draws more near. Already people are raising newspapers articles being written for the holidays saying Santa is real as evidence of citable sources...so, perhaps some people want to watch this page? --David Shankbone 21:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, per WP:YESPOV all sourcable points of view should be presented fairly according to their weight. I agree that no one should be censoring points of view they disagree with here. -- Kendrick7^talk 22:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Should we include the Flat Earth perspective on the Earth article, as well? --David Shankbone 22:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

It is mentioned in passing; see Earth#Cultural viewpoint. Of course, there aren't sources every year in major newspaper promoting this point of view, so per WP:UNDUE, a passing mention is probably all that would be needed. -- Kendrick7^talk 22:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I will keep half an eye on it, we are an encyclopedia not a bedtime story. 1 != 2 22:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

And what's wrong with bedtime stories?--Santa on Sleigh (talk) 22:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Can I ask, in advance, for you not to call at my house, Santa? I've already bought/been bought the presents I want; also, I've been very very bad this year. Repeatedly. It was fun. Although I still can't walk straight. But nevertheless. ➔ REDVEЯS likes kittens... and you 22:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I probably shouldn't have brought you that bucking bronco last year. Did you break it?--Santa (talk) 22:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I see you must have, it's a redlink now. Perhaps something gentler like a rubik's cube this time? --Santa (talk) 22:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I used to do kittens, but, well, ah, .....you know.--Santa (talk) 22:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• David, I think you need to step away from this. You seem to be having real ownership issues with this article, as evidenced by your removal of registered user's comments from the page. I won't revert you again, but the comment left was a comment on the discussion going on there, whether you want to see it that way or not. I suggest you restore it. Jeffpw (talk) 22:57, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

It clearly was not. It was saying Santa is real, to read The Velveteen Rabbit, and to donate to the Toys for Tots campaign. This goes against several aspects of the WP:TALK guideline, specifically, WP:TALK#Others.27_comments, which states, "Deleting material not relevant to improving the article (per the above subsection #How to use article talk pages)." Can you please state how the link you provided is evidence on how to improve the article, exactly? And how those comments specifically pass the bolded text at the top of WP:TALK that "Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views." I think you have some serious "Santa is real" issues, as evidenced by your awarding a barn star to another user for his "spirited defense of Santa." Saying Santa is real is a misuse of Wikipedia, and violates policies. --David Shankbone 23:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, for goodness sake, calm down everyone. This is ridiculous.--Doc^g 23:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

"Saying Santa is real is a misuse of Wikipedia, and violates policies." Seriously? WP:TRUTH Have a laugh and take a breath everyone. Ho, ho ho! (Oh wait, is that phrase no longer politically correct?) --SimpleParadox (talk) 23:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

There does need to be some cultural sensitivity here for the beliefs of others. We don't start off our article on Jesus with declaring him fictional. The reference supposedly supporting the first sentence of Santa Claus has nothing in common with what that sentence says, anyway. So I'd suggest this article needs some work. -- Kendrick7^talk 23:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

It's difficult to understand what you are advocating: that we say Santa is real? There is little comparison between Jesus (or Mohammed, or Abraham) and Santa Claus (or the Easter Bunny or the Tooth Fairy). If we begin to make allowances for Christian holiday tales, and disregard our policies for cultural sensitivity, it opens up a whole can of worms. Cue Stephen Colbert. --David Shankbone 23:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

To quote Philip K. Dick: "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." I know Colbert. I certainly don't want to start the Edit War on Christmas. All I'm saying is that we should produce all relevant sourced points of view and allow our readers to make up their own minds, rather than attempt to impose one belief or another. That's my editing policy in general. -- Kendrick7^talk 23:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

My daughter is convinced that Sleeping Beauty is real. So unless you can provide a reliable citation to show otherwise, please don't use the word 'fiction' on that article either. Can't be POV.--Doc^g 00:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, for goodness sake, clam down everyone. This is ridiculous. --Prodego ^talk 00:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

This has WP:LAME written all over it. The current version is fine. — Scientizzle 00:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

A little gout these days, but not quite lame yet.--Santa (talk) 00:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Let me just say that which I say every time when I am confronted by matters of deep belief. I not only believe in Father Christmas (because belief is something you do in absence of direct evidence), I *know* he is real, because I have personally met him, in the flesh. If you haven't ever met Father Christmas, besides being sorry for you, I will say that for you, necessarily his reality is a matter of belief, or disbelief. You can choose to believe that the white bearded fellow I have met on several occasions was not Father Christmas. My personal interpretation of Father Christmas is as an office holder like the Pope. While people may complain that this or that holder of the Papal office is not a valid Pope (there are currently many sects who do so think), equally one may claim that a *certain* Father Christmas, while holding the robes of office, is still not a genuine holder of the office. That does not invalidate the Father Christmases who hold the office with perfect integrity, and hold credence with the group in whose service they hold it, children everywhere. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. (talk) 00:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Not that I really want to step into this mess, but.... Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Santa Claus should never be presented in a manner that indicates that he exists in real life. There are plenty of other avenues for this type of thing; use one of those instead. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• This thread perfectly illustrates my point: in the interest of Christmas spirit people want to change the Santa page, or whitewash it, against our policies and we need some eyes on the article, and on the Talk page (where this is already one RfC) because as Christmas draws near, more interest is being taken in presenting Santa as real on Wikipedia. --David Shankbone 00:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Merry Christmas To All No Gifts Today From Little Stupid

Season's Greetings! Little Stupid bring gifts for everybody. no gifts today. Fishapod plushies from user:Dave Souza and Yo-ma! bishapod splash! 00:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC).

• There is no sanity clause. Guy (Help!) 00:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• Toys broken, stuffing tore out, o why? :-( [/Bishapod remove sad remnants of toys. ] bishapod splash! 07:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC).

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wikipedia:Admin coaching/Requests for Coaching - inactive?

This seems to be inactive, and seems to be quite backlogged. As someone who wouldn't mind being an administrator in the near future (6 months?) and have had a RFA recently failed, I was wondering if anyone would mind coaching me starting in a few days. I know that this place isn't exactly the best place to put such a request, but if anyone is interested in admin coaching, leave a note underneath, or if you wouldn't mind coaching me, leave a note on my talkpage. Cheers, (on a side note, theres about 60 requests on the inactive page) Davnel03 17:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Marginal notability BLP deletions

Hello, I'm crossposting this as suggested by User:Mercury. In the wake of the BLP marginal notability courtesy deletion of Angela Beesley, which is being discussed at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Angela Beesley, a discussion on this practice is underway at:

Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#Marginal notability deletions. Thanks. Lawrence Cohen 18:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Србија до Токија

I think someone should pay attention to the numerous attacks on Albanians this user has made on my talk page, calling them animals, terrorists and similar. He also called me strange, I guess that could be considered a personal attack, but I'm much more worried about the racist remarks.

• My talk page
• User:Србија до Токија

All the best, --GOD OF JUSTICE 06:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for a week (for a start, next block will be much longer), warned of relevant Arbcom decisions. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:28, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

The username is quite inflammatory; it means "Serbia to Tokyo", a 1990s militant slogan. As for the userboxes, well... 68.193.198.41 (talk) 13:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Just to add to that, the username is written in Serbian Cyrillic which I think is not allowed in usernames on English Wikipedia. --GOD OF JUSTICE 21:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Not so. Wikipedia:Username#Non-Latin usernames is quite clear that they are permitted. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

What does it mean anyway? That the borders of Serbia should stretch as far as Tokyo? -- Kendrick7^talk 21:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Probably. What I do know is that it was tagged on freshly razed buildings. [11] [12] 68.193.198.41 (talk) 03:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

You don't know what it means, you just know it's inflammatory? Hmph. -- Kendrick7^talk 00:41, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Suspicious uncivil edits to The Birthday Massacre

Resolved

 – Article semi-protected for five days. --Kralizec! (talk) 01:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I've noticed that The Birthday Massacre has been plagued for some time now with people making edits quibbling over what genre the band belongs to, often with no explanation, or with outright insults in the edit summary. Recently, I re-added a source that keeps getting deleted without explanation, and the editing user (a random IP) actually insulted me. Now, I'm not one to get all butthurt over someone calling me an idiot on the Internet. However, I notice that all of these abusive edits come from anonymous IPs. I became suspicious when one of those anonymous edits called the band a stupid "kiddie rock band" or something like that in the edit summary. You see, using the word "kiddie" as an insult over and over again was an old standby for a now-permablocked German user, User_talk:Diluvien. I hope someone will check this out; he has been, quite frankly, a massive nuisance on every page he's ever edited. You can recognize him by a pattern of basically just quibbling over whether or not a given band is goth or industrial, usually changing or deleting stuff without offering an explanation, or being outright abusive. Thx. --Halloween jack (talk) 00:15, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, block me, because i'm correcting wrong genres. --87.122.7.210 (talk) 00:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

No one will block you for "correcting wrong genres." They may choose to block you for being abusive and uncivil, refusing to discuss your edits, and a long, long, long history of using sock puppets to disguise yourself and evade blocks.--Halloween jack (talk) 00:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

It certainly looks looks like we are quickly heading toward a WP:3RR issue on this article. --Kralizec! (talk) 01:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

If he is the user I'm almost certain he is (he hasn't denied it), then he's been permablocked and none of his edits are valid anyway.--Halloween jack (talk) 01:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Not much point in blocking the IPs unless they are actively engaging in vandalism. I went ahead and extended the semi-protection on this article to five days. Hopefully that will give our banned editor enough of a break to lose interest.  :-) --Kralizec! (talk) 01:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Many of them are, and one actually just slung an insult at me on the article's talk page. As for losing interest...you don't know this guy. I don't know a lot about the process, but is there a way to block a range of IPs? All of this piecemeal reporting is necessarily slow, and he can make arbitrary edits faster than others can detect it and clean up the mess. --Halloween jack (talk) 04:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Overdue AfD

Resolved

Sorry if this isn't the right place to post this, and sorry to be seen to be nagging ;-) but this AfD appears to have been open for eight days, rather than the customary four. Now, I know that it began during Chanukah, and the miracle was that one days'-worth of oil lasted for eight, but it's over now!! :D Thanks,Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 16:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

As you can see at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old, there's a bit of a backlog...just be patient, it'll get closed. — Scientizzle 16:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

 Done Mercury 18:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 18:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Shortcuts not working?

Resolved

Not sure if this is the right place to post, but it seems that several "WP" shortcuts aren't working? Maybe it's me, but WP:DPL, WP:FICT, and others shouldn't be redlinks...anybody know what's going on? Keeper | 76 22:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Appears that every link starting WP: has broken, as something is auto-substituting "Wikipedia:" for "WP:" in the search bar. No doubt someone trying to be helpful, but whoever it is, I can assure you it isn't! — iridescent 22:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

(ec)They're expanding to Wikipedia:FICT and the like, even out of the search bar, and no redirect is set up at that location. The blue ones do have redirects set up. ➔ REDVEЯS likes kittens... and you 22:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

This should all be fixed soon. The [[WP:]] pseudospace is being phased out. Instead typing WP: will automatically expand to Wikipedia:. Try typing those shortcuts into the search box to confirm. WjBscribe 22:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, glad it wasn't just me. Thought I was going nuts. -- Kendrick7^talk 22:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I thought I was going nuts too! It's so annoying having to type Wikipedia:WikiProject EastEnders instead of WP:EE! Looking forward to it being fixed. ^anemone│_projectors 22:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

And now it is fixed! :) ^anemone│_projectors 22:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

THANKS for the quick replies, y'all. Works fine now! Keeper | 76 22:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Several aren't fixed yet. DuncanHill (talk) 22:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

They're coming. Some discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#WP:_vs_WIkipedia:. / edg ☺ ☭ 23:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Recall.

An ongoing recall discussion is location at User:Mercury/RFC. Mercury 04:01, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

James Arbuthnot

Resolved

 – Both sides have agreed to leave off editing the article SirFozzie (talk) 16:09, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Can someone uninvolved with the Arbuthnot Family and "The Troubles" sagas (there must be someone...) take a look at the recent changes to James Arbuthnot, with particular regards to the talk page. Because I was involved in the long-running minor flareups over the deletions of members of this family in the past, I don't really want to start dishing out blocks, protects etc in this latest installment of this long-running edit war. — iridescent 18:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

this one is worth looking at for its utter trivialness. I wont say more. Consider this a spoiler warning. DGG (talk) 18:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree - not just this one but the whole Arbuthnot saga is one of the silliest things I've ever seen people get worked up over. This is possibly the least read page on Wikipedia. — iridescent 19:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I tidied it up to make it marginally less attackish but, like Iridescent, it's not in anyone's interest for me to get too involved. The triviality of describing Arbuthnot's smile and voice notwithstanding, the history of animosity between the brother of James Arbuthnot (who is the main contributor to the article) and Vintagekits suggests this "promise" is more about perpetuating that personal dispute than improving the article. Despite pleas from a number of admins for both editors to leave this to those with less of an axe to grind, Vk has gone ahead with his edits. I'd also suggest anyone looking into this consider that both editors are under probation: the article falls under the provisions at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Remedies. Rockpocket 21:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Now that I had a look, I guess there is no longer any Admins who are uninvolved. If I understand this article correctly, Arbuthnot is just another Conservative back-bencher of no especial interest (as in achievements, eccentricities, or scandals) except for his voice. Does his get any play in British popular culture or media? From the few cites provided, I'd assume the opposite. -- llywrch (talk) 20:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

AFAIK, while he's obviously important enough to warrant his own article, his voice is of no particular significance (if he were a media spokesman, for example, it might be relevant). The main issue here is that — thanks to the long running feuds that Kittybrewster, the subject's brother, has been involved in, virtually everyone who'd usually edit a page like this is uninvolved. — iridescent 18:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I fully agree with the comments on the pettiness of this, and with Iridescent's characterisation of it as a "long running feud". As I suggested on Kittybewster's talk page, the best solution would be an immediate article ban for both these editors, and/or probation per Arbcom Remedies 3.2. It's time for this low-rating soap opera to get the chop. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

So someone that makes referenced edits is treated the same as a edit warring, POV, OR, OWNer!!! Silly boring personality IS his main personality trait - this issue is raised in the his profile in the "Almanac of British Politics", his profile in "the Guardian" and in the article in "the Independant" and then we come on to the Rod Liddle article in "the Guardian" which specifically dealing with his boring personality as does the Simon Hoggart book "Playing to the Gallery" - so if all of these sources deal with this issue it should be raised in his wiki article - end of! Keep yer drama fer yer mama! --Vintagekits (talk) 00:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Vintagekits has now reverted to personal abuse [13], something for which he has been blocked in the past. What was the point of the huge long arbcom if only two months after its closure the protagonists are back in the same old cycle of COI editing, goading, and abuse of anyone who intervenes? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Give it a bloody rest would ya BHG - there is no personal abuse there - as I have said about you twice today you are trying to make mountains of molehills - like I said - keep yer drama fer yer mama, cos I am not interested!--Vintagekits (talk) 00:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I've had enough of this. Vk's latest threat demonstrates his edits to this article are simply antagonistic in purpose. I have given him notice that any continuation of this will result him being banned from editing the article per the probation he is under. He can squeal about bias all he likes, as there are a number of admins who have all said the same thing. Hopefully that will be the end of it, but if he wishes to continue with his little tiff with Kb by taking petty digs at his brother, then back to ArbCom we can go. Rockpocket 02:14, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

"latest threat" - god you really need to cop yourself on - step back, give yourself a good shock and get some perspective - you are acting like a wind up merchant - the was no issue until you stirred and continued to stir the pot.

