Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If you are new, try the Wikipedia:Teahouse instead. Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead use Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent. Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here. Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. If opening a close appeal, use {{RfC closure review}} When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search) Start a new discussion

Tasks

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

General

Block of User:62.38.117.6

This user has vandalised several times Olympiacos

• The first time instead of the usual page he wrote "Ηλίθιοι και αργόσχολοι γαύροι "which means: Stupid Olympiacos Fans"
• The second time and after User:Quaque reverted the page, he again vandalised the page by writing "...Vlaka" which means Stupid.
• The third time and after User:Quaque reverted the page, he wrote "..Ilithie.." which also means dtupid.

I have already warned him, but he continues to vandalise the page. Please help

Block of User:SuperButchBitch - "inappropriate username"

I was browsing the block list and I saw this block, by NSLE (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) for "inappropriate username": Is this really necessary? And has her IP been blocked too so she can't even create a new account? I don't know her but this seems well, a bit over the top. No attempt to even talk to the user or explain that she may be blocked first either, from what I can see.

I added Template:UsernameBlocked to the user page as there was no message, notice or warning left by NLSE..

I would like to point out that the username is not insulting anyone and "butch" is likely in context of butch and femme than anything else --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 12:30, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Being gay myself I don't see this as inappropriate however I can see how others would do, the term "bitch" often being used in a derogatory manner based on gender. Have you contacted NSLE on their talk page regarding the block? -- Francs2000 12:33, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Will do now. --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)}

The IP was probably the autoblocker. I blocked for "bitch" more than anything, so if there's a general consensus that the name is not inappropriate I'll be glad to undo the block. NSLE _(T+C) 12:45, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok. For other people reading this and deciding for themsleves, might want to see Bitch#Women reclaiming "bitch" - This block is almost like blocking someone for calling themselves gay or queer.. --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 12:51, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I've unblocked the IP address. NSLE _(T+C) 12:50, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

From Template:UsernameBlocked: "Due to Wikipedia's mechanism for enforcing name changes, your IP address may be temporarily blocked. Unless you have also been engaging in vandalism, we will remove that block as soon as possible—if this doesn't happen within an hour or so, please email an administrator and explain the situation": Is this policy, does anyone know (to unblock IPs of non-obvious vandals [excluding stuff like "JIMBO WALES/insert username here IS A COMMUNIST!" and stuff of course obviously] so they can change their username)? Maybe it should be, I wouldn't be surprised if there's been a few good intentioned newbies banned and never coming back as a result of being perhaps a bit too daring in their choice of username.. --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 13:02, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok. I just tried emailing to tell her about it but there's none set. bleh. Wikipedia really could've done with another (probably) lesbian editor to provide perspectives on topics, there aren't many..

I hope in future for usernames that aren't obviously a personal attack on someone you'd at least try to talk to the user first before blocking in future, WP:BITE and all.. --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 12:55, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

The few admins I've asked all think it's sort of an inappropriate name, but I won't take any action until there's a clear consensus on what to do, it's admittedly, when you look at it from your POV, a borderline case. NSLE _(T+C) 13:00, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

This is borderline, but I think based on the evidence this case deserves an unblock tbh. -- Francs2000 13:04, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

This user shouldn't have been blocked outright, but should have been notified that their username violated the acceptable username policy and telling them to choose a new username (I understand bureaucrats or stewards can move user accounts to new names). The offensive part of the nickname is 'bitch', not 'butch'. It is irrelevant that this offensive term is self-directed. - Mark 13:03, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

It's hard to ascertain without being able to do a wildcard search through the block logs, but I'm pretty sure we have a clear history of blocking usernames with the word "bitch" in it, regardless of whether it's self-directed or not. Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak} 13:27, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

This is clearly an inappropriate username. The only reason NSLE is taking flak for this is because it somehow slipped past Curps' bot. I would have blocked it too. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 13:41, Jan. 7, 2006

I agree with Mark. We should notify users of action we take against them unless there's good reason not to. (It's not like it was a personal attack on someone else, in which case we wouldn't necessarily want to encourage them to stay.) Rd232 ^talk 14:26, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Bitch#Women reclaiming "bitch" - Its not always offensive. It's more offensive to censor such well-meaning self expression. WP:AGF, WP:BITE.. --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 13:49, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Allowing one opens the door for incessant hand-wringing to allow others. "But you let User:SuperButchBitch in, so why can't I use User:StupidBitch? I'm just trying to reclaim the term!" And then we get to spend our time having to justify the few we allow to the majority we disallow, and explaining to the majority we disallow why they don't rate. Which would generate reams of angst and drama, and for what benefit? So that a few users get to be among a selected elite allowed to use a username most other people aren't allowed to?

Sounds like a lot of trouble, effort, and acrimony to me for an extraordinarily trivial and marginal benefit.

I say "Let 'em crash."

Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak} 13:56, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

There's no way to call someone "stupid" in a nice meaning of the word. Bitch however, is used as an affectionate term or as self-empowerment in some circumstances: The case is entirely different to the other example.. --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 14:11, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Anything can be theoreticaly used affectionately by somebody. Many find lack of intellect or bitchiness charming, and others are masochists who might well derive great pleasure in being refered to as a "stupid bitch". We don't care about how this person ment it tho, because the policy is against usernames which are disuptive or offensive to us, not to the user themself. I agree that it would have been best to discuss the user name w the user, but its definitely not a big deal, or worth the blocking admin getting any more concerned than they already are. I am sympathetic w Selina's POV (well, not really, but at least she explained it well), but we shouldn't have queer or gay as a username either, much less fag or nigger, which are words also being "reclaimed". Sam Spade 14:31, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

The doctrine of "offensiveness" is a tricky one to invoke. Let me just say that I am not bothered by this name, that it is important to apply sense of humor to such things even if it is not possible to induce it in others, and that the suppression of user names in itself raises serious issues, certainly much more so than the content, at least in this case. But I would even argue that totally confused and aggressive names (say, "Jewhater") should be left to reap their own rewards. Haiduc 15:56, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Obvious unblock. The culture here is moving strongly towards blocking for anything - I feel like one of the few non-authoritarian admins. *sigh* Secretlondon 20:50, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I fully support this as an inappropriate username. While I usually don't block at first for not blatantly offensive usernames (such as ones insulting Wikipedia or Jimbo), this definitely falls under offensive. The word "bitch" is widely considered and regarded as both offensive and derogatory; if you're not offended, fine. But because it is considered as offensive and derogatory, then it's an inappropriate username. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:24, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo isn't god. Blocking (and especially blocking without communication) is considerably more offensive. Secretlondon 20:49, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree.. --Phroziac _. o º ^{O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!)} 18:17, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes well said Flcelloguy. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 19:00, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, there's no clear consensus on the username, and I'd prefer to keep it blocked, per Extreme Unction's brilliant reasoning about having a select few. NSLE _(T+C) 00:48, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, if there is no clear consensus I do not see why this accountname should remain blocked. I agree with the others here that it can (and is being) used as a term of self-empowerment, especially in this context. There does not appear to be any malign intent on the part of the user either, so an attempt by the administrator to talk about it first would have been appropriate at the very least, in my opinion. That said, I am only a sysop on NSwiki so perhaps not an expert on 'big wiki jurisprudence', however I was unaware that banning things in case they are contentious or controversial is standard wiki policy. --Knootoss 01:29, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Without trying to make light of the issue, I'd draw comparisons to Revenge of the Nerds, where at first the jocks use 'nerd' as a derogatory phrase, and by the end of the film, the nerds have reclaimed the word, with Lewis stating that he's proud to be a nerd, and summons all other nerds to step forward.