I have no reason to stay off the article, I only agreed not to because Fozzie asked me to - I agreed out of respect for Fozzie - not because you said not to - when the likes of you starts trying to tell me what to do in that manner then I am not likely to take kindly to it - the issue was resolved days ago - I hadn't edited the article for 2 days, in my opinion you just wanted to create drama, if you had kept your gob shut then there wouldnt have been an issue or a problem.--Vintagekits (talk) 13:46, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

This is a clear deliberate attempt by Vintagekits to continue his feud with Kittybrewster regardless of the recent ArbCom's decisions. Was the latter a toothless tiger? David Lauder (talk) 13:12, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

• It would appear the problem is over [14]. It would be a good idea if Kittybrewster was urged to follow VK's example and stope editing and cease acting as the custodian of the article on his own brother. Giano (talk) 13:21, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

That is surely not the principal issue here. Is Wikipedia like a Soviet birthday party where everyone gets a present? Admins have a duty to establish who is clearly at fault and address the matters at hand. Not to find everyone guilty when it plainly is not the case. There has been a deliberate disruptive editing here in someone elses area of interest and that is a breach of the ArbCom on The Troubles. David Lauder (talk) 13:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree - now what exactly have I done on the article that you take issue with? And finally do you have any opinion on Kitty's COI, OWN and edit warring on the article?--Vintagekits (talk) 13:46, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be best if all sides stepped back to their corners. VK has agreed to stay off the article in question, I have asked Kittybrewster if he would do the same due to possibilities of COI issues, and all will be well. All sides have been doing well for themselves since the ArbCom finished. Let's not backslide into that morass again, ok? SirFozzie (talk) 14:10, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Now both sides have agreed to leave off editing the aritcle, allowing a neutral article to be written, and the encyclopedia benefits. Thank you to both sides, I think we're all set here... SirFozzie (talk) 16:09, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Tweety21

Tweety21 (talk · contribs), a banned sockpuppeteer, is back at it. She has made a number of false claims such as that the Wikimedia Foundation shortened her ban to two months. She continues to set up abusive sockpuppet accounts, threaten legal action, falsely claim that we are releasing her private information, make personal attacks, etc. She's in ahem regular contact with the Foundation Office and has numerous OTRS tickets. A little over two months ago, she promised to leave Wikipedia permanently and had some information blanked as a result. This also turned out to be somewhat inaccurate as she resumed editing earlier this month. Best thing to do is to revert, block, and ignore. Vishal Patel at wikimedia has been handling the brunt of the office actions regarding this and several admins have been blocking the new accounts that she sets up. --Yamla (talk) 01:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

So it appears, she wasted a very rare chance to use her right to vanish after she was banned, it seems like she just wants to create drama. - Caribbean~H.Q. 01:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't the first time, either. She's had information blanked before and immediately set up new sockpuppet accounts to continue editing. --Yamla (talk) 01:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Note that I sprotected her user talk page yesterday when I noticed the blanking, dunno if that was the right choice though... -- lucasbfr ^talk 12:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

• I have responded to her (numerous) OTRS requests on this. I think we can assume that she won't be happy in the near future. The office is also involved. Guy (Help!) 17:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Page moves by User:Redl@nds597198

Resolved

 – Seemed to be an isolated problem (with that article), and it has all been straightened out, and the user notified. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:34, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Redl@nds597198 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Is it just me, or do these rapid page moves strike anybody as a bit odd? I know it happened days ago, but I just noticed. Now there is a problem with at least one of these moves and I've explained that to the user here. Maybe an unauthorized bot moving the pages? Anyhow, is it really appropriate to make all of those moves, causing the problems like the one explained in the diff above? - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:30, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I can see someone moving pages at that rate manually (with a decent tabbed browser). -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 05:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, that is fine. However, that wasn't my main point. The user has caused several archive pages for those to become redlinked, and didn't bother to clean it up. - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:41, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I realize that, I'm just not in the right mood to comment on the main issue right now ;D -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 05:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Can one Wikipedian take all those pics?

All of the pics in Hyundai Genesis Coupe allegedly were taken by the same uploader and licensed under GNU. But it appears that all 4 pics seem to be taken at several different locations. I find it highly impossible that someone can go to 3 different car shows and infiltrate a possibly active harbor for these pics. Can someone double check if the pics are kosher or not? --293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 08:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention 3 different cameras. 24.76.169.85 (talk) 08:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you should ask the user who created the images first? Neıl ☎ 15:55, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Two of the pictures were deleted by Woody and SQL as copyvios, but I didn't see a note on that fellow's talk page. Was he the uploader? It could be possible he's simply a professional photographer and has multiple cameras. Lawrence Cohen 17:10, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Input on fair use guideline amendment sought

Please see Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content#Proposed_amendment_to_the_guideline. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 16:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Anonimu

This arbitration case has closed and the final decision is available at the link above. Anonimu is banned from editing Wikipedia by the Arbitration Committee for a period of one year, to run concurrently with the existing indefinite community ban. This notice is given by a Clerk on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:23, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Virtualology and Stanley L. Klos -- boon to our historical articles or just a bain of spam?

This cluster of editors, articles and websites involves multiple issues and the material added to Wikipedia may (or may not) be useful. Various aspects have been discussed ad hoc at different times but never all in one place. I'm consolidating links to various discussions and editors here in one place for review and consideration as a whole.

Articles

• Evisum -- previously proposed for deletion; PROD tag removed
• Virtualology
• Stanley L. Klos
  • Over 400 articles are internally linked to this page. For those search engines (Yahoo?) that ignore our nofollow tags, that sort of internal mega-linking would give this article and anything externally linked to it near-Death Star powers in search engine rankings.

That's up from about 250 a week or so ago. Only a small percentage of the links are added as a side-effect of adding content to the topics; and of those a large percentage are low-quality information expressing divergent views from more well-known resources. Tedickey (talk) 18:46, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Related editors (but not necessarily sockpuppets)

• 71.42.169.190 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• 66.93.248.72 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• 24.73.72.214 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• 97.97.197.9 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• Cedarkey1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
• Pputter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
• Damslerset (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)

Discussions

• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2007 Archive Apr#www.famousamericans.net & related
• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2007_Archive_Nov_1#famousamericans.net
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#famousamericans.net, Act II - Scene 3 (permanent link)
• Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems#Virtualology (permanent link)
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography#Use of Appleton's and its derivative sites (permanent link)
• User talk:Damslerset

Domains added to Wikipedia

• Hundreds? Nobody knows exactly how many and Virtualology apparently own over 7500 domain names. See the 3 WikiProject Spam discussions for some that have been identified so far.

Also see

• Appleton's Cyclopedia of American Biography
• wikisource:Appleton's Cyclopedia of American Biography

--A. B. ^(talk) 18:23, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

• SPAM - They are added indiscriminately, often to Reference sections where they are not a source, or just to the wrong person, like Francis Barber today, who (slightly comically) had [http://famousamericans.net/francisbarber/ this link] added today, at the top of the list, natch. Johnbod (talk) 18:49, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

In plain English

Tell me if I understand this right: some people have tried to revise a notoriously inaccurate reference source that's over 100 years old (the original contained over 200 fictitious biographies). The main individual involved in this effort has no academic or publishing credentials. Then this group of people have created countless domains to host parts of the "reference work" and cited Wikipedia articles that way, simultaneously sending hundreds of outgoing links to their domans and Wikilinks to the Wikipedia biography of one of this revised edition's principal editors? If that's an accurate summary, then the whole things fails WP:RS and is a massive case of spam. WMF ought to be notified, given the size of this problem. Durova^Charge! 18:57, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, though rather than "tried to revise" I suspect "made sufficient changes to justify (they hope) slapping a copyright notice on" is more like it. Johnbod (talk) 20:23, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Smells like spam to me. I agree with Durova's suggestion. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:16, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

If A. B. posted this here to get general consent for a campaign against the entire set of external and internal links, I would support that. This could potentially lead to a combined AfD against all the Klos articles, and could be contentious, but well-justified by policy. Is there any wider review that should be done before such a step is taken? Does anyone see anything of value in the Klos-related material that ought to be preserved? EdJohnston (talk) 20:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Ed, I posted it here not so much to get consent as to engender discussion this stuff's value. Since these links show up in references, I don't want to go off on a tear deleting citations and links the community finds useful, even if I don't like the way this stuff got added. --A. B. ^(talk) 20:41, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how this could qualify under the standards Wikipedia normally applies. If the original source had been revised by an established publisher, using actual experts, then that might be a different matter. What we have here is self-published material and a staggering self-promotional campaign. The integrity of scores of important biographies may have been compromised. I want to be certain I understand this right before reaching a final conclusion, but if this really is a correct understanding then I'd not only endorse a combined AFD, I'd support a siteban and spam blacklisting along with a long term vandalism report. This behavior is a direct assault on Wikipedia's credibility: make absolutely certain you're on the mark first, then if everything checks out slash and burn. Durova^Charge! 20:51, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

If the stuff is not a reliable source, dump it. regardless of the collateral damage. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 21:23, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Modifying that: perhaps these people will be receptive to official contact from WMF and take it down themselves. Durova^Charge! 21:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) (updated info here) The fact that these users edit to a point just short of being blocked & then reincarnate as a new user is a bit troubling. --Versageek 21:44, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Now that CheckUser has confirmed these 4 accounts as "related", can I ask an admin to block them as sockpuppets/meatpuppets:

• Cedarkey1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
• Pputter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
• Damslerset (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
• Solknats (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)

Thanks, --A. B. ^(talk) 22:25, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

To help in investigating the many domains, I've set up a temporary user subpage listing the domains we know of. I'll be using the {{spamlink}} template links to try to figure out what other domains this person owns and may have spammed. --A. B. ^(talk) 22:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I see Virtuality as an honest attempt to do a good project, but based upon an extremely naive understanding of history and scholarship. I think he really does want to revise it--but he unfortunately picked something that should instead be replaced, as being fundamentally too weak for improvement. It hasn't helped that he has an idiosyncratic view of the relationship of the government under the Articles of Confederation with that under the Constitution, but I think has wider goals, which are not dishonourable. Just that he hasnt achieved them, and is not likely to--and the present state of the project is in fact dangerous. The proper use of Appleton's for WP is only as a suggestion of names upon which people might write proper WP articles. The best immediate thing is to remove the internal links as misleading and the external ones as unreliable. The sockpuppetry is simply someone continuing on a hobbyhorse, and willing to disregard our rules to do so--and of course must be blocked, to prevent further damage. DGG (talk) 22:52, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

the articles supported by cites from any version of appleton must be reviewed, not deleted altogether, as they can generally be edited to what can be documented elsewhere. Most of them can be expanded greatly if proper sources are used--appleton is not only incorrect but incomplete. If the appleton-based edits are recent, then it will be enough to revert them. This probably needs to be a formal or informal project. 22:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

DGG, thanks for your comments -- you've studied this site more closely than anyone else.

Here's another sockpuppet (based on edits, not checkuser):

• Natsnew (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)

Can some admin block it? Thanks.

Also, it looks like this has been spammed crosswiki:

• wikisource:en:Special:Contributions/97.97.197.9
• es:Special:Contributions/97.97.197.9
• fr:Special:Contributions/97.97.197.9
• it:Special:Contributions/97.97.197.9
• pt:Special:Contributions/97.97.197.9

Articles:

• es:Stanley L. Klos
• it:Stanley L. Klos

--A. B. ^(talk) 23:24, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Yikes! 1173 famousamericans.net links on this Wikipedia plus 200 to 250 more on other projects:

• de:Special:Linksearch/*.famousamericans.net
• fr:Special:Linksearch/*.famousamericans.net
• pl:Special:Linksearch/*.famousamericans.net
• ja:Special:Linksearch/*.famousamericans.net
• it:Special:Linksearch/*.famousamericans.net
• pt:Special:Linksearch/*.famousamericans.net
• sv:Special:Linksearch/*.famousamericans.net
• es:Special:Linksearch/*.famousamericans.net
• ru:Special:Linksearch/*.famousamericans.net
• zh:Special:Linksearch/*.famousamericans.net
• fi:Special:Linksearch/*.famousamericans.net
• no:Special:Linksearch/*.famousamericans.net
• sk:Special:Linksearch/*.famousamericans.net
• cs:Special:Linksearch/*.famousamericans.net
• tr:Special:Linksearch/*.famousamericans.net
• da:Special:Linksearch/*.famousamericans.net
• ro:Special:Linksearch/*.famousamericans.net
• ca:Special:Linksearch/*.famousamericans.net
• hu:Special:Linksearch/*.famousamericans.net
• he:Special:Linksearch/*.famousamericans.net
• id:Special:Linksearch/*.famousamericans.net
• sl:Special:Linksearch/*.famousamericans.net
• ko:Special:Linksearch/*.famousamericans.net
• hr:Special:Linksearch/*.famousamericans.net
• nn:Special:Linksearch/*.famousamericans.net
• el:Special:Linksearch/*.famousamericans.net
• vi:Special:Linksearch/*.famousamericans.net
• bs:Special:Linksearch/*.famousamericans.net
• simple:Special:Linksearch/*.famousamericans.net
• lb:Special:Linksearch/*.famousamericans.net
• la:Special:Linksearch/*.famousamericans.net

Here's another IP that was heavily used:

• 24.94.139.230 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)

We've identified another about another 275 related domains, most of them for individual historical figures (abraham-lincoln.org, aaronburr.net, etc.). Based on a small sample, I'd say there are another 200 to 500 links to the domains on that list. --A. B. ^(talk) 00:25, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Apparently an admin previously okayed the addition of these links. See these March 2007 discussions:

• User talk:MichaelBillington/Archive5#Appleton links
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject_U.S. Presidents#External links

--A. B. ^(talk) 00:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention there's banner ads and adsense too (pub-6719872942509405). It's spam. Can we start removing the links now? MER-C 01:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Good heavens banner ad/adsense issues too? By all means start deleting. That's my call anyway. Thank you so much for your diligence. Durova^Charge! 01:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, Durova, I'm not sure banner ads and Google Adsense make a site inappropriate. You'll get ads on Globe and Mail and New York Times pages and you'll find Adsense ads at the bottom of Daily Telegraph articles. Legitimate content providers have to pay bills, too. --A. B. ^(talk) 02:25, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

They don't make a site inappropriate in itself, I agree. If the site is already inappropriate as a reference, and if the same people are spamming it onto Wikipedia as if it were a reliable source, then what that amounts to is an attempt to skim profit off Wikipedia's massive traffic. That's a bit more predatory than ordinary spam, which (we hope) at least offers solid informational value and doesn't earn a direct profit from click-throughs. Bear in mind that New York Times citations aren't spam: it's a newspaper of record that thousands of people add to this site's pages as a reference. The danger of going to soft on pseudoreferencing is that we'd get overrun with junk. This isn't a small campaign of a dozen links; it's well developed and perpetuated through sockpuppetry. Yes, I do take a dim view. Durova^Charge! 03:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

The method followed here, which resulted in the deletion of in-line citations added in good faith to articles (including featured articles) and even user sandboxes, was unfortunate. Further discussion of the point is at Talk:History_of_Minnesota#Removal_of_famousamericans.net_link and the section immediately preceding it. Kablammo (talk) 17:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I should note that because of this discussion I have added famousamericans.net to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. If anyone feels this is inappropriate, please file a proposed removal at MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. If an administrator deems, with good reason, that the addition of famousamericans.net to the spam blacklist was inappropriate, I have no problem with its removal without consulting me. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 18:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Next steps

Here's what I think needs to happen:

1. We should give this another day to let other chime in on the value of these links; from the WikiProject U.S. Presidents discussion at least one regular editor has expressed support for these links in the past.
2. An admin should block the accounts I've listed above. Even if some of these links turn out to be useful, they've been added by sock/meatpuppets uncontrollably and in spite of requests to stop
3. If there remains a strong consensus that all this stuff is junk, then I propose we start removing links here and on other Wikimedia projects.
4. Once the links are removed, I propose we blacklist these domains at meta:Talk:Spam blacklist. Again, that assumes consensus here.
5. Articles:
   1. Evisum -- not notable; take to AfD
   2. Virtualology -- probably not notable;[15][16] take to AfD for community discussion
   3. Stanley L. Klos -- notable.^[17][18][19] Article needs rewrite, however.

I estimate this cleanup may take 10 to 20 editor-hours.

Others thoughts? --A. B. ^(talk) 01:25, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

• I'd agree with that, but it doesn't cover DGG's point above: "the articles supported by cites from any version of appleton must be reviewed, not deleted altogether, as they can generally be edited to what can be documented elsewhere..." bearing in mind that many of these links seem to have been added as "references" (when there was no external links section) when they were not actually used to source the article. That could take a long time to cover. Johnbod (talk) 03:06, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't expect to delete any historical articles. There are 100s of spam edits involved but none that I've sampled seem to be essential to any history articles' survival. I'm very much a historical inclusionist anyway; failure of an 18th century political figure to have his own web site doesn't mean there aren't a lot of references in the library. --A. B. ^(talk) 03:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

• Pputter has put a sort of explanation/justification for what he is up to at User talk:Pputter. I haven't examined the detail. Johnbod (talk) 15:13, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

• I ran into User:Damslerset inserting links to a Klos book and website that assert that George Washington is really the 10th or 11th president of the United States. Damslerset was adding the link to every article on anything named for John Hancock (one of the earlier Presidents) s/he could find, so you might want to do a Google search for "Stanley L. Klos" just within Wikipedia to look for other links we've missed so far. I think I reverted all of Damsleret's edits at the time, but will double check tonight. I support blacklisting this site. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 00:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
• PS Just ran "Stanley L Klos" site:en.wikipedia.org on Google and found about 430 hits, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 00:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

/me dusts off some old tools:

Total count: 1371 en: 1112 de: 125 ja: 29 fr: 32 pl: 7 it: 8 es: 32 pt: 17 zh: 3 fi: 2 no: 3 he: 1 Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/CrossWiki

those are current numbers of links to famousamericans.net. Im removing those on en now. β^_command 00:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Would it be worth taking this to Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography? They could set it up as a cleanup drive to review articles that cite Appleton's and/or Virtualology. Clearly a personal site containing personal edits to material sourced from an unreliable encyclopedia is not a RS, so there are good grounds for going through them systematically and checking them off - rather than simply deleting the links, which would leave articles with no indication of potential unreliability. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 02:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

That's a good idea, Gordon.

In the meantime, I've started on cleaning up the 275 or so other domains besides famousamericans.net listed at User:A. B./Sandbox6. So far, most of the citations I've removed have been to Stanley L. Klos' self-published book and hyping his somewhat original researchish view that America had a number of other Presidents besides those that Started with George Washington. Technically this is true, but these Presidents of things like the Continental Congress were essentially chairmen, not major executive figures. I've felt little guilt in deleting them and the statements they've "supported". The more I look at this stuff, the less impressed I am. --A. B. ^(talk) 02:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I've rolled back the ones I could (about -150 links). Let me know when the spam count on de and en have dropped to ~100 or so so I can run a spamsearch to check other projects and small wikis. MER-C 03:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

es:Special:Contributions/97.97.197.9 is causing some damage again at es, by continuing the spam and recreating the article in the talk space.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

No need to block any users or worry about deleting the links. Virtualology existed before Wikipedia and will continue with you blocking your users from referencing the site's online content. Just make sure you get all of them out and be sure to post a notice somewhere that you are banning the citation of all the Virtualology sites, a page on Virtualology, a page on Evisum and a page on Stanley L. Klos the founder.

We tried to clean-up the mess fairly and honestly with proper citations to our sites adding to your body of knowledge and by the way all these "death star links" links have netted the company a whopping $200 a month in Ad revenue and no Books sold as they sold out a year ago. We tried to follow an administrator's guidlines asking for help through several volunteer editors.

Additionally, Mr. Klos has reviewed this page, and although in complete disagreement with your historical assessment that 10 Presidents of the United States did NOT serve before George Washington he throws in the towel. He does suggest the next time you visit the the National Archives be sure to take notice of the Treaty of Paris that ended the War with Great Britain signed, Thomas Mifflin, President of the United States in 1784 which starts off their exhibit ( here is a direct link - http://images.virtualology.com/images/5068.jpg)or just go to the Journals of the Continental Congress online and search President of the United States and write off those hundreds of historical treaties, documents, letters and Proclamations signed President of the United States too! After all, freedom of speech was guarenteed under the Constitution of 1787 not the Constitution of 1777 (which created the Perpetual Union and these ten Presidents) in the "Bill of Rights" It is most appropriate you silence what the Lady from NJ calls, unimpressive work, which by the way is about to launch a new Presidential Musuem in Norwich Ct. honoring thezs forgotten Presidents from Wikipedia.

By the way A.B., did you know your State is the home of one of these President's of the United States who was held hostage along with the entire government of the United States in 1783 by its own military. The president called out the Pennsylvania Militia to free them but they refused to show. Another future President negotiated their release from Independence Hall and they fled to Nassau Hall in Princeton NJ never to return again. All the letters and documents reguarding this incident, including the order staying the execution of the mutineers, were signed President of the United State -- see EliasBoudinot.com But there were no Presidents of the United States before George Washington and Lincoln never used the Constitution of 1777 as the crux of his case on July 4, 1861 to wage war as the southern States broke the Perpetual Union ratified under the Articles of Confederation.

As for you burning the links, Mr. Klos has asked the volunteers to stop cleaning up the references to the sites (as explained on my user page)or adding any more improvements to wiki sites despite our protests and honest attempt to work with your team to insure both sides of the question be explored and biographies properly cited, Heil Wiki! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pputter (talk • contribs) 04:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
— Pputter (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic other than to add links.

My "state", eh??

--A. B. ^(talk) 04:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Klos wants to know if Wikipedia would like a complete list of all the domains in the virtualology Project so you may completely blacklist all the company sites from your encyclopedia? One in particular

whose content is copied but that is not cited is the online Edited Version of Peter Force's American Archives. Please advise as he seeks only too cooperate with this remarkable educational endeavor even if it means being "black listed" for your hundreds of users citing his content over the last several years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pputter (talk • contribs) 05:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

— Pputter (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic other than to add links.

As one Florida Company and Resident to another Florida Company and resident Mr. Klos asked me to provide you with this first installment which is primarily historical.

andywarhol.org, aaronburr.net, abigailadams.net, abraham-lincoln.org, abrahamclark.com, airforce1.org, alexander-hamilton.org, alexandergrahambell.org, alexanderhamilton.org, alphonsecapone.com, americanarchives.net, andrewcarnegie.net, andrewjackson.net, andrewjackson.org, andrewjohnson.org, andrewmellon.org, anthonywayne.org, arthurmiddleton.com, arthurstclair.com, arthurstclair.org, articlesofconfederation.com, articlesofconfederation.org, babe-ruth.info, battleofantietam.org, battleofprinceton.com, battleofyorktown.com, benedictarnold.org, benjaminfranklin.org, benjaminharrison.org, benjaminrush.com, betsyross.org, bookertwashington.org, buttongwinnett.com, cabinetroom.com, caesarrodney.net, calvincoolidge.org, carterbraxton.net, catherinethegreat.org, charlescarroll.net, charleslindbergh.org, charlesthomson.com, chesterarthur.com, civilrightsmovement.com, clarabarton.org, clementcmoore.com, constitutionalconvention.net, csaconstitution.com, cyrusgriffin.com, danielboone.org, danielwebster.org, declarationofindependence.info, demosthenes.com, dolleymadison.org, dwighteisenhower.org, edmundrandolph.org, edwardrutledge.com, egyptianmummy.com, eisenhowerdollar.com, elbridgegerry.com, eleanorroosevelt.org, eliasboudinot.com, elizabethcadystanton.info, elizabethi.com, elizabethmonroe.org, emancipationproclamation.org, equalrightsamendment.net, ernesthemingway.org, fallofsaigon.com, famousamericans.net, federalistpapers.org, federaltaxreturn.com, ferdinandmagellan.com, fortduquesne.com, forthenry.net, fortnecessity.org, fortpitt.org, francislewis.com, francislightfootlee.com, francisscottkey.org, franklindroosevelt.org, franklinpierce.org, franklinroosevelt.org, frederick-douglass.info, frederickremington.com, frenchandindianwar.net, gaiusjuliuscaesar.com, galleryoffame.com, george-washington.org, georgeacuster.com, georgearmstrongcuster.com, georgeclymer.com, georgemarshall.org, georgemason.net, georgepatton.net, georgeread.org, georgeross.net, georgetaylor.net, georgewalton.com, georgewashingtoncarver.org, georgewythe.net, geraldrford.org, gettysburgaddress.org, gottliebdaimler.com, grovercleveland.org, harrietbeecherstowe.info, harrytruman.org, haymsalomon.org, henryclay.net, henryclayfrick.org, henryhudson.org, henrylaurens.com, henrymiddleton.com, herberthoover.org, himalayamountains.com, honuswagner.info, honuswagner.org, isocrates.com, jamesagarfield.com, jamesbuchanan.org, jamesecarter.net, jamesfenimorecooper.com, jamesgarfield.org, jameskpolk.org, jamesmadison.info, jamesmonroe.net, jameswilson.org, jeffersondavis.net, john-adams.org, john-marshall.org, johnadams.info, johnaudubon.com, johndrockefeller.org, johnfkennedy.org, johnhancock.org, johnhanson.net, johnhart.net, johnjay.net, johnmorton.net, johnpauljones.net, johnpenn.com, johnqadams.org, johnquincyadams.info, johntyler.org, johnwitherspoon.com, josephhewes.com, josephpulitzer.com, josephstalin.org, josephwarren.com, josiahbartlett.com, juliawardhowe.com, jumonvilleglen.com, karlbenz.com, kinggeorgeiii.com, lewismorris.com, louisiana-purchase.org, ludwigvanbeethoven.org, lyndonjohnson.org, manhattenproject.com, marquisdelafayette.net, marthawashington.org, martinlutherkingjr.info, martinvanburen.org, mayflowercompact.org, meriwetherlewis.org, millardfillmore.org, millennium911.com, monroedoctrine.net, museumofnaturalhistory.org, napoleonbonaparte.net, napoleonbonaparte.org, nathanielgorham.com, northwestordinance.org, notaxationwithoutrepresentation.com, oliverwolcott.com, peterstuyvesant.org, peytonrandolph.com, philiplivingston.com, pierrerenoir.com, plymouthrock.org, popepiusx.com, presidentiallibrary.org, rebelswithavision.com, richardhenrylee.org, richardnixon.org, richardstockton.net, robert-morris.com, robertelee.net, robertelee.org, robertfkennedy.org, robertfulton.org, robertlivingston.net, roberttreatpaine.com, rogersherman.net, rooseveltdime.com, rutherfordbhayes.org, rutherfordhayes.com, samueladams.net, samueladams.org, samuelclemens.org, samueldechamplain.com, samuelhuntington.org, sirwinstonchurchill.org, sittingbull.org, sojournertruth.com, stegosauria.com, stephenhopkins.com, stjoanofarc.info, susanbanthony.net, teddyroosevelt.net, thedeclarationofindependence.org, thelibertybell.org, theodoreroosevelt.net, thomas-jefferson.org, thomasaedison.org, thomasalvaedison.org, thomasheywardjr.com, thomaslynchjr.com, thomasmckean.com, thomasmifflin.com, thomaspaine.info, thomasstone.com, treatyofparis.com, treatyofparis.org, treatyofversailles.com, tyrannosaurusrex.org, ulyssessgrant.net, ulyssessgrant.org, undergroundraiload.com, unitednationscharter.com, unitedstatesconstitution.info, usbillofrights.com, usconstitution.info, uspresidency.com, vietnamwar.org, virginiaarchives.org, virginiadeclarationofrights.com, virginiadeclarationofrights.org, vladimirlenin.com, walteredisney.com, warmuseum.net, warof1812.net, warrengharding.org, williamclark.org, williamellery.com, williamfloyd.net, williamhenryharrison.org, williamhooper.org, williamhowardtaft.org, williamhtaft.org, williammckinley.net, williammckinley.org, williampaca.com, williampenn.org, williamtaft.org, williamwhipple.com, williamwilliams.com, wolfgangmozart.com, womansuffrage.com, woodrowwilson.net, worldwari.org, worldwarii.org, zacharytaylor.org, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pputter (talk • contribs) 06:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