And the parallels between this issue and the reclamation of 'queer' and and (here in Australia) 'wog' (for immigrants of South European descent) are obvious. 'Bitch' is considered an offensive phrase used towards women, but I'm all for those attempting to reclaim the word. Cnwb 01:55, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Being only 19, I'm often told I'm too cynical for my age. I'm afriad people are right, but here goes:

We're bitching [hah] about a username which was most likely created for shock value. "SuperButchBitch" is offensive. Wikipedia is not the place to "reclaim" the term bitch back to women. Sorry. Can we worry about something more.. important? I'm really sorry for acting like this, but come on! Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 02:03, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Hear, hear. — Dan | talk 10:02, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes yes, I agree. "Bitch" is still considered offensive by a very large majority of people and is not appropriate for Wikipedia. Invite the user to make a new username, keep this one blocked, and let's be done with it. Cookiecaper 10:15, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. There may be an ogoing reclamation effort, but Wikipedia is here to report on knowledge as it is, not to promote social change. Fact is many people find the word offensive, which is against the username policy. That said, I agree with Mark and Selina that the user simply should have been notified first and asked to change usernames instead of instablocked. - Taxman ^Talk 19:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I think the name's offensive, as many people will find it that way, and it's possibly damaging to the community. The person needs to create a different account, if they're legitimate. WikiFanatic 23:02, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Linuxbeak is right. Wikipedia records society; it doesn't alter it (except in that it exists in it). Bitch is offensive. When society no longer considers it offensive (as with "nerd"), then it should be allowed. --Happylobster 16:26, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Concur with blocking. The name is inappropriate right now, although perhaps in 20 years English will have changed. --Improv 14:26, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Userboxes for deletion

In the past month, wikipedia has seen an explosion of userboxes. Many of these templates feed into dedicated categories. Wikipedia has also seen a massive controversy over which userboxes are desirable and which are not, and what actions and processes are appropriate to deal with "undesirable" userboxes. I personally don't see this issue being resolved soon. Also, a lot of bad blood has been created, which might interfere with community operations in the future. Would it be an idea to create a new deletions process, Wikipedia:Userboxes for deletion (UfD), to deal with this issue? I believe that there are now so many userboxes, with so many more being created every day, that filling this with new deletion requests shouldn't be much of a problem. It could also prevent an overflow of deletion requests at tfd. This overflow could obstruct non-userbox-related deletion requests. Furthermore, the occasional linkage of templates and categories could create some friction with tfd and cfd. The same has happened between rfd, cfd and tfd on one side, and sfd on the other side. I don't know if this is the proper place to raise this issue, or whether I should go to the Village Pump for it. I also don't know if this is feasible, viable and/or desirable. What are the obstructions to this issue? Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 00:25, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Or just delete the lot. --Doc ^ask? 00:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Strongly disagree with Doc. I thought that the recent RfCs should have taught one that single-handed actions by people "feeling strongly" about issues is unproductive. I would also add that it is abuse of administrative powers to go on a deletion rampage; actually to delete even a single userbox without proper process, unless it is clear nonsense or clearly offensive. For full disclosure, I hate userboxes, even the Babel ones (the granddaddy of them all I would guess). But if one does anything, let it be done by proper process, whatever that may be. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 00:52, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

A terrible idea. Witness the morass that WP:SFD has become, where perfectly good redirects like Template:Us-rail-stub → Template:US-rail-stub are unanimously deleted, until it's gotten so that it's practically impossible to sort stubs unless that's almost the only thing you do. Specialized wikiprojects should not have sole voice in deletion. Send 'em through TFD. —Cryptic (talk) 04:02, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Cryptic. TfD is the appropriate venue. I'm also concerned that having a separate UFD would lead to a subcommunity of voters that develops a sense of consensus and practice that is at odds with the broader sense of community standards. Kelly Martin (talk) 04:10, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

What Kelly said about a separate UfD culture developing makes sense to me - we don't want that. The userbox situation is going to have to be resolved by some kind of widespead discussion and consensus about the role of the Wikipedia community and what bounds, if any, need to be placed on its growth as a community, which is a non-trivial question. That's the root of the userbox issue, though, and has to be addressed somewhere.

Meanwhile, I would take issue with Cryptic's characterization of SfD - are you aware that template redirects cost double the server resources, and that developers support deleting template redirects? Fascinating stuff, that. Turns out not all redirects are cheap. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:25, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware that they cause an extra database query. I'm also aware that they're cheaper than normal redirects, since don't make the squids cache an extra copy of the whole, rendered page. This is an argument for either a soft redirect or bot enforcement. The rest of Wikipedia abandoned CamelCase a very long time ago. —Cryptic (talk) 04:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I find your referring to a "UfD subcommunity" a bit of a fallacy. That's a risk you get with every deletions process, whether it's AfD, CfD, TfD, IfD, MfD or SfD. I don't see why it should be more of a problem with userboxes than with other types (although I agree that some people have become overly owneristic of new userboxes). Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 11:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

It still never ceases to amaze me that we have new users with a ton of fugly userboxes and very few actual edits. One quick example: The Ungovernable Force, with all of 15 articlespace edits and 18 userboxes, most of which express an opinion rather a skill. I'm still suffering from red-userbox-blindness. --Deathphoenix 05:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

• I sense the impending invention of Deathphoenix's Law: The number of opinion-expressing userboxes on a user page is inversely proportional to the number of edits to articles. ☺ Uncle G 18:55, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Ha! I like the Law, it pretty much summarises my sentiments. --Deathphoenix 16:23, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Río de la Plata

Could an admin please review the discussion at Talk:Río de la Plata on the articles' name? It has been at River Plate as the common English name for a considerable time, but it was moved to Río de la Plata a few weeks ago after a limited discussion, which only came to the attention of the wider community when links from Battle of the River Plate started to be changed. There has since been a "vigorous" discussion which has, in my opinion, demonstrated that "River Plate" is by a considerable margin the preferred English name for the place (even when discounting the battle, the movie of the battle, and the Buenos Aires football club from the search). I would move the article myself, but I've already been involved in the debate and have no wish for an RfAr! -- Arwel (talk) 13:36, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

The page is currently listed at WP:RM. Maybe no need for intervention is needed. Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 20:55, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Zen-master banned regarding article titles

After his previous two proposals to remove the term "conspiracy theory" from articles failed, Zen-master has now started a third, nearly identical proposal at Wikipedia:Conspiracy_theory_titles. I've tried pointing out the mistakes in his reasoning for a while, but he tends not to be responsive to any opinions other than his own, and prefers wikilawyering to back his claims, and prefers repetetive polling or voting over sensible discussion. I do believe he qualifies as being a vexatious litigant.

Hence, to put an end to these fruitless one-sided discussions, and by his ArbCom probation, Zen-master is hereby banned from discussing, or commenting on, article titles on any page in the Wikipedia namespace, and is requested to use the relevant talk pages instead. Additionally, Zen-master is hereby banned from starting polls or votes related to article titles on any page in the Wikipedia_talk namespace, and is requested to use consensual discussion instead. Both bans have a duration of one month.

I'm putting this here for general notification (and discussion, if need be). Note that several other admins have recently expressed disagreement with Zen-master's opinion and methods, such as on Wikipedia:Speedy deletions and WP:RFAr. Radiant_>|< 22:09, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Here is a request for clarification on the WP:RfAr page where I'm asking for zen to be banned. At this point, he's been blocked from enough articles that I can't even keep track of them. Is there a listing somewhere? If there isn't, one should be compiled. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 22:25, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

There is a listing. It is on zen's RfAr page. Apologies. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 23:17, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I endorse User:Radiant!'s enforcement. User Zen Master has been pushing this issue throughout his Wikiepdia career, and his actions have been disruptive to the project. -Will Beback 22:41, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I formally dispute this ban, for starters Radiant and those allied with him are only censoring me and my User:Zen-master/Conspiracy theory titles proposal because they disagree with it. Secondly, there is no justification within Wikipedia:Probation to ban a user from discussing or proposing a straw poll/vote or criticizing a title as being non-neutral, that is the antithesis of Wikipedia. By what justification was the proposal moved to my user namespace? By what justifiaction did Radiant rollback my edits to other user's talk pages informing them of the vote 2 days ago? By what justification was version 2.0 of the proposal speedy deleted, after 4 months of work, from its Wikipedia:Title Neutrality location? User Radiant falsely claimed the proposal failed twice, voting on version 1.0 of the proposal closed 6.5 months ago, version 2.0 of the proposal was mistakingly speedy deleted 2 days just as voting had begun. zen master T 23:01, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Fine zen. Then what you do is to challenge the speedy delete at Wikipedia:Deletion review. It's what it is there for. You often ask "how is x disruptive?" Well this is a textbook case. Instead of using the correct process, you decided to create new versions of the same proposal. If that doesn't define disruptive, nothing does. And you are not a newbie, zen. You should know better by now. If you disagree with the speedy delete, fine. Use the propoer channels. We don't hide these things. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 23:23, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Radiant and others were well aware version 2.0 of the proposal was substantially updated, the previous vote closed 6.5 months ago and it has been worked on, by both sides, for 3 months so the speedy deletion was completely without merit and is an obvious case of censorship of a proposal certain admins don't like. Even if it is the same core proposal they can be resubmitted for renewed debate, discussion and voting. If you are so confident the updated proposal would still be rejected by the community why are you so adamantly against allowing the community to become aware of it? zen master T 05:10, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

• Since Zen was once more started discussing article titles on Wikipedia:Speedy deletions (of all places), I've blocked him for 24 hours. Radiant_>|< 23:28, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  • That's actually a good block. Hopefully he'll learn to use the correct process. We don't hide these things. What he was complaining about is exactly what deletion review is for. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 23:43, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Paranoia

It's official, we're all part of a big conspiracy, as proven by the very clever IP who figured it out and made this quote. Let's send him the ninja already to tie his shoelaces together, that'll teach him to expose us.