— Pputter (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic other than to add links.

Here are my posts as discussed above

1. There are hundreds upon hundreds of citing of FamousAmericans.net and its subsidaries incorrectly over the years on Wikipeida by various authors. These need to be corrected to Appleton's Cyclopedia of American Biography, edited by James Grant Wilson, John Fiske and Stanley L. Klos Six volumes, New York: D. Appleton and Company, 1887-1889 here are just a few examples at famousamericans.net:

William Tilghman

Relevance: 77.5% - 2 KB (194 words) - 22:48, 19 November 2007

Lucius Quintus Cincinnatus Lamar (I)

• http://www.famousamericans.net/luciusquintuscincinnatuslamar/

Relevance: 77.5% - 2 KB (223 words) - 06:24, 20 November 2007

Thomas Dale

• http://www.famousamericans.net/sirthomasdale/

Relevance: 77.5% - 8 KB (1150 words) - 10:53, 20 November 2007

James Gambier, 1st Baron Gambier

• http://www.famousamericans.net/jamesgambier/

Relevance: 77.5% - 6 KB (829 words) - 17:05, 20 November 2007

Charles Manly

Relevance: 77.5% - 3 KB (332 words) - 23:18, 20 November 2007

Civil War token

... the spot.". Virtual American Biographies at www.famousamericans.net. Retrieved June 23, 2006. The quote found its w...

Relevance: 77.5% - 9 KB (1325 words) - 11:44, 22 November 2007

George Baylor

Relevance: 77.5% - 3 KB (473 words) - 03:25, 23 November 2007

Maria Zakrzewska

Relevance: 77.5% - 2 KB (302 words) - 16:36, 23 November 2007

Edmund Zalinski

Relevance: 77.5% - 3 KB (418 words) - 20:40, 23 November 2007

Samuel Morris (Philadelphia, II)

Relevance: 77.5% - 2 KB (300 words) - 23:01, 24 November 2007

Samuel Morris (Philadelphia, I)

Relevance: 77.5% - 1 KB (201 words) - 23:02, 24 November 2007

John Morin Scott

Relevance: 77.5% - 4 KB (611 words) - 17:40, 25 November 2007

Roger Morris (British Army officer)

..., 1760 ending French rule in North America.http://famousamericans.net/rogermorris/

Relevance: 77.5% - 3 KB (388 words) - 10:42, 26 November 2007

Thomas Penn

Relevance: 77.5% - 7 KB (1030 words) - 11:23, 26 November 2007

James Hall (paleontologist)

|url=http://www.famousamericans.net/jameshall1/

Relevance: 77.5% - 7 KB (1006 words) - 15:31, 26 November 2007

John Curtiss Underwood

Relevance: 77.5% - 3 KB (419 words) - 01:40, 27 November 2007

Mary Clark Thompson

• http://www.famousamericans.net/myronholleyclark/

Relevance: 77.5% - 3 KB (463 words) - 21:28, 27 November 2007

John Trumbull

Relevance: 77.5% - 9 KB (1302 words) - 21:17, 27 November 2007

Noël Brûlart de Sillery

• Article, FamousAmericans.net

Relevance: 77.5% - 2 KB (352 words) - 10:07, 28 November 2007

Westerlo, New York

...is named after Rev. Eilardus Westerlo (http://www.famousamericans.net/eilarduswesterlo/).

Relevance: 77.5% - 6 KB (772 words) - 05:55, 30 November 2007

OR Like this - http://www.virtualology.com/virtualmuseumofhistory/hallofwomen/MARIANANDERSON on Marian Anderson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia -

or like this

http:// virtualology.com/apbaronstow/ on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baron_Stow

These references need to be be cited properly

2. There is use of sentences and paragraphs directly from Famous Americans.net and other Virtualology sites that are NOT cited with a "reference note" nor are there any references whatsoever to Appleton's or Virtualology so here we add it as a reference as a direct numerical citation unless the Article has no "footnoted" citations and only general references. Then I just add it to the list on references.

3. In terms how the reference is listed, if there is a "footnote" it shows in the order as it appears. If there is no "footnote: then it is listed alphabetically.

4. As for putting the wrong person in the reference, I will be sure to double check the names in the future.

Now I realize you and the other Wikipedians are doing a fabulous job on monitoring this thr project. Please advise how we may mutually correct this to everyone's satisfaction as it needs to be corrected. Thank you

From User talk:Pputter:

"Then, again - I'm curious what your figures for "relevance" are here:"

• "[http://famousamericans.net/johnbanister/ virtuology]"
• "- wikipedia"

"Tedickey (talk) 18:34, 9 December 2007 :::::(UTC)"^[20]

It was an error at http://www.famousamericans.net/johnbanister/ which was the father in the first paragraph and the son in the 2nd who is the suject of the Wiki page. Agreed the Article should have been improved and properly linked -- Like I said we will double check in the future. The reference however added to the reads information not only on the subject but his father of the same name.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Pputter (talk • contribs) 06:10, 10 December 2007

— Pputter (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic other than to add links.

Oh Yes as far as academic references you slighted above, well Mr. Klos' are meager but here they are:

BA - American Studies, MA – Communications and Ph.D. in Communications & Marketing at St. Peter's College, Idaho State University and The Pennsylvania State University respectively . MBA Adjunct Professor and Lecturer - MBA BUSINESS AND THE MEDIA, MBA EXECUTIVE LEADERSHIP AND MBA ENTERPRENEURSHIP - Wheeling Jesuit University, WV; MARKETING & FINANCE, Georgian Court College, New Jersey; COMMUNICATIONS, The Pennsylvania State University; BUSINESS AND PROFESIONAL SPEAKING, Idaho State University. Director of Communications NASA's Classroom of the Future 1999 to 2004, West Virginia Independent College Board of Directors; Wheeling Jesuit University MBA Board of Directors & James Monroe Foundation National Advisory Board.

For the record I think what you are doing to this internet education pioneer is unjust. You should be helping him get the proper credit for the citing of his 8 years of internet education work and not blacklisting him. Mr. Klos, however, prefers peace over contention and asked me to handle this due to a personal challenges that have reset the bar on child custody law in Pennsylvania.

I am sorry Deb, myself and Donna didn't correct the links properly. We are merely volunteers, not paid who were just trying to clean-up the Virtuaology citings and give Mr. Klos proper credit for his work. We apologize for creating a death star (still not sure what that is) and will aide you in anyway to correct it. We do not have any way to help you with the hundreds of people who cited his work over the years, sorry. All he asks that if it is used on your site to please cite it properly or remove it.

Let me know if you want the other domains names. Keep up the good work, we use your site all the time especially with the kids homework. Pat PS - In May someone in your group told Donna to follow the find a grave system in citing and that is how all this started. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pputter (talk • contribs) 06:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC) --Pputter (talk) 12:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
— Pputter (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic other than to add links.

My concern is that this action wasn't put in front of MilHist or Bio projects for lengthy discussion. We could have created an efficient process. I have no doubt that removing spam is essential. I have no dispute with requiring a link directly to Appletons as opposed to the FamousAmericans.net site. Perhaps a few bad editors were making these links a career. But I was using FA.net as reference long before I was using en.wikipedia.org. I have some loyalties to what Mr. Klos (with whose name I was unfamiliar until this morning) has been doing for years. I just wish this self-described "death star" behavior had been preceded by a posted notice of intent and this discussion allowing the page editors to create their own solution affirmatively. BusterD (talk) 14:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

User:BusterD, I tried to spread as wide a net as I could, then centralize this discussion in one place. I left notices about this discussion on these pages:

• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam
• Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Presidents
• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard
• Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard

I also left notes on the talk pages of the editors who had been most involved in discussion of these links.

While the famousamericans.net domain was blacklisted a day or so earlier than I would have preferred, I believe the very meat or sockpuppets who have complained so bitterly here somewhat forced our hand by increasing the pace of their link additions over time, notwithstanding requests otherwise. 1500 links across multiple projects and growing -- that's out of control.

Also, as noted here and on other noticeboards, there are reliability problems with this material. Certainly the links I removed were low quality and sometimes supported totally irrelevant, sometimes incorrect statements to articles added by the spammers.

I don't know what else to tell you. Ultimately, this is all about preserving the reliability and integrity of our encyclopedia in a collision between its goals and the desires of Mr. Klos' business. --A. B. ^(talk) 22:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I just left a belated note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#famousamericans.net and related links.

--A. B. ^(talk) 23:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

It was our fault as voluntary editors to Virtualology since 2001 we saw the hundreds of links all throughout Wikipedia of famousamericans.net and they were listed incorrectly as references and external links. We started trying to seek them out but Donna got the idea to just go through the Appleton's content starting with the A's and add as external links where missing, change were they existed and add missing Famous Americans creating “stubs?” why Deb concentrated on the content taken from Mr. Klos’ book which sold out a while ago and he just decided to put it online - http://stanklos.com/chapter1/.

We got some conflicting advice early on from wiki monitors. First we were told no external links but use it as references. Then we were told we had to cite the actual reference sentence. Then we were told to add content and cite. Then we were told to not add original content but rewrite. Since the task was so daunting - 25,000 edited biographies we had other people help and the above was all mixed up as it came to different voluntary editors from different edits. You have to have this discussion somewhere, no? We do not have the coordination system you have.

Mr. Klos just wanted to make his sources available to Wiki users and we wanted them cited properly.

We are sorry for not following the protocol although we did list the revised Appleton's (many fictitious biographies were eliminated and others expanded by the way) as we get at least one or two emails like these below a day:

On John Penns Birth Date You Said he was born on Mary 17, 1741 is it supposed to be May?

Or

James G. Blaine was a Senator from Maine, not Massachusetts.

For years, as there are errors in this historic text and we research it and make corrections and admit we have a backlog of about 100 .

We did do, however, a source on the page directed to us by one of your administrators.

Finally, it is important to note that the bulk of the citations (which were all over the board due to urls that are so dynamic ie -- benjaminfranklin.org/susanbanthony.net/vietnamwar.org or alexanderhamilton.org/johfkennedy.org/vietnamwar.org all got to vietnamwar.org and the combinations are limitless so wiki users references were all over the board with our references.

It was an honest attempt to share information of the 25,000 biographies to Start, do proper references to what was already in your system for years and get some recognition for the Forgotten US Presidents which is Mr. Klos’ passion. We are sincerely sorry we made such a mess of this and caused all these very busy people so much trouble. Once again will cooperate in any cleanup efforts but ask that future use of the sites as references by your many wiki users be done properly. --Pputter (talk) 16:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
— Pputter (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic other than to add links.

I see that URL-based links to Appleton's Cyclopedia are now blocked and are being mass-deleted. I became aware of this because Return J. Meigs, Sr. is on my watchlist. Appleton's Cyclopedia was a principal source for that article, cited in March 2006 by User:LeRoi, and removal of the reference to it left an error message in that article (and a void in the sourcing for the article). I've restored the citation, but without the URL. However, this is hardly the only article where this was used as a source. Is it reasonable to bar all good-faith references to Appleton's Cyclopedia because of the spam issue? --Orlady (talk) 17:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Yikes -- it's always a bit daunting to frustrate probably our best editor in an editing dispute (not that she isn't always very gracious and easy to work with).