"I estimate that over 93% of admin accounts are sock puppets of other admin accounts. I see all over articles, admins who control a small number of articles. They check these articles around 16 hours a day" -- some IP

• Radiant_>|< 01:33, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• I made Radiant say that. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:42, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• Exactly, there is no massive sockpuppet conspiracy, except for mine of course--I (Dantine Ice) really should check in on this place more often 01:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

  So, there is a cabal behind the cabal? Not that I didn't know that, of course, but I thought my socks were more careful than that... Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 01:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• If I were an Admin I'd be very worried about now about this exposure about all the things that are all about stuff that nobody is supposed to you know, know about. hydnjo talk 03:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• I'm blocking Titoxd (who is my sockpuppet anyway, so it doesn't really matter) for exposing the cabal behind the cabal. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 18:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • That's silly, there is no cabal behind the cabal, it's just Mark. Dragons flight 18:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • This is the sockpuppet of Jimbo Wales. Watch it, or I will delete Wikipedia. --Jimbo Wales16:27, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
    • The irony is that by deleting Wikipedia, you are automatically permabanning yourself since there isn't a Wikipedia left to not be banned from. If that made sense. Radiant_>|< 17:42, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Admin accountability poll

This is a gauge of community opinion on admin accountability, RFA, power abuse, and deopping. Not a policy proposal. Opinions welcome. Radiant_>|< 18:28, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Please note that additional questions have been added to this straw poll, if you went and visited it early. -- nae'blis _(talk) 23:22, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I wish people wouldn't add questions to polls partway through. It just confuses things. Make a separate poll. Or avoid polling altogether... -Splash^talk 23:30, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, if you need to change it for future voters, then the previous votes loss weight, if you don't...then don't change it.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 23:31, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Wehatetech recreations

Wehatetech and We hate tech were deleted per an afd vote. {{deletedpage}] was put on both of them. Well today, it was recreated as Wehatetech.com. I just put the deletedpage tag on it. I'm alerting everyone because now we have it recreated with names in different languages! Oi. Nous détestons la technologie is the name. And we've also had a user account created which consists of the deleted material. It was at User:Wehatetechdotcom. I just deleted it. So please be on the watch out for any more recreations. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 21:05, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, they are all over the place - I speedied a couple myself as well. Keep a look out on afd and other places for articles that sound like it. WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 21:26, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

They tried to bring it up on DRV yet again, and I deleted the discussion. Now I'm being threatened. It was also recreated with a name that had nothing at all to do with wehatetech (I can't remember the name right now), but I just happened to encounter it while doing Recent Changes patrol. User:Zoe|^(talk) 00:41, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Zoe: "and I deleted the discussion". I am sure that is helping the problem.

Yup - it's also been recreated a few more times here and here. I have no doubt it will show up again and again under other similar names --Bachrach44 02:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Blocking over fair-use image disputes

Input would be appreciated regarding when it's appropriate to block over a fair-use copyright disagreement (text or images).

On January 11, Alkivar added to Wikipedia:Blocking policy: "Jimbo has stated that any user with a repeat history of copyright violation can and should be blocked. The blocking admin should use their best judgement regarding the prior giving and heeding of warnings as appropriate."

Some admins have interpreted this to mean that they're allowed to block an editor who restores an image that they have removed, which is getting close to using admin powers over a content dispute. I would therefore like to word the section so that it offers more protection to editors who are acting in good faith, where the copyright status of the material has not been established. The suggested compromise on the talk page is:

Editors who repeatedly add to articles text that has been plagiarized, or images the use of which would clearly amount to a copyright violation — or where a formal complaint from the copyright holder has been received by the Wikimedia Foundation — may be blocked under the disruption provision of this policy. In cases where an editor is acting in good faith and the copyright status is unclear, the editor should not be blocked. However, when a formal complaint has been received by the Foundation, and the editor is aware of it, the editor's attempts to re-insert the material shall not be considered 'in good faith' even if the editor believes the material to be acceptable.

The above is being resisted by Kelly Martin, Gmaxwell, and Tony Sidaway, who argue that it would give too much leeway to copyright offenders. Comments would be appreciated either here or at Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:33, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

If someone's acting in good faith, they shouldn't be blocked except in the most extreme circumstances. I believe this applies to all policies, from Wikipedia:blocking policy to WP:3RR. There's no need to block unless someone's acting in bad faith. [[Sam Korn]] 21:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

The above version seems fair, I would add that an emphasis on the word clearly is put in the first sentence. Copyright law is filled with grey areas, and I don't trust any grey areas to the current state of mob rule many editors try to impose on others around here, good faith or not. Karmafist 21:52, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think anyone would attempt a block where the user was acting in good faith. You can't act in good faith and knowingly upload a suspect copyright violation at the same time. They're mutually exclusive. [[Sam Korn]] 22:01, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

That doesn't make sense. You can easily be acting in perfectly good faith and be blatantly violating copyright. Believe it or not, most people don't know the first thing about copyright law. Also, in many cultures copyright is so diminished that no one even thinks about it (say, in China). You would have these people blocked because they're ignorant of our laws regarding copyright? I think that's a bit extreme. --Cyde Weys 2M-VOTE 14:07, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

No-one should ever be blocked without a warning first. If someone is warned that they're breaking copyright rules, then continue, they're acting in bad faith. Hence my word "knowingly" above. [[Sam Korn]] 14:21, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

The compromise passage seems reasonable to me as well. FeloniousMonk 22:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, there's been a good chunk of discussion at the talk page, but we're mostly going in circles- new comments would be appreciated. Thanks.--Sean|Black 22:13, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

It seems to be that everyone is in agreement above! --Rebroad 15:52, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Blocking should clearly be used exclusively in cases of bad faith editing or uploading. If the actions are in good faith, just undo them and explain why. They should get the point. If they disagree, well, they're entitled to voice their opinion at every deletion vote for their images. Deco 22:19, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Deco -- unless the actions become truly disruptive -- in whcih case they are n't really in good faith anymore. DES ^(talk) 22:23, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Just to add here (as I did there) that the suggested text looks good, and that what's currently at Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Copyright infringement is embarrassing. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:30, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I also agree with the suggested text. Ive seen and been involved in cases where the admin threatened to block me for images where not only the copyright status was not "unknown", but was in fact clearly known, and the admin resisted accepting the status, dismissing the abundant evidence provided.--Zereshk 23:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• I hate to parrot, but support. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 00:10, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• If we're voting, put me down for support, with a side of fries. Tomer^talk 10:46, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• I support the blockquoted text above. --Rebroad 15:56, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, everyone. There's a version on the page now that's a mixture of the above and a version written by Fubar, but both contain the qualification that editors acting in good faith where the copyright status is uncertain (i.e. where it's uncertain whether there's a violation and there's a good-faith dispute) shouldn't be blocked. Many thanks for all the comments. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:59, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Titoxd Imposter

Well, I don't know where else to post this so..

Titaxd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Tito has an imposter account. Block? SWD316 ^{talk to me} 00:21, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

• Yes. Titoxd already did that, though. Speaking of blocks, I noticed a permablock (by Curps) on a vandal named User:Ｔony Sidaway. Indeed, an imposter with zero edits. Problem is, on my system his name renders exactly like that of the well-known admin (e.g. no i/l tricks etc). Anyone know what's going on? Radiant_>|< 00:29, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I already nailed that guy, he keeps making usernames that are imitations of admins. As for Ｔony Sidaway, open the page and look at the URL. You can see that the T is a non-Latin Unicode glyph. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 00:34, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

It's times like this that I appreciate the font quirks of my web browser. The "T" in the impostor's name shows up in what looks like a 20-point serifed block-letter font, while the rest shows up as a 17-point sans-serif font. --Carnildo 07:56, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Should this be in the main namespace

I can across these lists, starting with List of people in the Dictionary of Canadian Biography - A and I was curious about the copyright issues of having them in the main namespace. Non-commercial use of the information of the DCB is allowed, but as we all know non-commercial use is not compatible with the GFDL. Also the lists seem to be being used like a missing encyclopedia aricles list with editorial comments added that are only relvant to editors. I think they need to be moved out if the main namespace, what do other people think?--nixie 01:13, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

It should be deleted as a copy vio (possibly after merging the lists into one of the general missing biographies lists). Having led the charge that eventually managed to delete the similar lists that had been copied out of Britannica and Encarta, I can tell you that the people working on a project like this really don't like being told that copyright extends to the index of a book, and I am not up for going through that fight again myself. Dragons flight 02:16, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I've asked someone to merge the into into another biography list.--nixie 02:21, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

If it's a copyvio that should be deleted, why does merging it alleviate the situation at all? -Splash^talk 16:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

The copyright on a list extends to the selection of items on that list (as well as arrangement and presentation), but not to the particular items on a list as they themselves just facts that can't be copyright protected. It is generally believed that one list can draw on and incorporate many of the items on another list provided that the net effect is to create a new list whose selection and purpose is still distinctive. For example, if you created a list of "the best Chinese restaurants in the San Francisco", it is probably permissible for me to draw on your list (and others) when compiling a list of the "most distinctive restaurants on the West Coast" as the two are different in scope and purpose. By taking the list of Canadian biographies, excerpting just those figures not found in Wikipedia, and merging it with other lists of missing biographies, the net effect is probably to create something sufficiently distinctive that it does not infringe the copyright interests of the original compilers. At least that is my understanding of the reasoning given by the lawyers that looked at this during the last go around. Dragons flight 16:33, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I can attest to Dragons flight's correctness in this case, and while I was one of the ones who was unhappy with his earlier actions, I know that he is correct and will support his actions elsewhere. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 17:34, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for that, but as I said above the whole experience with other encyclopedias burnt me out, and I don't intend to be the one to press the issue. Dragons flight 21:04, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

An apology

A couple of days ago I unblocked myself in a dispute with another admin. Everyone familiar with the incidents surrounding this action aggree that the original block was entirely uncalled for, but my unblock was unnacceptable at the highest possible level. While I made my apology clear over at WP:AN/I, on the advice of another admin I am repeating it here: what I did was wrong, an abuse, and was destructive to the ideals and values we all share. It was not an action taken with malicious intent; it was a mistake, but a doozy of one, and I offer my apologies to all. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 03:02, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Brookie :) - a collector of little round things! ^(Talk!) 10:59, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I think that it's fair that you told us here. It shows good faith in the admin that he would allow his actions to be scrutinised by the wider community. - Ta bu shi da yu 16:01, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Just want a quick comment

Just want to see what others think... am I being too anal? It's about Anti-Secession Law of the People's Republic of China - I've been having a discussion with Free Citizen (talk · contribs) about the placement of external links. He/she wants to stick them anywhere, and I think that looks messy. See for example [1] and [2]. I've been trying to see if the user will change his/her mind on the user talk page to no avail. Comments please? Thanks... enochlau (talk) 11:29, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I think external links should go at the bottom in the section reserved for them. -Husnock 15:51, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Don't forget about the reference extension (<ref>This stuff goes straight to bottom [link]</ref>) — Ambush Commander^(Talk) 22:22, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Cool thanks guys. enochlau (talk) 23:06, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Tt1 and World War II ranks

Fellow admins, Tt1 is cuasing quite a stir and creating problems at Comparative military ranks of World War II and the article on SS ranks. The user is adding very questionable and possibly non-existent German ranks then, when these disputed edits are removed, will simply edit war and has already been blocked for 3 revert rule. The user has now taken to using anon ip addresses as sock puppets. The user has rarely discussed these edits on the talk pages and, when the user does, has a very bad grasp of the english language making the edits very hard to understand. Anyway, it doesnt look like this user is going to stop and we are rapidly apporaching article protection, I feel. As I am involoved in the editing, I ask other admins to come have a look at the situation. Thanks! -Husnock 15:36, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Seconding everything Husnock says. This editor is basing everything he adds on a single source and will not accept that it might be wrong, despite everyone else disagreeing with him. -- Necrothesp 16:26, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

URGENT: User:Tt1 has been blocked for violation of the Three Revert Rule under an anon IP address but simply has changed IP address and logged right back on. He is now on about the 6th or 7th revert. A page protection is highly warranted and extended block against Tt1 for these actions. -Husnock 18:19, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

This is the wrong place for this, please post a reqest to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection. Mike _{(T C)} 18:59, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

We put there too. The user who was edit warring is now back under the login User:Roitr, apaprently not taking no for an answer. -Husnock 19:31, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Then follow the standard process. Have a non involved admin review the situation and block if necessary as at least a 24 hour block appeared to be. But instantly escalating to the indefinite blocks that are currently in place is innapropriate. Evading a 24 hr block is not grounds for an indefinite one. A block of 48hrs to a week and then more discussion on how to handle the issue would have been the more appropriate thing to do. Since the 24 hr block appears appropriate we have at least that long to discuss how long to extend it if need be, I see no reason to undo the current blocks yet. - Taxman ^Talk 20:55, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

You're right, perhaps the hammer came down a little too hard. I reduced the blocks to 24 hrs. howcheng {chat} 22:13, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I also agree, blocking indefinitly so fast might have been harsh and too quick. An admin unconnected to the article did intervene and the permanent blocks were etablished by others after that admin had reviewed the situation. This user has now edit warred under no less than 5 different anon ip addresses and apparently two different user names. I'm also new to this kind of thing, and probably didn't follow the book exactly as to how admins should behave. I apologize in advance for any improper things I did and encourage others to correct me. But, on the other hand, I strongly feel we are very clearly dealing with someone who has no respect for Wikipedia policies and will continue to edit war until he/she gets thier way. -Husnock 22:14, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

That's fine, but if you're unsure, read the policy guys. When in doubt, be conservative. 24hrs is plenty of time to discuss to see if a block needs to be extended. If the user returns after the block and repeats the same thing or does it with another IP or username, then reblock for a slightly longer period. For me it depends on how obvious the violation is, but repeating the exact violation immediately after a block expires is obvious intent to disrupt and earns a week then a month then more if need be. That only applies when the behavior is obvious and isn't simply a content dispute. Now when it's obvious its the same person but new usernames or IP's, consider 24 or 48 hr blocks for each. The longer the block the more important it is to get admin consensus on it. Again, just do a shorter block and discuss if need be. - Taxman ^Talk 22:35, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Roitr resumed his edit warring as soon as his block expired. I've reblocked him for 48 hrs now. howcheng {chat} 23:14, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Unfavorable first impression (as a contributor) of Wikipedia

Hello. I just wanted to drop a line here as I couldnt figure out where else it should go. I love the idea of Wikipedia, but I do not like the eagerness of users here to delete information. There should be an eagerness to preserve information. There should be a willingness to offer unfiltereed access to items that may or may not be of interest to you, with the understanding that the information just may have relevance for someone else. While I understand there needs to be a baseline which must be met for inclusion, the bar should be set relatively low. One line nonsense or obvious fiction are one thing. But article that are relevant and are newsworthy should be given the benefit of the doubt.I do not like the loopholes that clog up the processes here. I do not like that an article that was unable to be deleted can be renominated over and over again until success is achieved (unless apparently we are talking about the GNAA site which while FAR more offensive and irrelevant than anything in this article people somehow refuse to delete). There is nothing to restrict users from constantly redirecting, merging, blanking, or AfDing an article that has made it through AfD process without a deletion or merger mandate if that article offends them or if they singularly disagree with the decision of the AfD discussion.As I said before, I like the idea of Wikipedia, and I have used it extensively in the past as a resource to garner information. I may continue to do so, but the likelihood of being an active contributor has diminished greatly after seeing what I consider to be a blatant disregard for the work of others by users who often times have an agenda which is obviously not the provision of information to the masses. Processes here are abused and manipulated. Thank you for your time. Tokyojoe2002 19:41, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