Orlady, you can request whitelisting of specific links (not the whole domain) at MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist. Good faith requests from established editors such as yourself are routinely approved. --22:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the whitelisting suggestion. (I'll try to ignore the "probably our best" comment...) --Orlady (talk) 02:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

There is another problem though; Appleton's Cyclopedia of American Biography is known to include not less than 200 biographies of fictitious persons. So while it is a major source, it is also a very problematic source, and absent independent (contemporary or earlier) confirmation that a subject actually existed, we should not have article based principally on it. GRBerry 22:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

As it happens, Return J. Meigs, Sr. is confirmed to have been a real person, and Appleton's is one of 4 separate sources cited in the short article about him. It happens to include some details that aren't in the other articles. That also seems to be the only article I've contributed to where the Appleton's citation was a valid good-faith reference. (I had been cognizant of the famousamericans/virtualology spam for some time...) --Orlady (talk) 02:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that Appleton's shouldn't be relied on as the only source for an article. I can even agree with removing the link to the virtuology spamfarm and with reverting the edits of COI editors. But I very strongly disagree with a blanket robotic removal of all references to Appleton's Cyclopedia -- especially in cases where there is information in the article that was based on that source. Wouldn't you want to know where the information came from? Robotic obfuscation of this source is unhelpful and even counterproductive. older ≠ wiser 02:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Appleton's Cyclopedia of American Biography 1887-89.

Currently a user is deleting all references to Appleton's Cyclopedia of American Biography, a contemporaneous source of information for 19th c. Americans much as Giorgio Vasari's encyclopedia is for 16th c. Italian artists. That is to say, it's not just some random website. Talking to the user produces this kind of response to others, so I've just left a brief note. I hope I may be spared any personal contact with this user. The damage being done is not minor. I'm struggling to insert the following footnote in the few little articles I watch: "Dates and other biographical information in this article are drawn from Appleton's Cyclopedia of American Biography 1887-89." The website with on-line text is spam-blocked here (no one need explain that to me, please). I am posting here because the user's boilerplate edit summary is "clean up, & remove link see WP:AN using AWB" ——but I see nothing here that would justify wholesale, unconsidered deletions; tomorrow another such a one will no doubt slap demands for references and citations on the same articles. At any rate I leave this in your capable hands. No need to involve me further, please. --Wetman (talk) 18:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

(I have now amended Appleton's Cyclopedia of American Biography, with published references, to bring its status more clearly into the open. That might have been the first administrative job; then based on it, discussion of effacing Appleton's from Wikipedia might have been opened. It's a matter of good administrative style, really. Over and out. --Wetman (talk) 07:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC))

Appleton's is not considered a reliable source; articles sourced to it are being gradually cleaned up and more reliable sources sought. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

absolutely so--notorious for inclusion of false biographies of non-existent people, see the article on it. This has been discussed here at some length. We are indeed removing all references to it, and all articles depending only on it for documentation will need to be carefully checked, and the facts in all articles using it as a source in any way re-verified elsewhere. DGG (talk) 18:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation of this bot for Wetman. But what I dont understand how we are going to know that these are articles are unreliable once we have removed the references. As there is a real risk then why have we not added a warning template. We add a template for things like "lacks references" (as if readers cannot spot this). Surely this would be a good reason to add a subtle template (or better a ref that warns )that links to an explanation of the warning. I assume this has already been debated... Victuallers (talk) 21:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

See above and sub-sections]]. However just removing them all in a bot sweep does create problems. Johnbod (talk) 22:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed: as I said above, it would have been preferable to check them off individually via a cleanup project, so the action needed (trivial delink vs. rewrite due to Appleton's being a major content source) could be dealt with, rather than casting them adrift where we can't find them. Is there a listing anywhere? Or can the bot change be undone? Gordonofcartoon (talk) 22:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

What would be ideal would be a listing of the 200 false entries, so we'd know the other 10,000 (or however many) entries can be used as sources. Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater here. -- Kendrick7^talk 22:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

But the problem is that all of Appleton's is suspect. Those are the 200 known about, and the overall editorial standards weren't so brilliant. [21] Gordonofcartoon (talk) 22:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I get your point and saw that source, it just seems pretty WP:Kettle-ish to be complaining about another encyclopedia's editorial standards. -- Kendrick7^talk

I'm not sure I would have such a problem to using Appleton's itself, carefully, as a source. And I'm a bit worried that the supporters of this purge will go on to enact a pogrom against other, more-reliable but commercial sources, that are also linked from many Wikipedia articles because of their usefulness and reliability. But that's not what this discussion's about. Rather, it's about Klos and/or his followers spamming Wikipedia with links to a "revised" version of Appleton's, when we know Klos has an axe to grind about American history. I think we can safely rule such links as unreliable and remove them. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

David, as the person who first raised the issue of these links here (others had already questioned them many times on other talk pages and noticeboards), I just don't see much hunger for pogroms against other sources. As for more reliable "commercial sources", I see no problems with such sources. Most sources are ultimately commercial in some way when you get right down to it; .gov and .edu sites are just getting supported by tuition and taxes, not ads. Someone's got to pay the bill, after all. --A. B. ^(talk) 03:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi, please see my response above to similar concerns.[22] I don't know about any bot removals -- if that's going on, it's a big mistake, I think. In my own case, I've been working on this list of 270+ other Klos domains besides famousamericans.net. In most cases, they've been added by single purpose accounts such as the much-aggrieved Pputter who complains so vociferously and bitterly above. 95% of the time, the citations I removed were supporting irrelevant, sometimes incorrect statements that appeared to have been added mainly as an excuse for a link. Feel free to step through my recent edit history to see the quality of the stuff I'm writing about. In a very few cases, I was concerned about removing the citation, so I left a {{fact}} tag to alert other editors. On the whole however, with >1000 of these links already in articles across multiple Wikipedias and 100s more added each month, I personally better off halting the problem then taking anything of value to MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist.

Again, if there are any bot-deletions going on, I think it's a mistake. These links have to be removed judiciously one at a time. --A. B. ^(talk) 23:01, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

think most links were added in a spammy way to figures where there are much better sources; many were added to the reference sections (if there was no external inks section), further confusing the situation. Some no doubt have been added as actual source references by serious editors, and these are the ones that should be identified & better sources used. I'm sure there is no-one for whom Appleton's is actually now the best source. That's a lot of work potentially though & needs to be done by people with good sources available. The links removed can be identified from the bot history. Johnbod (talk) 23:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

(ec2x)Also, if citations to some parts of Appleton's Cyclopedia were allowable then we'd face a perpetual danger of those 200 fictitious biographies being reintroduced. WP:RS doesn't really have a clause for picking and choosing which parts of a reference to use. We might disallow a cite from The New York Times if the paper later ran a retraction on the story, since the retraction is documented. In order to use Appleton's Cyclopedia we'll basically have to wait for some reliable and vetted publisher to release a revised edition. Some people who lack proper qualifications have tried, but this website really shouldn't be referencing scores of important biographies that way. Durova^Charge! 23:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Wait, hold on here, there were thousands of Virtualology sites used as references before our volunteer editors began their efforts to clean-up a citation mess. The site has been up since 2000 and has been used as a reference and external link since Wiki began.

Additionally, no one, and I mean no work even in print layed out the birth of the US Presidency as Presidents of the Continental Congress of the United Colonies, Presidents of the Continental Congress of the United States and Presidents of the United States in Congress Assembled until Mr. Klos started placing his research on line which was duplicated by your users from John Hanson not being the 1st President and the distinction between the Continental Congress and the United States in Congress Assembled. Most of this work was taken and never cited. Just review his book and web pages in Appleton’s on these men. Revisions abound there and elsewhere in the Appleton’s content.

Now you delete all the links and references most of which have been there for years, content that was taken and cited from the Virtualology Project and want to say your users have taken it from their personally owned 6 Volume 19th Century Leather Bound Appleton's? If you are going to blacklist Mr. Klos and his work on the internet in this field for the last 8 years then be sure to remove the content. Golaith is welcome to squash this small fry called Virtualology but do not take its content without properly referencing even if you deem him a poor scholar. PLEASE --97.97.197.9 (talk) 23:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
— 97.97.197.9 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic other than to add links.

The FamousAmericans.net Biographies that were worked on the last few months were famousamericans.net/samuelaaron/ to Barbour, John Merrett and are listed alphabetically. Also Deb did the Presidents of the United States (both constitutions) and Signers of the Declaration of Independence. These represent about 95% of your contentions that occurred in the last 3 or 4 months. The rest began from Wiki's inception to date and less then .1% were done by Virtualology Voluntary Editors. Hope this helps --97.97.197.9 (talk) 00:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

— 97.97.197.9 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic other than to add links.

To the contrary, campaign-spamming of these domains were a concern in March 2007

• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2007 Archive Apr#www.famousamericans.net & related

--A. B. ^(talk) 00:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, and Pat said May I believe that leaves your inception until March 2007. Additionally, you have the written record and can see not much occurred until recently. I have tried to giv you the major names that we edited but A.B. how many years was V's content used by Wikipedia without any incidents. To blacklist with notices on December 8 and done December 10th after all these years of sharing information was not judicious. Additionally the additions stopped as soon as one was challenged a couple days ago. If you take a hard look you will see the bulk of the infractions by the Voluntary Editors occurred on the names listed above in Appleton's and the Presidents and Signers. For this we are truly sorry -- it was errors of ignorance on what was permitted and correcting links not greed. additionally there are over 25,000 Biographies in Appleton's and this 200 number or .0008 is no reason to dismiss this as a reliable source. What is your ratio? Once again we remained under the same company and owners since 1999, to Blacklist over this and not remove the content with the references is also a wrong and two wrongs do not make a left. Once again we apologize --97.97.197.9 (talk) 01:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I mean no personal disrespect toward Mr. Klos or his labor. The duration of his site is not relevant here. His work simply doesn't meet Wikipedia's reliable sources guideline because he is not a recognized expert in the field of history. I have a degree from an Ivy League university in history, but I'm not an expert either, and it wouldn't matter whether I had started a website on the subject fifteen years ago or today. Editors sometimes make a mistake and try to cite something that fails to satisfy WP:RS. This website's standards do not endorse a response of leave the citation until a better replacement can be found. Instead we take out the unsatisfactory source as soon as we identify it as such. We'll supply replacements when we can. Durova^Charge! 01:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

To dismiss Appleton's is a mistake and any good scholar knows it. Additionally, Wiki has been using and citing this content since its inception. The only reason why it is being blacklisted now was its content was fed to Wiki these last few months incorrectly (with snow shovels to boot).

This probably would never have occurred if Mr. Klos was not embroiled in personal challenges and took his eye off this Virtualology endeavor. He asked us to work with Wikipedia to “fix it”, if possible, but protect the proprietary content. For Wiki to use Virtualology and the edited Appleton's Content without the proper citation is wrong. To justify this action after four years of deeming the content an appropriate reference is also wrong. What percentage of Wiki content is fictitious? Is it more then the .008 your editors are quick to criticize the Edited Appleton’s for? The point is this blacklisting of the Virtualology Project and the edited Appleton’s references are more akin to book burning then a scholarly edit of the historical record. Look at the record and you will find virtually no editorial involvement of Virtualology in Wikipedia before the Spring of 2007 and to repeat ourselves, your writers have been using our content since your inception. --97.97.197.9 (talk) 02:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, while the behavior of a few editors certainly looks like spamming and COI, I very much disagree with blacklisting the site and robotically removing all references to it. While there are some problems with Appleton's Cyclopedia, most of its entries are just fine. I would leave the robotic edits to simple reversion of edits made by suspect users. I find it deeply troubling that it is being removed from articles willy-nilly where it was in fact used as a source for the information. I would much rather have that very clearly indicated in the article rather than have the source obfuscated. older ≠ wiser 02:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Pputter I look at our Veinor link addition reports for the first 5 months of 2007, I see perhaps one handful of links added by neutral editors; contrast this with massive quantity of links you added. Here are your numbers:

• Edit counts for each of your accounts that we've identified so far:
  • User:24.73.72.214: 20
  • User:24.94.139.230: 198
  • User:66.93.248.72: 9
  • User:71.42.169.190: 9
  • User:72.77.10.31: 10
  • User:97.96.197.9: 104
  • User:72.187.245.33: 2
  • User:Cedarkey1: 205
  • User:Damserlet: 393
  • User:Natnews: 17
  • User:Pputter: 242
  • User:Solknats: 9
• Total edits made by PPutter's accounts: 1218 edits

• Edits made to Klos-related article by Pputter's accounts:
  • Edits made to Stanley L. Klos: 143
  • Edits made to Virtualology: 22
  • Edits made to Evisum: 10
• Net edits to Klos-related articles: 175
• Net edits to other articles: 1075 (all related to link additions that I've seen so far)

These do not include promotional your edits to other Wikipedias.