What precisely was deleted that you thought shouldn't have been? — Phil Welch Are you a fan of the band Rush? 19:45, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I refer specifically to the article "saugeen stripper". Some valid arguments have been made for merger, although I believe that at this time it merits its own article. But that said, as soon as the first AfD was closed (the article made it through AfD without consensus), the article has since been blanked, redirected, merged, vandalized, and now AfD'd again by users AND ADMINS with no consideration of processes. many have indicated they have moral objections to ther article. Is wiki an arbiter of what is moral suddenly? And I thought there was supposed to be a 30 day moratorium on AfDing an article. I just don't get it. Leaves an awful taste in my mouth about what this place is all about. I dont expect anything done about it. I don't know who could at this point. I just felt I had to make my feelings known somewhere. Tokyojoe2002 19:56, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Can you say how or from where you formed the impression there was a deletion moratorium of any kind, and specifically a 30 day one? On your general complaints, yes, this is the correct place for the issues to do with out of process/improper deletions, though as the article's been recreated, currently exists, and is being re-voted on, I don't see much urgency to that question. It's of course not the best place for discussing the merits of a particular article, or of inclusionism or deletionism in general. Alai 20:43, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

This may have been a byproduct of some things I have read (specifically, on the Saugeen Stripper discussion page) where users refer to possibly relistting the article when the "30 days are up", although it seemed like a plausibility tinged with common sense, as it would seem inappropriate to allow an article to be repeatedly AfD'd one on top of another. I guess I misinterpreted something somewhere along the line regarding that specific requirement, although I still believe this has been a nightmare in terms of process violations. Tokyojoe2002 20:50, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I understand now, thank you; I'd misinterpreted you to mean a 30 day grace period for any deletion of new articles. Yes, immediate relisting for deletion isn't normally allowed, but in this case, we in effect have disputed closing of the original AfD, and "relist" was the specific consensus at deletion review, so that part at least is entirely within process. If you feel the conduct of any particular editor or admin is especially at fault, you may wish to go to RFC. Alai 21:08, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

There are approximately five billion other websites where you can put any old rubbish you please. Why complain that an encyclopedia doesn't want an article about a student who took her clothes off? Mark¹ 19:51, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I am complaining about the lack of adherence to process. If during the article's initial AfD process the article was deleted, I would unhappily deal with it. But the closing admin delared no consensus. The article was kept. And immediately, other users and admins began a personal crusade to "right the wrongs" of the AfD. I think that us uncool. Again, I don't expect specific action taken, thats not what this post is about, I just want someone to consider the process and how it is not adhered to and respected by users and admins. Tokyojoe2002 19:59, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

The article in question is Saugeen Stripper. android79 19:54, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

While I support keeping the article (now on AfD) I think most of those opposed have based their views on notability or encyclopedic worth, not on "moral" grounds. We have articles with far more explicit sexual content than this article ever had, and no one seriously tries to delete any of them. DES ^(talk) 20:02, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

As for the matter of process, surviving an AfD (particuarly with a non-consensus result) is not a reason that the content cannot thereafter be changed or deleted. I strongly support process, as Wikipedia:Process is Important will show, but I don't see major process violations here. I argued that the redirect/merge was being imposed without consensus, but the AfD process has been perfectly open and I see no problems besides not agreeing with the views of many there. However, that will happen from time to time. DES ^(talk) 20:02, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

DES, while I respect your opinion, and appreciate your support, I have to disagree that there have been no process problems. From the moment that the previous AfD was closed, there has been a specific admin that has made it his personal mission to prurge this article from the pages of wiki. he twice attempted to outright delete the article, the decision to do so was not arrived at in afD. Then, once that stopped working, he repeatedly began redirecting the article WITHOUT INCLUSION OF THE INFO. He did this at least a handful of times despite beiung asked not to. And then the article was relisted for AfD short of what I could swear I read as a 30 day moratorium on relisting. The primary goal of this admin was, I believe immediate removal of the content. The secondary mission was to make this article such a lightening rod that it would generate negative interest among the wiki community and enough support could be rallied to achieve a sure delete on a second Afd.From the moment that the AfD ended there has not been a blink of process followed, and it is extremely disheartening. I created the article. Admittedly I have a personal desire to see the information contained within disseminated. But why someone would have an equally strong passion NOT to see that take place is bewildering and disappointing. Tokyojoe2002 20:09, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree that this is an abuse of administrator power, of the sort we are seeing increasingly. As an administrator and user of Wikipedia, I personally apologize to you on behalf of the community. — Phil Welch Are you a fan of the band Rush? 20:24, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I haven't looked into the specifics of this case, but Tokyojoe2002, you have to realize that Wikipedia is a project made up of thousands of different volunteers with many different opinions. Ideally everyone would behave appropriately and nicely, but human nature is that that will not always happen. I also apologize on behalf of the community if you have been wronged, but reallize if you have been, it is from individual actions, not the project's. I think the project as a whole could certainly use a return to civility and kindness to deal with disagreements. Unfortunately as the project's popularity skyrockets we seem to be getting worse at basic courtesies. There is still dispute resolution that you can avail yourself of as we do all have an interest in having participants of the project follow our rules, and important one of which is civility. - Taxman ^Talk 20:31, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Taxman, while I agree with what you say in general, in cases like this which revolve around process irregularities and wheel warring it really shouldn't be the responsibility of someone like Tokyojoe to sort it out. WE failed here, and I would like to join Phil in apologizing for the mess the administrative community has put Tokyojoe through. Dragons flight 20:39, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you to Phil, Taxman, and Dragon. I appreciate your comments. Note, I have encountered many good-intentioned admins here (DES above is another), and I do not paint admins with one sweeping stroke. But it is just disappointing that the small percentage of admins who do not honor process and do not respect content that they may disagree with can wield so much power here. I wish there was some way to preserve this article, but at this point, the situation has spiraled out of control. I believe that those who wanted from day one for this content to disappear from wikipedia will succeed. But I want to make situations like this known in hopes that someone with the power to do so can make sure that they do not happen again so that someone's efforts are not so readily discarded. Tokyojoe2002 20:47, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

The Saugeen Stripper article has been merged with the Saugeen-Maitland Hall article in what most involved contributors seem to agree was a mighty fine job. For those that don't agree with the content of the merger, there's always the article discussion page to debate the issues and possibly add/ edit content. I don't think I've seen Tokyojoe2002 posting on the Saugeen-Maitland Hall discussion page, just the Saugeen-Stripper discussion page. Barry Wells 23:40, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Mistress Selina Kyle continued violation of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL

Mistress Selina Kyle has continued violation of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL at the talk page for Template:User Aspie in the response to a serious question I posed regarding the usefulness of this userbox [3]. I am unable to resolve this issue via her talk page as any edits to that page are construed by this user as vandalism. --malber 20:55, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Further violation of WP:CIVIL: [4] --malber 21:28, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

This is why I suggested, at least, one week block, to let her think about it as the 24 hour block seemed useless. SWD316 ^{talk to me} 21:43, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't see an outright policy violation yet. It's probably violating etiquette and good manners, and it's an antagonising post, but so far it's a violation of assuming good faith (guidelines), not policy of civility and personal attacks. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 21:47, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm forced to disagree with you here. From NPA: (bolding is mine)

• Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks will never help you make a point; they hurt the Wikipedia community and deter users from helping create a good encyclopedia."
• Accusatory comments such as "Bob is a troll", or "Jane is a bad editor" can be considered personal attacks if said repeatedly, in bad faith, or with sufficient venom.

This is disruptive conduct and certainly goes against the policy of creating a good enviroment for an enyclopedia--Tznkai 21:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Mistress_Selina_Kyle--Tznkai 21:50, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I can't see any evidence from the diffs provided of an NPA violation: this edit from malber (talk · contribs) doesn't make me anymore inclined to take action. Physchim62 (talk) 21:59, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

The comment MSK made is that "BYT has stated that he wants to "see this article gone" for religious reasons, this is an attempt at POV'ing Wikipedia". This is semi-bad faith, but not an outright violation. This wasn't a personal attack so much as an accusation of vested interest (which is different from "is a troll"); accusations of vested interests are bad of course, and should be discouraged, but there aren't as horrible. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 22:19, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Its very similar to accusing someone of being a bad editor. It was a clear case of poisoning the well despite her aggreement not to do so. Furthermore this is the remnants of an accusation of vote-stacking. Instead of a friendly "please don't do this, she accused of vote stacking by a biased editor whos judgement cannot be trusted because of religious beliefs. Those are big guns couched in styrofoam words.--Tznkai 22:26, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Erm, if I get this correctly, she meant to discount a vote because, for one, anything up for deletion is more about consensus than a vote, "religious reasons" are not a valid criteria for deletion. It's not so much more of the belief of the editor than the criteria the editor gave...then MSK bashing the editor for it. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 22:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Can we do this on AN/I?--Tznkai 22:34, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Is the noticeboard too large?

Should we reorganize it or create a new supplemental board? If interested, please take a quick look at Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard#Shape and size of AN/ANI. Radiant_>|< 22:59, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Spam protection filter

A subpage of my user page, User:SWD316/Vandals, has a Spam protection filter on it. This is what it said:

---

The page you wanted to save was blocked by the spam filter. This was caused by a link to an external site.

See the spam blacklist on Meta for a full list of blocked sites. If you believe that the spam filter is mistakenly blocking the edit, then please request that it be fixed on the spam blacklist talk page. The following is the section of the page that triggered the filter:

The following text is what triggered our spam filter: overflow:auto;height

---

Why? Just because it has the text overflow:auto;height, on it makes it spam? I don't understand this at all. Can someone take my subpage(s) off the spam blacklist? SWD316 ^{talk to me} 00:07, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

The spam blacklist is at m:Spam blacklist. [[Sam Korn]] 00:08, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Kiand

He has been put here for making personal attacks on me, especially in relation to my use of the common term British Commonwealth. He then went ahead and called me a bigot. What a cheek! I have posted a message telling him that his attacks on me has plunged to new depths such as that as Sinn Fein/I.R.A.. I am sick of his persistant vandalism of my British Commonwealth-related articles. - (Aidan Work 00:24, 19 January 2006 (UTC))

Complete garbage. Mr Work's major contributions to WP have been

• attacks on his talk page - see his 'people I hate' attacks
• doctoring articles to add in his personal version of names, irrespective of how inaccurate or outdated they are (eg, the "British Commonwealth" as a name has long been abandoned and is not used, even by Queen Elizabeth. But Mr Work is determined to force its usage.);
• pushing extreme right wing political agendas;
• moving articles to his preferred version of a name, ie including a full stop at the end of article names despite repeated appeals to stop.

Kiand along with others has just been engaged in stopping Mr. Work's endless POVs and abuse of people in articles with whom he disagrees. Wikipedia has been extremely tolerant of Mr Work's behaviour and edits, some of whom could be described as POV vandalism. Others have been blocked repeatedly for less. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 00:32, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

This is not the first time that Mr. Work has placed a bogus notice on this board, [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], as well as wholesale deletions from the noticeboard, [10], and the reasons have been the same, his exaggerated offense at the reversion of the Brit-o-phile non-Neutral PoV term British Commonwealth or being upset for being called on his homophobic or anti-republican agendas. He himself was put on notice for his potentially litigiously injurious remarks, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive19#User:Aidan_Work, where user Chris O said prophetically in closing on Dec. 12 that "no doubt we'll be hearing more of Mr Work in due course".

Despite much reversion, and notes on his talk page, and blockings, and notes in the history summaries of pages he has worked on, Aidan Work persists in 1) violating Wikipedia Style guidelines such as placing links in section headers, 2) mis-using the English written language in an encyclopediac context ("&", "2" instead of "two", semicolons in place of colons), 3) The term British Commonwealth has not been the official term since 1946 and therefore is not applicable to periods or entities since then, 4) Pushing the name Ulster beyond the proper bounds of its use, 5) Pushing the term "Dominion" in contexts where it has been abandoned, 6) pushing a monarchist agenda by introducing and over-emphasizing references to royalty and peerage even where un-warranted, 7) making vicious homophobic remarks on talk pages, 8) equating the Sinn Fein (and by extension any republicans) to "sub-humans", hence his attempt to insult Kiand that way in this very notice, 9) abusing the notice board process with bogus notices because he is upset his agendas are being thwarted on Wikipedia.

Unfortunately, it often happens that this type of personality maintains a high degree of anger and grievance at the world until possibly, but not even then necessarily, old age brings a small measure of wisdom. I move that his note here be ignored and that special attention be focused on his edits, in an effort to get Mr. Work to understand that pushing an agenda uphill doesn't work and that cooperation is much more effective. Hu 01:28, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Aidan Work. User:Kiand has been doing a lot of work to clean up after Aidan Work, who does not (yet) understand Wikipedia conventions and styles. Aidan Work reacts very badly to these changes, with anger and spurious charges of vandalism. And the vitriol he spews against homosexuals and Sinn Fein (for instance) are not acceptable here. FreplySpang (talk) 01:32, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Aiden Work has created a lot of work for editors and administrators on wikipedia by persisting in not following conventions and policies, for instance the rfc stated previously details some of them. Many people had in the early stages realised he was a new contributor and deserved some consideration as is usually given, however he has repeatedly insisted on not following conventions and policies (using outdated and pov terms, and ignoring the manual of style - for instance using the period for article titles) and theirfore I would have to conclude that any complaint against Kiand is unfounded. Djegan 01:48, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Note: I have temp. blocked Aidan Work (talk • contribs) for recurrent personal attacks: block log, last straw FreplySpang (talk) 07:32, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I agree with this. I've also seen Aidan's POV-pushing on various Irish republican-related pages, his bizarre attempt to label Sinn Fein a fascist organisation, and his refusal to cite sources (e.g. "You don't need sources, as Gerry Adams' bigoted views are common knowledge anyway"). See some discussion on my talk page. I think Aidan is fundamentally missing the point that this is an encyclopaedia. Talrias (t | e | c) 10:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I more or less agree with Talrias; mr. Work seems to be of the opinion that he somehow has ownership regarding articles he's started, and generally disregarding (ignoring?) the whole concept of Wikipedia by refering to Kiand and Hu as vandals when they corrected/edited some of his articles. I've also tried to contact him via his talkpage on a few occasions, to offer any advice on where to find guidelines, but have not recieved any answer from him. Bjelleklang - talk 03:02, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Had I not been so close to the action I'd have blocked Work indefinitely a long time ago. How many more times will good editors be subjected to his abuse before he gets his just desserts? Abuse like the following -- "as seen as you had the cheek to make a personal attack on me,I will be putting your name at the top of the 'Bigoted Wikipedians' list. As far as I can see,you're a low-life scumbag! Do you know why? Firstly, because you've admitted to being a Commie,a republican pig who supports Sinn Fein/I.R.A. terrorism,&,of course,you've admitted to being a pro-faggot,which in itself means that you will burn up in the Lake of Fire in Hell along with the Nazi Pope of Rome! There is one good faggot - a dead one! One which has either been shot or blown up!". Yeah, that's typical Work.Moriori 03:22, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I think that crosses a line. I've looked through his edits of late. He has

• consistently ignored WP rules to move articles to the incorrect article titles he demands, and attacked users who dare return pages to their consensus location here's just one of the moves
• demanded that users seek his permission to edit his articles [11]
• posted homophobic and other attacks against users [12] [13]
• posted personal abuse about a number of users on this page [14]
• posted abusive comments on various users' pages attacking named figures [15]

That is just a small selection of his antics in January 2006!!!

He has also set up phoney redirect pages in ludicrous forms (eg, all in capitals but with no links, articles including a period at the end of the title, etc). He has posted large amounts of garbage, made rascist attacks, pushed blatently POV agendas in articles, tried to turn pages into propaganda, etc etc.