--A. B. ^(talk) 02:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Understood, but once again the edits were on the what I discussed earlier all the A’s

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z Aar-Ada Ada-Ale Alg-Amh Amh-App App-Ash Ash-Azp Aar Ada Aaron, Samuel Abad, Diego Jose Abadie, Eugene H. Abascal, Jose Fernando Abasolo, Mariano Abbadie, Abbadie, Antoine Thomson D Abbe, Cleveland Abbett, Leon Abbeville, Claude D Abbey, Edwin Austin Abbey, Henry Abbey, Richard Abbot, Abiel Abbot, Abiel Abbot, Benjamin Abbot, Ezra Abbot, Francis Ellingwood Abbot, Henry Larcom Abbot, Joel Abbot, Joel Abbot, Joseph Hale Abbot, Samuel Abbot, Samuel Abbott, Austin Abbott, Benjamin Abbott, Benjamin Vaughan Abbott, Charles Conrad Abbott, Edward Abbott, Gorham Dummer Abbott, Horace Abbott, Jacob Abbott, John Abbott, John Joseph Caldwell Abbott, John Stephens Cabot Abbott, Joseph Carter Abbott, Josiah Gardner Abbott, Lyman Abbott, Robert Osborne Abeel, David Abercrombie, James Abercrombie, James Abercrombie, John Joseph Abercromby, Sir Robert Abert, John James Aboville, Francois Marie Abrahams, Simeon Abreu, Maria Ursula Lancastro Acamapictli, I. Accault, Michael Acevedo, Gaspar Zuniga Acland, Christina Harriet Caroline Fox Acolhua, Acosta I. Acosta, Ceeilio Acosta, Joaquin Acosta, Jose De Acosta, Santos Acrelius, Israel Acton, Thomas Coxon Acualmetzli, Acuna, Antonio Ochoa Acuna, Cristobal De Acuna, Juan Acuna, Manuel Adair, James Adair, John Adair, William P. Adam, Graeme Mercer Adams, Adams, Abigail Adams, Alvin Adams, Amos Adams, Andrew Adams, Benjamin Adams, Charles Adams, Charles Baker Adams, Charles Follen Adams, Charles Francis Adams, Charles Kendall Adams, Daniel Adams, Edwin Adams, Eliphalet Adams, Ezra Eastman Adams, Hannah Adams, Henry A. Adams, Herbert Baxter Adams, Isaac Adams, Janms Hopkins Adams, Jasper Educator Adams, John Adams, John Adams, John Adams, John Adams, John F. Adams, John Quincy Adams, Julius Walker Adams, Nehemiah Adams, Robert If. Adams, Samuel Adams, Samuel

And the B’s to Barbour, John Merrett stopped here:

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z Bab-Bak Bak-Bar Bar-Bas Bas-Bea Bea-Ben Ben-Bid Bid-Bla Bla-Bol Bol-Bou Bou-Bra Bra-Bro Bro-Bro Bro-Buc Buc-Bur Bur-Byr Bak Bar Baker, William Spohn Balam, Chilam Balboa, Miguel Zevallo Balboa, Vasco Nunez De Balbuena, Bernardo De Balcarce, Antonio Gonzalez Balcarres, Alexander Lindsay Balch, George Baldwin, Abraham Baldwin, Ashbel Baldwin, Charles H. Baldwin, George Colfax Baldwin, Henry Baldwin, Henry Porter Baldwin, Jeduthan Baldwin, John Denison Baldwin, Joseph G. Baldwin, Loammi Baldwin, Matthias William Baldwin, Maurice Scollard Baldwin, Robert Baldwin, Roger Sherman Baldwin, Theoron Baldwin, Thomas Balestier, Wolcott Balfour, Nisbet Balfour, Walter Balfour, William Ball, Dyer Ball, Ephraim Ball, Thomas Ballard, Bland Ballard, Harlan Hoge Ballard, Henry E. Ballevian, Adolfo Ballou, Hosea Ballou, Latimer W. Balmaceda, Jose Manuel Balmaseda, Francisco J. Balmes, Francisco Javier Balta, Jose Baltes, Peter Joseph Baltimore, Lords Baluffi, Gaetano Bancroft, Aaron Bancroft, Edward Bancroft, George Bancroft, Hubert Howe Bandelier, Adolph Francis Alphonse Bangs, Francis C. Bangs, Nathan Banister, John Bankhead, James Banks, David Banks, Nathaniel Prentiss Banneker, Benjamin Bannister, E. M. Banoini, Juan Banvard, John Bar, Benedict De Baraga, Frederick Baralt, Rafael Maria Baranda, Pedro Sainz De Baranoff, Alexander Andrevitch Barba, Pedro Barbace, Fesberto Caldeira Brant Barbee, William A. Barber, Francis Barber, John Jay Barber, John Warner Barber, Mary Augustine Barbosa, Januario Cunha Barbour, James Barbour, John Merrett stopped here Barbour, John S. Barbour, John Strode Barbour, Lucien Barca, Francisco Barcena, Alfonso De Barcena, Mariano De La Barcia, Andres Gonzalez De Barclay, Robert H. Barclay, Thomas Bard, John Bard, Samuel Dickinson Hub Barker, Fordyce Barker, George Frederic Barker, Jacob Barker, James Nelson Barker, James William Barker, Josiah Barksdale, William Barlow, Arthur Barlow, Francis Channing Barlow, Joel Barlow, Samuel Latham Mitchell Barlow, Thomas Harris Barnard, Charles Barnard, Daniel Dewey Barnard, Edward Emerson

Or about 800 names from the beginning of meshing 25,000 biographies into Wikipedia database. You should note that over and over again we found not only sentences but complete paragraphs cut and pasted from these sites with no references. Add to this the Signors, Presidents etc and links to Counties named after them and yes we did do 1000+ names with volunteers making mistakes and redoing the same page several times. We did, however, seek a way to just do external links like find-a-grave and were advised the edits with references were the right way to go. As for Spain and Italy alot of the names in Appleton's had no English listings but they did have Spanish so we went there but in the same names. We saw it as a good opportunity for both of the Florida Internet Companies. We thought as you so eloquently stated that it was a “boon to your historical articles” We errered and if you look at some of the comments that one Editor noted, it looked like we were incorporating the references right from the A's and thought we were given a method on how it could be done properly. --97.97.197.9 (talk) 02:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

To reply to a comment a few posts above, our guideline is called reliable sources. Appleton's is not reliable: it contains hundreds of fictitious entries. A good scholar might use it judiciously, but Wikipedia does not have the resources to vet content in such a manner. The only practical solution for this website is to select which sources are generally accurate and accept them as citations indiscriminately. Various permutation of this discussion have occurred many times in this website's history. Durova^Charge! 02:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Now, there's a well-informed and judiciously balanced assessment of Appleton's Encyclopedia by our learned reference critic. "While there are some problems with Appleton's Cyclopedia, most of its entries are just fine."Indeed, I might say "'While there are some problems with Giorgio Vasari' Lives, most of its entries are just fine." You'd all think I was a bit of a popinjay, wouldn't you? Well, Appleton's Cyclopedia needs no introducing to anyone competent in the C19 American biography field. All mentions of it are currently being stripped from Wikipedia. More thoughtful and responsible editors are now forced to move the Cyclopedia references into footnotes, where they are less exposed to thoughtless monkeying, and no references to on-line text are possible. You should be alerted that this might appear to outsiders like myself very like administrative incompetence. I don't need to be drawn in at any level: this post is FYI only. So, do as you like—— as if you had to be invited! As you were. --Wetman (talk) 03:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikisource has a handful of Appleton's articles as well as discussion of the problematic material. There's also a link to Appleton's content at the New York Public Library:

• Wikisource:Appleton's Cyclopedia of American Biography
• Wikisource:Talk:Appleton's Cyclopedia of American Biography

--A. B. ^(talk) 03:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

(replying to Durova after ec) Say what? I thought the whole idea behind using a wiki to build an encyclopedia was precisely to harness the resources of the masses to vet the content. It is preposterous to to even suggest that ANY source can be used "indiscriminately". Even the best sources contain errors. Simply because this has been debated in the past (and never completely resolved) is not a reason to proceed as if it has been. older ≠ wiser 03:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

This is why WP:RS and WP:V work in tandem. Our standard is verifiability, not truth among sources we regard as generally reliable. Take your complaint to the policy and guideline pages and see whether you can work out a better standard than we already have. Many have already tried and I see no fresh argument here. Durova^Charge! 06:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and that (verifiability, not truth) is precisely why it is absurd to go around simply removing any mention of Appleton's as a reference -- even when it was in fact used as the source of the information. What we ask is that people provide a source for the information they contribute. If a better quality source can be found, then that should be preferred -- but to simply obfuscate where the information came from is just plain stupid. older ≠ wiser 03:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

We did our homework, despite some editors above maintaining the contrary. Without giving away too much, There are 202 known fictitious biographies such as Pierre de Vogué (http://famousamericans./jeanpierredevogue/) and Vicente y Bennazar (http://famousamericans./andresvicenteybennazar/ ) from the research Virtualology has done on the Encyclopedia. It was traced to one employee who was paid by the article and thus his work has been thorough researched over the years turning up the 202.

Most importantly, the BULK (approximately 180 of the false sketches) found are written on obscure European scientists who supposedly travelled to the America’s to study natural history. Examples of sketches include, the biography of Charles Henry Huon de Penanster, (famousamericans./ charleshenryhuondepenanster/) identified as a French botanist, whose bio parallels Nicolas Thiery de Menonville (whose genuine biography also appears in Appleton's). Nicolas Henrion's, (famousamericans./NicolasHenrion/) a French scientist listing reports that he arrived in South America in 1783, when Asiatic cholera was in full bloom. The epidemic first broke out in South America only in 1835. Miguel da Fonseca e Silva Herrera, (famousamericans./ migueldafonsecaesilvaherrera/) supposedly was a gold medal Brazilian historian, from the historical institute of Rio de Janeiro in 1820 but the society was not founded until 1838. Some good references on the topic are:

Barnhart, John H. "Some Fictitious Botanists." Journal of the New York Botanical Garden 20 (September 1919): 171-81. Dobson, John B.. "The Spurious Articles in Appleton's Cyclopaedia of American Biography—Some New Discoveries and Considerations." Biography 16(4) 1993: 388-408. O'Brien, Frank M. "The Wayward Encyclopedias", New Yorker, XII (May 2, 1936), pp. 71-74. Schindlir, Margaret Castle. "Fictitious Biography." American Historical Review 42 (1937), pp. 680-90.

The rest of the boigraphies are IMPORTANT historical accounts of exceptional men and women whose deeds in the Americas were notable at the very least. These are a exceptional additions to the Wikipedia Project. It is wrong to blacklist these sites PS YOU HAVE TO ADD THE NET TO THE LINKS AS THEY ARE BLACKLISTED --97.97.197.9 (talk) 03:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Many people host information on the Internet that is accurate, but insufficiently vetted to satisfy Wikipedia's reliable sources guideline. So far as I'm aware, your endeavor meets Wikipedia's definition of self-published work. As such, in order to be citable the endeavour would need to be overseen by someone who has recognized expertise in the field of history. That requirement hasn't been satisfied. Durova^Charge! 08:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Where do we go from here?

Based on everything I've seen, I become ever more confident of the assessment that the vast majority of these links were spammed, often very cynically to irrelevant articles, notwithstanding the pleadings of various sockpuppets above. Even if you believe Appleton's is a quality source, the links added usually provided were to articles that nothing not already included in the article and the citations added by the spammers (not regular editors) frequently supported either odd factoids or obvious stuff that needed no citation. I invite supporters of this source to step through diffs in my recent edit history to see for themselves just how junky most of this stuff was.

we respectfully request you run a comparison of the content of the Virtualology sites with the content of the Wikipedia Articles as then you might understand how much of the Virtualology content has been duplicated on Wikipedia --97.97.197.9 (talk) 04:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Nevertheless, I must say that I am disappointed in the way this has all unfolded. I had hoped the link removals would be made judiciously with care taken to find replacements, verify no link was needed and or add {{fact}} tags. Based on having dealt with citation spam many times before, I estimated above that this would take many hours. Instead I see some others making up to 5 removals per minute using semi-automated tools and a host of frustrated regular editors complaining. Spam mitigation should always be a background task around here with care taken not to disrupt our encyclopedic content and ongoing editing.

What's the best way to fix this? One option would be to temporarily whitelist the domain, revert the hastier edits, then properly remove the links.

What do others think? --A. B. ^(talk) 03:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Having restored the Appleton's Cyclopedia reference (sans url) to Return J. Meigs, Sr. twice in the last 12 hours (see my comments above regarding the good-faith nature of this reference), I believe that the baby has already been thrown out with the bathwater. --Orlady (talk) 05:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes -http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Return_J._Meigs%2C_Sr.&oldid=41702868 - started in March 2006 with FamousAmericans.net online content and there are thousands more, most not even cited. Instead of working together on correcting our "Spam" mistake our content is no longer cited, Virtualology is blacklisted and error messages warn of spyware associated with Virtualology sites is flashed when people try to utilize our 8 year old online legitimate sources. How can this possibly happen? Mr. Klos supported this Wiki project from the beginning and even commiserated with your founders, when his content started being used to born Wikipedia. --97.97.197.9 (talk) 05:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

How does one retrieve the communication between Wiki and the following names since they have been deleted?

• User:24.73.72.214: 20
• User:24.94.139.230: 198
• User:66.93.248.72: 9
• User:71.42.169.190: 9
• User:72.77.10.31: 10
• User:97.96.197.9: 104
• User:72.187.245.33: 2
• User:Cedarkey1: 205
• User:Damserlet: 393
• User:Natnews: 17
• User:Pputter: 242
• User:Solknats: 9

--97.97.197.9 (talk) 04:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Just a heads up I removed all links to famousamericans.net for a complete record of pages that contained links to it please see here for a complete listing of all interwiki links please see here β^_command 04:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

So here is one part of our case, close to a thousand references of Virtuaology content cited with no "spam" claims whatsoever. How can you just unilaterally do this to content that has been referenced by Wikipedia as Virtualology's for so many years? A. B., this is more grevious then our errors as you know better. --97.97.197.9 (talk) 05:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Isn't removing the references without removing the material sourced from the references a violation of WP:CITE#Say where you got it? If the source actually is bad we should be removing the bad information with it, and not letting it linger. -- Kendrick7^talk 06:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Evaluation As this subject is not my specialty, I am going to check with some actual specialists in historical reference sources tomorrow, and get some idea of the current status of Appleton's. I would be very surprised if the method of compilation met even minimal 20th century standards of accuracy. My impression is that it is used when there is nothing better. But there is-- not free or course--but much more reliable and in thousands of libraries.

There are two. The older one is Dictionary of American Biography 1928-1937, and supplements through 1985. Most college libraries and large public libraries will have it in print, locations at. [23]--not all libraries will have all the supplements. I do not know if it is online.

the newer one, greatly preferred if available, is American National Biography Oxford Univ press, Print and online. Print in about 1800 libraries--essentially every college library and many large public--a listing can be found at [24]. (if you enter your zip code it will show nearby libraries) Online in at least 200 libraries and library systems--partial listing at [25]. They have a personal subscription at $25/month.

They each have about 20,000 entries, but not all the older ones were carried over into the new edition. Obviously, the new one is the more accurate for the ones it covers, and will have an up to date bibliography, listing both primary sources and selected secondary sources. I would regard anyone with a full article in each as unquestionably notable. My impression is that it is less scholarly that ODNB, but full up to the demands of WP.

there is a convenient free online bio of the day at [26]. Today's it's Fiorello H. La Guardia. There is also, free access to the biographies in the current monthly update at [27] The lastest is october 2007, and contains 43 articles--most but not all are in WP, but some are without good references. Between them, that's 800 articles a year available free. This would be a convenient way to help build the encyclopedia.DGG (talk) 07:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

For that one bio where there was unique info. from appletons--are you sure its correct? For articles where it wad listed as one of many sources, the question is whether it was actually used as a source, or just added as a spam reference. DGG (talk) 08:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Who can be sure what's correct? In dealing with biographies of long-dead people who weren't tremendously famous, no source is the "gold standard." The best I can do is compile information from multiple sources, write up the most reliable-seeming info I can find, identify my sources, and hope that someone else will improve the article later if they find more reliable information. For Return Jonathan Meigs, there are several short entries in biographical dictionaries and encyclopedias, but all are bare-bones entries missing a lot of the significant details that were in the much longer "Appleton's" entry. The Appleton's bio does have one detail that seems to be erroneous; it gives a birthdate of 1734, which does not agree with any other source I have found (accordingly, I have changed the birthdate in the article to 1740). However, it's still unclear to me if he was born on December 17 or December 28; few sources give the full date, and the ones that do are not in agreement. There's a long and extensively sourced bio on a family history site at http://www.meigs.org/rjm90.htm that has seemingly good content, but I've found some errors on that page (such as the year his first son was born -- since the son was a US Senator and a state governor, that particular date is verifiable). In a web search I found an amazing Google Book PDF (which I downloaded) called The Magazine of American History with Notes and Queries, by John Austin Stevens, Benjamin Franklin DeCosta, Martha Joanna Lamb, Henry Phelps Johnston, Nathan Gilbert Pond, William Abbatt. A.S. Barnes and Company, 1880. Vol. IV. That book has a lot of seemingly good info on Meigs (and other topics, mostly related to the American Revolutionary War), but 19th century historiography was not exemplary, so I don't know how much I can trust it. Another Google Book PDF is The Connecticut Magazine: An Illustrated Monthly of 1906, containing a laudatory article about the illustrious Meigs family -- another item that may or may not be reliable. My bottom line: often there is no bright line separating reliable sources from fatally flawed sources. --Orlady (talk) 02:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I admit this is OT, but in the case of Meigs above, would you include a footnote in the article to state that Appleton's states his birthdate is 1734? The reason is that one or more users will come to the Wikipedia article thinking that Appleton's has the right date, not suspect that it is wrong & either (1) cite the wrong date or (2) change the date in Wikipedia, thus making it harder to keep the article correct. -- llywrch (talk) 21:32, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Appleton’s Famousamericans’ biographies, have been extensively expanded in many areas even adding primary source documents that expel historic myths more troublesome then incorrect birthdates. For instance, John Hanson is purported to be the 1st President of the Continental Congress by the Smithsonian’s touring Presidential exhibit (http://images.virtualology.co/images/5057.jpg - co should be com but it is blacklisted). Primary sources Like Hanson’s letter of thanks to the 2nd President of the United States in Congress Assembled, Thomas McKean for serving before him in Hanson’s office improve the biographies immeasurably. (http://images.virtualology.co/images/5054.jpg and 5055.jpg ) Hanson was never a President of the Continental Congress, it was dissolved March 1, 1781 and the Library of Congress still confuses that simple fact. Isn’t this the magic of Wikipedia? Good intention minds working together to produce an almost Dialectic process to arrive at the “truth” on the human experience. Exceptional concept really yet quick to dispel work of like minded individuals from a different era. The irony here is amazing.

Additionally if you look closely at Wikipedia’s sites on Hanson you will find they heavily relied on the Famous Americans and “President Who? Forgotten Founder’s” content without giving proper credit to the authors. In fact Wiki’s entire series on the Presidents under the Articles of Association and Articles of Confederation all draw heavily on Virtualology online content which has been there since 2001. Moreover, there are many images that were taken ( ie http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyrus_Griffin from CyrusGriffin.com) by the Wiki encyclopedia incorporated in these and other Appleton's works as their own. Wikipedia did what Virtualology couldn’t do, getting biographies highly placed in the search engines. Today these Continental and United States in Congress Assembled Presidents are being referred to in the proper manner established by the Virtualology Project in 2001. Go back and try to find this content before Virtualology’s work on the early Presidents. It wasn’t there on the web found only briefly and incomplete in some obscure Depression Era books and a very good book on Samuel Huntington from the 1970’s. Even today the Library of Congress website errs with their – “Letters of the Delegates Database” that lumps all Presidents and their legislators under the United States in Congress Assembled with the Continental Congress. Virtualology cleaned up the timeline and Wikiedia gave it worldwide wings thanks to the genius of your founders.

Despite what some editors maintain, “quasi” scholarship is not just on the Klos “axe to grind” Presidents but in many discipline content published on Virtualology. The content has been morphed into your sites and credit, if any, was improperly given. Here Virtualology made its mistake and should have taken this up before the Voluntary Editors move forward, clumsily on their own.

As for Appleton’s it is a crucial resource to researchers as well as dealers in identifying primary source letters, documents, manuscripts and early print ephemera. We cannot begin to express how vital a reference it is having some obscure land grant or 18th century letter trying to discern its importance. Appleton’s is a key source to discern who the signers are and what impact this unknown primary source had on them and their rhetorical situation. Appleton's is a staple in primary resource research field -- a great starting point. Interestingly enough, on Tuesday the Magna Carter, the Holy Grail of Historic Documents, should break all sales records fetching over 30 million dollars. I am sure Ross Perot, a rare document collector, has Appleton's in his libary. One of your administrators noted that you have thrown the “baby out with the bathwater” which is an understatement. Appleton’s been online since 2001 within the Virtualology Project and is important scholarship that should be embraced as an excellent source to begin the Dialectic Process on over 25,000 noteworthy individuals with their biographies filled with important historic content on people, places and things. --97.97.197.9 (talk) 01:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

(Responding to A.B. above) I think what we have here is an example of why automated edits are a bad idea unless there is a general both on what the problem is and the best solution. No source is infallible, & even unreliable sources need to be cited sometimes to explain how popular misconceptions entered the popular consciousness. Then there is the issue that those Nihilartikles from Cyclopedia will perpetually reappear in Wikipedia because newbie editors will re-submit articles on those individuals out of ignorance. In short, I agree that these links should have been handled individually by someone knowledgeable in the field; I didn't speak up before this because it took me a while to understand the problem here. Now I wonder if we have a bigger mess on our hands. -- llywrch (talk) 19:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I have not taken the time to read through this lengthy issue, but I will say at least as handled by User:Betacommand, this needed to be handled differently. Here a chainsaw was used where a scalpel was needed. Not only should the info have only been tagged with {{cn}} instead of removed (unless it by some odd chance was a BLP), but Betacommand removed info cited to a different source, removed an additional tag for the other source, and then left a second ref to the FamousAmericans as an empty. And Betacommand has responded less than properly to complaints about this (including not including a link to this discussion in his edit summary). I have no problem with SPAM being removed, but please learn how to do it properly. Aboutmovies (talk) 19:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I am only human and do make mistakes, it was an accident that that was removed. For some reason I thought that this was on ANI not AN and that is why there was a miss-link. also that was corrected as soon as it was brought to my attention. β^_command 17:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

So does that mean you went back and fact tagged everything instead of removal then? Aboutmovies (talk) 17:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I guess the silence unfortunately means "no". (If this conclusion is wrong, a correction would allow us to move forward without recriminations.) -- llywrch (talk) 21:32, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Checklist created

I've created a checklist Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/famousamericans.net/sourcechecklist from the historical linksearch Betacommand just provided. If anyone wants to work through the articles systematically, it can be done from there. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 10:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Proposal

Could someone who understands the Betacommand bot argument for removing Appletons update the article for Appletons - it is nowhere detailed as the stuff above. I cannot believe we have changed unreliable poorly sourced material into unreliable unsourced material. I prefer the former. Particularly if the wiki Appletons entry explained how unreliable it was and that article was clearly linked to each time it was used a reference. Couldnt we use a clever bot to do that? Victuallers (talk) 10:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

COIBot

I missed this discussion, though I did see that famousamericans.net was added to the blacklist. There is a large list of domains above, and I think all these reside on server with IP 66.45.34.101. I have added that IP to COIBot, who will now report every time a website with that IP is added. Check Special:Linksearch/66.45.34.101 every now and then.

Let me know (e.g. on my talkpage, or here) if I have to create some reports on external links, the linkwatcher database COIBot accesses is not too old, but still may contain quite some interesting information. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

So this can't be used as reference anymore? -- Kendrick7^talk 03:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

COIBot monitors, a.o. linkadditions of links that are under discussion , it does not revert, nor block, the addition of links. Or are you referring to the point that famousamericans.net has been blacklisted, if I saw that correctly, and it has not been removed in the meantime, yes, that means that it can not be used as a reference anymore. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh OK. Well I don't really care for the blacklisting decision, but I'll find the correct forum to gripe in. -- Kendrick7^talk 22:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Examples of Edited Appleton's Content As Requested

According to the Virtualology site, which is a copy & attempted revision of the notoriously unreliable Appleton's Cyclopedia of American Biography, its revised biographies are arranged separately, as explained there "If you would like to edit this biography please submit a rewritten biography in text form . If acceptable, the new biography will be published above the 19th Century Appleton's Cyclopedia Biography citing the volunteer editor." from, e.g. [1] However, I see no firm indication that this is in fact the case, and would like to see some examples of this. Ones directly from Appletons are not copyvios. Ones modified from Appleton's are copyvios, because the Virtualology site is copyrighted. Unfortunately, the original ones are also known not to be reliable or accurate.( It is additionally plagiarism to use them with just the tag at the bottom, without indicating that the entire article was copied and what the exact source is.) I therefore doubt that any material from this site can ever be incorporated in Wikipedia. If unmodified, they are not reliable. If modified, they are not public domain. DGG (talk) 01:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Here are a few Edited Samples

John Baptist Lamy Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons www.johnbaptistlamy/ - 21k - Cached - Similar pages J. Hector St. John de Crevecoeur Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons www.jhectorstjohndecrevecoeur/ - 22k - Cached - Similar pages Johannes Megapolensis Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons www.johannesmegapolensis/ - 22k - Cached - Similar pages John Mary Odin Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons johnmaryodin/ - 27k - Cached - Similar pages Manjiro Nakahama Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons www.manjironakahama/ - 18k - Cached - Similar pages Charles Francis Baillargeon Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons charlesfrancisbaillargeon/ - 20k - Cached - Similar pages John Finley Rathbone Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons johnfinleyrathbone/ - 21k - Cached - Similar pages John Taylor Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons www.johntaylor3/ - 20k - Cached - Similar pages Cornelius O'Brien Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons corneliusobrien/ - 21k - Cached - Similar pages Louis Amadeus Rappe Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons louisamadeusrappe/ - 22k - Cached - Similar pages Sister Margaret Bourgeois Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons sistermargaretbourgeois/ - 21k - Cached - Similar pages Lucretia Maria Davidson Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors .... Edited Appletons www.lucretiamariadavidson/ - 22k - Cached - Similar pages Francisco Ximenes Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons franciscoximenes/ - 20k - Cached - Similar pages John Francis O'Mahony Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons johnfrancisomahony/ - 23k - Cached - Similar pages John Adams Webster Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons www.johnadamswebster/ - 21k - Cached - Similar pages Juan Jose Flores Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons www.juanjoseflores/ - 22k - Cached - Similar pages Francisco Jarque Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons franciscojarque/ - 19k - Cached - Similar pages Michael Joseph O'Farrell Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons www.michaeljosephofarrell/ - 20k - Cached - Similar pages Juan Caballero Y Ocio Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons juancaballeroyocio/ - 19k - Cached - Similar pages Garcilaso de la Vega Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons garcilasodelavega/ - 22k - Cached - Similar pages Sebastian Garcilaso De La Vega Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors .... Edited Appletons www.sebastiangarcilasodelavega/ - 22k - Cached - Similar pages Juan Maria de Salvatierra Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons www.juanmariadesalvatierra/ - 21k - Cached - Similar pages Diego Garcia de Palacio Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons diegogarciadepalacio/ - 20k - Cached - Similar pages Edgar Philip Wadhams Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons edgarphilipwadhams/ - 20k - Cached - Similar pages Agustin Davila Y Padilla Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons agustindavilaypadilla/ - 18k - Cached - Similar pages Andr6s Avelino Caceres Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons www.andr6savelinocaceres/ - 22k - Cached - Similar pages Paul de Chomedey Maisonneuve Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons www.pauldechomedeymaisonneuve/ - 19k - Cached - Similar pages Juan Jose Escalona Y Calatayud Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons www.juanjoseescalonaycalatayud/ - 20k - Cached - Similar pages Lorenzo Hervas y PANDUR0 Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons lorenzohervasypandur0/ - 21k - Cached - Similar pages Anne Joseph Hyppolite Malartie Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons annejosephhyppolitemalartie/ - 18k - Cached - Similar pages Mother Marie de L'incarnation Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons www.mothermariedelincarnation/ - 23k - Cached - Similar pages Atahualpa, Or Atabalipa (ah'-ta-oo-al'-pa) Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons www.atahualpaoratabalipa/ - 22k - Cached - Similar pages Dred Scott Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons www.dredscott/ - 24k - Cached - Similar pages John Joachim Zubli Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons johnjoachimzubli/ - 22k - Cached - Similar pages Elzear Alexandre Taschereau Virtualologywelcomes editing and additions to the biographies. ... Edited Appletons elzearalexandretaschereau/ - 23k - Cached - Similar pages John Joseph Kain Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons www.johnjosephkain/ - 20k - Cached - Similar pages Felix De (ath'-a-ra) Azara Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons www.felixdeazara/ - 19k - Cached - Similar pages Felipe Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons felipe/ - 24k - Cached - Similar pages Santa Rosa OF Lima Virtualologywelcomes editing and additions to the biographies. ... Edited Appletons www.santarosaoflima/ - 19k - Cached - Similar pages Francisco De (cor'-do-vah) Cordova Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons franciscodecordova/ - 19k - Cached - Similar pages Frederic Auguste Bartholdi Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons www.fredericaugustebartholdi/ - 23k - Cached - Similar pages Bernardo Diaz Del Castillo Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons bernardodiazdelcastillo/ - 20k - Cached - Similar pages Malta Capac Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons www.maltacapac/ - 21k - Cached - Similar pages Miguel Grau Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons www.miguelgrau/ - 22k - Cached - Similar pages Francisco Orellana Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons www.franciscoorellana/ - 22k - Cached - Similar pages John Nepomucene Neumann Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons www.johnnepomuceneneumann/ - 26k - Cached - Similar pages Alvar Nufiez (kah-bay'-thah-de-vah'-ka) Cabeza De Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors .... Edited Appletons alvarnufiezcabezadeyaca/ - 23k - Cached - Similar pages Apostolos Valerianos Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons www.apostolosvalerianos/ - 21k - Cached - Similar pages Gonzalo Fernandez de Oviedo y Valdez Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons www.gonzalofernandezdeoviedoyvaldez/ - 22k - Cached - Similar pages --71.42.169.223 (talk) 21:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