Given the abuse, the attacks, the breaking of Wikipedia policy, the demands that users seek his permission to edit "his" articles, and now above a phrase against gay people that would lead to his presecution in many jurisdictions over "incitement to hatred" I have blocked him indefinitely from the site. We have enough to be dealing without having users constantly abused by a rascist homophobic bigot day after day. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 04:27, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Menu thing when editing

I don't know if an admin added this feature or the devs, so I'm posting it here. The new dropdown thing beneath the edit box is very nice, but it means gallons of javascript code that most people will never use. Is it really useful to make people on dialup drink so much (to them) redundant HTML? Surely not. -Splash^talk 00:42, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I aggree. I know gobs of hard work went into it, but it really is a bit unsightly as well. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't work and it imposes an undue burden on users, especially new users. I did the thing of installing a monobook.js, which is a burden for new users and a bother for experienced users. This caused a second menu to appear in front of the blank menu that recently appeared under the special characters list. When I select a language, nothing happens, and I still don't have the characters I need and that I used to have available when I needed them. There are other problems too. Can we go back to the larger list of special characters, please? That was useful and worked. Hu 01:41, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps a new option in the user preferences to turn it on or off? --bainer (talk) 02:02, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

• It's probably part of the Mediawiki text? I would strongly recommend turning it off, I know it's been needlessly increasing page load times. Also, the items listed should be restricted to things people actually use a lot, and that definitely does not mean "includeonly" or FORCETOC. Radiant_>|< 20:43, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Please... it's killing me. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 20:52, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

• Ah yes. MediaWiki:Edittools. Indeed, there has been a lot of hard work put into that. Please join the discussion on its talk page. Radiant_>|< 21:09, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about the load, but it's not "needless", I find it really useful. But it shouldn't be forced down people's throats, I agree. dab (ᛏ) 21:38, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

It appears to have been restored to the simple, effective, and (most importantly) working full list of yore. Thank you. Hu 02:08, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

The last version worked fine. You either don't have javascript enabled or are doing something weird for it to not work. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-01-20 06:12

Nothing weird and I have Javascript turned on. I got the drop down menu, it just didn't do anything. Netscape 7.1 and you can inspect the monobook.js code that I was required to insert from Edittools into my monobook page (that's imposing a burden on new users and a bother on experienced users). Hu 07:27, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Treason

See new user created: User:Mr. Treason is back. No contribs yet. Might be making a sleeper sock. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 03:22, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Also, it seems a lot of "Sanka___"-type accounts are being created. Not sure it means anything, just something to keep in mind. Special:Log/newusers --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 03:25, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I strongly suspect it's not Mr Treason at all (he's been missing for almost a year and a half). However, the North Carolina vandal has been active tonight, making dozens of socks, attacking the Christianity article (how do I know? 1) he's obsessed with Danielle Cunio, which was his first sockpuppet name, 2) he's always active this time of evening, and 3) I just shut down his range of 63.19.128.0/17 for three hours at 03:14, and the vandalism immediately stopped). (If I'm wrong I'll unblock it at once, but I have a hunch I'm right). NCV knows all of our historical vandals and loves to imitate them: what he wants more than anything else is attention. Antandrus (talk) 03:32, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I didn't figure it was really Mr. Treason, just thought an eye should see what I did. Any ideas on the whole Sanka___ thing? (It might be a page back now) --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 03:35, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

That one I don't know... it is a little suspicious. Have any of them edited? It might be a common name prefix in Hindi (google "sankarankoil") ... Antandrus (talk) 03:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think any of them are editing. I will check a few, but the names are create so fast that it wouldn't appear they would have time to be editing with all the names. BRB. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 03:54, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Nope, none of them are contributing. Although I did find this gem... User:Martin Luther King Jr. who did edit once. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 03:57, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Mr. Treason loves Lucky 6.9 also. Going back to check for more. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 04:33, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Also, keep an eye on User:Irving Washington, User:Brett leigh dicks, User:Fawcettt, User:Thomas Jefferson, User:Angelina Jolie... so many possibilities. Night. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 04:39, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I think it's a very real possibility that Mr. Treason is in fact back. Look at the edit history on Essjay's user/talk page, i.e., [16]. This was as a result of Essjay's suggesting that Oldwindybear was behaving similar to Mr. Treason [17]. Guess the comparison pissed him off (note, Oldwindybear's not him). He also started leaving comments as this IP [contrib history (see from Oldwindybear to present). · Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 15:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Hm, yes, thanks for pointing that out: the style is distinctive. The IP ranges are new, but he's likely changed location. He's a charmer, no? Antandrus (talk) 19:31, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I think any of the Mr. Treason-named accounts can be blocked indefinitely for an inappropriate username. --Deathphoenix 15:29, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Also, User:FireFox is a gay bitch should probably be scolded harshly. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 20:24, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind... I am slow. Curps got 'em a long time ago. Stupid, LV, think before you type! --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 20:26, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

GNAA "War on blogs" campaign

See User:Timecop/The war on blogs and also see, for instance, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TechPhile (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Unalienable Right. Some of the blog articles they are systematically targeting may be legitimate deletion candidates; it's just that few websites end up in an improved state after any organized campaign by self-proclaimed GNAA members. So a little extra scrutiny of what they're up to wouldn't hurt. -- Curps 22:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I've already looked over most of the nominations and they're great. Timecop is operating completely within Wikipedia's rules. He should be thanked for focusing on a specific area of cleanup. silsor 23:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Until as recently as five days ago, they had The Volokh Conspiracy in their hitlist queue (until some anon IP removed it from their list). That raised a big red flag that they might be trying to sneak some non-delete-worthy articles past us, mixed in with the crowd of more obscure blogs. And their methods are questionable regardless of whether any given targeted article actually is a valid deletion candidate or not: meatpuppets systematically voting as a bloc on multiple articles in response to an organized campaign, often with few other contributions to Wikipedia other than the systematic party-line AfD voting. -- Curps 23:21, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, there's reasonable evidence of this, as they've tried it already. Phil Sandifer 23:44, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

For those who aren't aware, User:Timecop is the founder and leader of the GNAA. -- Pakaran 23:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Femmina, User:Depakote, User:Jmax-, and User:Tapir do almost nothing on Wikipedia except vote to delete blog-related articles. An honest effort to delete useless articles would be fine, but these guys are clearly coordinating their efforts off-site and they don't care if they delete useful articles. They all vote "delete" soon after an article is nominated, in order to build momentum. Rhobite 04:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Rhobite - I realize they are from a "trolling organization" but it seems like an honest effort to remove what is otherwise blatent spam. Also, despite the notariety, timecop has made mostly good contributions (which admittedly is kind of strange given the circumstances). I and several other admins are already watching this list (I've voted delete on most and keep and transwiki on a couple others) so I don't think there is a need to be worried at the moment. WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 05:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I take issue with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler (deleted and currently listed on WP:DRV) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/W.bloggar (current AfD). Anyone who is familiar with right-wing blogs will recognize the Rottweiler; it won a couple awards in 2002 and 2003, and has been linked from LGF, Instapundit, et al. I think this blog is clearly notable. A disappointingly small number of people voted in its AfD. I will also be very annoyed if W.bloggar is deleted. Thousands of people use this software to post entries to their blog; I used it in the past. GNAA made no attempt to assess the notability of this software, and there are several illegal votes in the AfD by users with no other edits. I see you voted to keep that article, and I'm glad that you're not just knee-jerk deleting. That's what they are doing. It doesn't matter if they get it right most of the time - I care about their disruptive methods. Rhobite 05:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm right-wing, I maintain a blog, and I've never heard of it, nor do I gutlessly promote my own droll musings. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 11:45, Jan. 11, 2006