— 71.42.169.223 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Here are three of the hundreds of Heavily Edited Appleton's

http://www.famousamericans/arthurstclair/

http://famousamericans/williamrandolph/

http://famousamericans/fernandomagellan/ --71.42.169.223 (talk) 21:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

— 71.42.169.223 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I know they are SBL'ed the site is known not to be reliable. end of story. quit attempting to BS us. β^_command 05:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

BS BS Kettle calling ...

Not following this is BS --

“Say where you got it

It is improper to copy a citation from an intermediate source without making it clear that you saw only that intermediate source. For example, you might find information on a web page which says it comes from a certain book. Unless you look at the book yourself to check that the information is there, your reference is really the web page, which is what you must cite. The credibility of the article rests on the credibility of the web page, as well as the book, and the article itself must make that clear.

When citing books and articles, provide page numbers where appropriate. Page numbers must be included in a citation that accompanies a specific quotation from, or a paraphrase or reference to, a specific passage of a book or article. The edition of the book should be included in the reference section, or included in the footnote, because pagination can change between editions. Page numbers are especially important in case of lengthy unindexed books. Page numbers are not required when a citation accompanies a general description of a book or article, or when a book or article, as a whole, is being used to exemplify a particular point of view.”

We understand you being upset BUT your complete deletion of the source material's references is unprofessional at best. Doing it under the guise of Appleton's being an unreliable source is sophomoric, not scholarly. This is BS in its worst state, justifying one's mistakes. Virtualology admitted they followed an external link model of find-a-grave sidetracking their original effort to correct improper citings on Wikipedia. They erred and sought to correct it, still do as evidenced above providing information requested by one of your Adminstrators. --71.42.169.223 (talk) 22:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

— 71.42.169.223 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Help Please

The story; An IP edited User:EVula's page with a comment of "please revert my edits" [28]. Which I did wiht a note of "per request?". The IP then made another odd comment, which I also reverted [29] as this now looked like trolling, and I said as much in my edit summary. The IP also made a comment on User:LaraLove's page, which looked okay, so I left it. [[30]]. I asked the IP to log in as they clearly knew their way around [31] and was told they would but were at work [32]. Now I get a long diatribe on my talk page about my lack of good faith and newbie biting. More concerningly mentioning my Real Life name. [33]. This is a different IP, but I have no reason not to believe they are the same person. They seem almost to be inviting checkuser. Help please, I'm uncomfortable with revealing my RL first name, and worried where this is going. Pedro :  Chat  09:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The IP address is The undertow (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), per this edit. Daniel 11:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

So... what's going on? :s This seems to be related ~ Riana ⁂ 11:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Looks like The undertow (talk · contribs) attempting to make some sort of point about the treatment of IP editors, by his own admission. As always, proving one's point experimentally tends to lead to hurt feelings and unnecessary disruption like this. Best that everyone return to the 'pedia instead of playing around or indulging others' playing. It's probably unlikely to recur (but if it does recur, it will be looked upon very poorly). Dmcdevit·t 11:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, I get to go thru these, one-by-one. Which should we decide to address? Being fluent in Spanish, and having lived in Mazatlan for a year, it's common knowledge that Pedro=Peter. Juan=John, Jesus=Je-sus, and Mary=Maria. It's a simple worldwide translation of a first (not last) name. I have no prior knowledge that if a user decides to use "Pedro" that his name in real-life is Peter - that can only be affirmed by the owner. It's as common as calling "Jeff" as 'Jefe.'

As far as IP admissions, I made myself clear that I could not log-in to my account at work, as I have a strong password. But that does not supersede the fact that even IF I could, that I would expect different treatment. WP:POINT is disruptive. I made all aware of who I was and what IPs I was using, and clearly iterated that I would have been treated differently had I been logged in. If the diffs are scrutinized, anyone can see that since, as an IP, I was reverted, simply because I did not have my log-in at the time. Simply look at the diffs and realize that while others were having fun with a given topic, I was reverted for either being an anon, or not logged it. ANYONE can edit. ANYONE still can. And for those pushing policy, even registered users reserve the right to edit as anons (although this was not the case.) the_undertow ^talk 12:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

So this was not a good thing to revert. which seems to be your issue. The only thing I can see is that EVula should have reverted not me? The undertow, you've said again on my talk page you want to open an RfC on my behaviour. If that is your wish, please do so. Pedro :  Chat  12:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, I'd appreciate it if you would call me by my nickname. Just because Pedro is spanish for Peter I can't see how you assumed I therefore must be called Peter. Either way, that's out the bag now, but I'd ask you to use my nickname please. Pedro :  Chat  12:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Let's bring in context. Look at the diff you provided - it was about Lara and comments made towards her being attractive. Humor would dictate that it's actually funny for one to say "revert my edits!" And my sympathy runs deep for privacy. However, Juan is John. There is no way around that. I call my friend Peter, "Pedro", as it is the equivalent in both languages. I will not be punished for being bilingual NOR astute. Until you can PROVE that I had innate knowledge that you, Pedro, in real-life, were named Peter, you are simply placing blame on me, which is entirely unfair. ENTIRELY. If my girlfriend, say Maria, was on Wiki, and you called her Mary, it would not be a slight, nor a hint, nor an attempt to unmask her. Certain names are universal. And without causing you further discomfort, if my name was Dick, there is a really good chance you might be able to surmise that my real name is Richard - BUT ONLY IF I used Dick as MY nickname. Gerry Scott Kochendorfer. There is my fucking name. Half German and Greek. It's by no means a compromise, but it is CERTAINLY a way for me to make some sort of amends, outside of our own disagreements, which have been going on far beyond the 'nomenclature' controversy, which anyone could see. the_undertow ^talk 12:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Your use of an ip as a "bad hand" account to disrupt and deliberately make vandalism edits. I would suggest you rethink your conduct and let's get back to work. -JodyB _talk 12:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Show me any vandalism. I'm curious about it. Lara was praised for her picture, and I asked her to "revert me!" as an empathetic fan would. Show me vandalism. the_undertow ^talk 12:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I answered on my talk page in response to your post. -JodyB _talk 13:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

So... bypassing all that stuff up top, I'd like to go ahead and state that I was about to revert the IP edit myself, but Pedro beat me to it. It frankly made very little sense to me, and it certainly wasn't the first time an IP I'd never seen had left me a bizarre message somewhere in my userspace; until I happened to be searching for my name on this page, it never occurred to me that it might be anything more than an anon editor being odd. EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:34, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Non-profit organizations being urged to spam us about their organizations

Here is an article urging non-profits to write their own Wikipedia entries. I e-mailed the editor, saying this:

The most recent issue of Board Cafe had a tidbit urging people to

write articles about their organizations on Wikipedia!!!!

This is a major violation of our guidelines against Conflict of Interest, Autobiography, and Spamming/Advertisement. Such articles are killed off as quickly as they are spotted, and a repeat offender may find their (perfectly legitimate) organization blacklisted from ever being mentioned in the Wikipedia.

He responded thus:

Michael, thank you for this email. I certainly understand your point.

Nonetheless, it's appropriate for something that is Wikipedia-worthy to get onto the site. Just as I encouraged people to put things onto Wikipedia, I also support Wikipedia's policies to eliminate illegitimate postings. The money that movie studios, for example, put into getting favorable Wikipedia entries for their movies and television shows is just part of the complexity of Wikipedia, because we also value the fact that important nonprofit groups have initiated and monitor sites about themselves (examples: Red Cross, NAACP).

So whether or not you think we agree, I think we are kindred, pro-Wikipedia, anti-spam spirits. Thanks for writing. Jan

He seemingly just doesn't get it.

--Orange Mike | Talk 21:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

And apparently we're the second most popular site on the net, according to them! Gee, bad news for facebook, the BBC and YouTube! Seriously though, thanks Mike for highlighting that and your efforts in trying to persuade the webmaster. Pedro :  Chat  21:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

He just doesn't seem familiar with the concept, just look at his response there he says that movie studios put money into getting favorable entries wich is clearly not true as all film and television articles are solely edited by the users themselves and if their reception was negative it will be reflected (see Super Mario Bros. (film) for example). Maybe somebody can explain WP:N to him in a manner that explains the difference between "worthy" and "notable". - Caribbean~H.Q. 21:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Here are some examples of some who have spammed the project;

• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2007_Archive_Nov_1#Public_broadcasting_Spam_.28KQED.29
• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2007_Archive_Nov_1#Long_term_COI_spamming_by_Carnegie_Council
• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2007_Archive_Nov_1#Mercy_Corps_COI_spam
• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#http:.2F.2Fspam.arc.org.uk

--Hu12 (talk) 22:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

just a comment that I remarked on that talk page that in my view that some material placed by some of these groups was in fact highly appropriate, though they should have been more aware of our rules about how to have it added. DGG (talk) 00:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

we need to get real - trying to get a wikipedia article is just what I'd advise a non-profit to do if I was in the position of that author, you chance your arm and if it gets deleted, well you tried. We are never going to stop this, so we need to work on better ways to manage it and not the usual terrible unreadable policy pages - an honest to god short document that indicates best practice to organisations. --Fredrick day (talk) 22:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:BFAQ has advice that is just as relevant to non-profit organisations as businesses. Maybe though we should try a somewhat specialized version, with emphasis on the use of their web site, which such organisations generally think justified, not having understood the implications of GFDL. The main problem I've had in dealing with them is that, to put it bluntly, PR people at profit-making corporations are often more professional and more responsive. DGG (talk) 00:56, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Like DGG, I found external links added by a non-profit to be useful, but at the time, I didn't know what message to add to the user's talk page, but didn't want to add COI or spam templates. I've added info to the user's talk page (User talk:Art21) from a template I found via the links above, but not sure if it's appropriate or clear enough that COI applies to non-profits. Flowanda | Talk 22:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Lir

This user's one-year block (initially set by ArbCom, and then reset several times for vandalism and sockpuppetry, expired on December 10. I've removed the "blocked user" template from his userpage, but does anything else need to be done (i.e. logging the completion on the Arb subpage or something like that)? -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 23:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, the template on his userpage doesn't actually do anything, and removing it doesn't either - there's still a block on his account. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 01:55, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

It was not an indef block, it has expired. Mr.Z-man 05:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

There are two options; one is to organize support for an indefinite community ban, and the other is to let it go. I'd be very much in favor of letting it go; things have quieted down in that department and that's a good thing. Chick Bowen 05:57, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more; until there's some actual drama here, just ignoring the editor (especially since he hasn't edited since his block was lifted) is in the best interest of everyone involved. EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Lir's history on Wikipedia predates me, so it's safe to assume there are a number of eyes on this account. If (to quote Chick Bowen above in this thread) we let it go, we can assume that she/he was grown tired with disrupting Wikipedia & moved on with his life, & stop thinking about him. If she/he immediately resumes his disruptive behavior, the account will be blocked indefinitely, & we can then discuss a permanent ban. Anything else would not be wise. -- llywrch (talk) 21:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

So, to get back to my earlier question: When a user completes a long-term block, are there any clerical-type actions that need to be taken, or is the way that things are now the way that they should be? -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 21:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Nope. Everything just reverts to normal. Chick Bowen 02:40, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Dethzone

Wasn't sure where to ask this, so I figure I'd try here first. This person appears to be using their user page as a sort of Myspace page/sandbox. Not sure if it's against any policy, but it seems rather questionable at best. Should something be done about it, or doth I worry needlessly? :) -Ebyabe (talk) 00:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd blank it and show him WP:USERPAGE. He's violating that. If he isn't even be productive towards the encyclopedia, he should be blocked as well. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, User:Ryulong just deleted the whole thing so it's a moot point now. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Nay, not so, since it's been recreated. I think I see where this is going... -Ebyabe (talk) 00:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Deleted, blocked and deleted User:Korn On The C.O.B. which was probably not a coincidence. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)