Well, in terms of the Rottweiler article there is obviously geniune disagreement between admins over that one with the majority favoring deletion - plus the GNAA interference in that debate was somewhat minimal (indeed the debate itself was rather minimal). As for W.bloggar that will probably easily be kept, and even if it doesn't there are other high-edit and admins who wanted that article deleted also so it isn't really an open-and-shut case. While the pile-on votes from the new users are somewhat disruptive, as far as I can see it isn't much different then the old schoolwatch debate a while back - except this is even in userspace and not public space. In terms of nominations they actually provide at least some varafiable information (google hits, alexa rankings, etc.) and guideline arguments for most articles which is honestly more than most AfD nominations do, and this was due to criticism about earlier nominations so it seems like an honest attempt to contribute. Call me optimistic, I guess.WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 06:07, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you consider "minimal"... two votes were by self-proclaimed GNAA members (Timecop, Femmina) and a possible third (User:supers). Without those votes the deletion wouldn't have happened. -- Curps 22:05, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

In the past Fammina has denied involvement in the GNAA (not that I neccesarily believe that, but I can WP:AGF), and it is a stretch to throw supers in as they are not usually ones to be quiet about their allegience. Even then it runs into the problem of guilt by association and the fact that the users you mention are not really new users here and have other contributions. However, I am slightly concerned with the queue, but the process itself is working ok (besides, if I were to post something like "GNAA NOMINATING GOOD ARTICLE FOR DELETION, PLEASE WEIGH IN" et al. on the blog talk page I'd wager it would be kept pretty quickly. WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 22:29, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to contradict, but Femmina has a GNAA logo on his/her user page. Hence, "self-proclaimed" GNAA member. We might charitably suppose this represents a change of heart rather than the original denial simply being an outright lie. -- Curps 05:28, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

That wasn't a lie. Check the dates. When I argued with Silsor I was in the process of joining the GNAA, now I am a member. Simple as that. Femmina 19:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Don't forget that in their "queue" are several very notable articles including Moblog, Sousveillance (publicized by Steve Mann and covered on Slashdot), Overheard in New York, Video podcasting, and MetaWeblog (widely used API). I wouldn't be surprised if they followed through and nominated The Volokh Conspiracy as well. This isn't good-faith editing. No user should make it their sole purpose to delete articles from Wikipedia. Rhobite 06:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Stop conspiracy theories. The only people who want to read tripe like "The Volokh Conspiracy" are the same people who enjoy Photocasting from their newly-pucrhased Intel Core Duo MacBook Pro's. Volokh WAS in the queue, no idea which idiot removed it. Probably the article author (and the only person who actually cares about it). --Timecop 07:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Stop conspiracy theories. Kindly don't insult people's intelligence. It's not a "conspiracy theory": it's a open, visible-to-the-naked-eye conspiracy. --Calton | Talk 13:20, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I added sousveillance to the list. A neologism being plugged on slashdot doesn't convince me of its validity, and it's worth debating on AfD. But that's irrelevant, the point is that timecop & co are operating within the rules, on a job that SOMEONE needed to do sooner or later; the avalanche of blogcruft and foocasting articles was getting crazy. There's enough people watching the War On Blogs to make sure it stays copacetic. Proto t c 07:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

You do bring up a good point: luckily RN was watching Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/W.bloggar closely enough to catch you voting twice. Rhobite 15:45, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out, Rhobite - I honestly hadn't noticed.

It may well be related to the above, but I tried to merge The Volokh Conspiracy into Eugene Volokh, only for User:Curps to revert with no explanation. Lack of communication is not conducive to keeping things pleasant. Proto t c 11:33, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you could have done some communicating or discussing yourself, right here for instance, before carrying out part of the GNAA agenda (immediately after doing that merge, you posted to User:Timecop/The war on blogs, writing "Done" next to the Volokh Conspiracy entry on their target queue). You obviously knew that attempting that merger would be controversial, not least because you were aware of the above discussion, having posted in this current discussion yourself yesterday [18]. It takes a certain chutzpah for you to complain about lack of communication. -- Curps 11:42, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

"The war on blogs" AFAICS is really just a glorified cleanup project, and I myself have listed fine articles such as TWBPSK Kevin Ray's Corner Blog for deletion, and have done some real non-deletion-related cleanup of blog-related articles. The merger was well within WP:BOLD as the controversy here was about deletion, and the merger was fairly nice. I'd encourage people to sit back and relax and let others handle it if they are vehemetly opposed to anything with a GNAA label on it. WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 21:39, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

sousveillance has been nominated for deletion twice already: Talk:Sousveillance, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sousveillance. Uncle G 19:06, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

---

For what it's worth, Timecop posted the following to the Wikiproject Blogging page: [19] (arguably vandalism and reverted as such; that's not a talk page). It seems to be a pretty clear indication that he's motivated by a visceral dislike of blogs in general. We all have our pet peeves, but that doesn't justify what amounts to a censorship agenda. -- Curps 07:56, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I hate to harp on this, but Timecop is now making not-so-veiled threats. [20]

The problem is, you're getting into something you shouldn't be part of. If you don't read blogs, stop caring about what happens to them. I guess you can consider this a warning of some kind.

Moving this section to the bottom of the page. -- Curps 04:18, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

There does seem to be some.... erm.... (I won't say that word because last time I did it led to nastigrams) including this diff which made me laugh out loud :). Even despite that and the fact that they have expressed a desire to delete good articles such as Little Green Footballs it seems to be mostly minor disruption. Plus most of the ones nominated lately are good picks, and quite frankly are in the words of one afd commenter "NONSENSICAL GARBAGE!", heh. I don't know, maybe just warn to block if they continue to do silly stuff like that :). WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 04:39, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

In light of Jimbo Wales's recent mailing list message about rudeness on AfD, we need to discourage people from insulting the article's subject in an AfD. It is fine if you don't think a blog should have an article. But please don't encourage users to call these blogs "garbage", "crap", etc. Jimbo gets plenty of complaints from people who are upset that the first result of a Google search on their name is a rude AfD page. Rhobite 04:45, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad you moved the section Curps. Wonder how much longer we're going to put up with these threats along with sockpuppet votes, "nn blogcrap", "delete garbage" votes, etc. Some "new" users in the war on blogs:

• User:Aigis - 10 or so small edits followed by "delete" votes in almost every one of the new round of blog AfDs.
• User:NONCENSORED Popeye - few edits outside AfD, reincarnation of User:GNAA Popeye who was blocked
• User:Cptchipjew - a few legitimate edits, many edits to GNAA topics and AfD's, then many "delete garbage" votes on blog AfD's.

Rhobite 04:40, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

You're right about the socks (well, maybe they are most like meats), and a checkuser certainly seems in order for some of them. Pontificating aside though, these "quality" (note the sarcasm) articles such as Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Blogivism are getting deleted resoundly without help from socks and the like. WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 04:47, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Does that mean you don't like User:Timecop my userpage? :( --Timecop 05:47, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Yours is pretty tame, actually :) WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 06:25, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Since when do we care so much about the human bean and so little about the contribution? These protestations of "GNAA! Everyone look!!" seem a bit shrill. If the nomination is a good one (and I've tuned them up a few times about how to make good ones) and the closer isn't brain dead (we can only hope) this is a total non-issue. So, we've got a few people doing block voting... is this something new? *cough* school watch *cough* So we've got some off-site organisation... it this something new? *cough* IRC, mailing list *cough*. This thread started out reasonable enough, but has devolved. The time would be better spent presenting clear, verifiable evidence to AfD of a blog's notability.
brenneman^(t)(c) 06:17, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

• Oh, I agree - perhaps I'm slightly guilty of that myself - but as you can see I've been one of the few vigerous defenders here (there's even more at User talk:Curps et al.) and I do agree with that statement. WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 06:22, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Personally, I think that the bar should be set *very* high for BLOGs to be considered suitable topics for an entry on Wikipedia, and unfortunately we've generally been hurt by a lot of bars that *should* be higher having slipped. As unusual as the source is for this effort, I feel that it's likely to produce results that are good for the project. It is also worthy of note that some GNAA members, most notably SPUI have become valuable members of the Wiki community (even considering his odd sense of humour) -- we cannot assume that people who are initially hostile to the project will remain so indefinitely or that their contributions are automatically without merit. --Improv 07:10, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I can't see the problem either. Everyone knows Timecop, knows he has an agenda, and I for one take the time to check the ones I vote on; most of them really are blogcruft and seem to get deleted by solid consensus, with lots of names I recognise as regular AfD voters outside of the GNAA nominations. But then, I have never seen a problem with bringing articles to AfD - good articles should not get dleeted (and in my view generally don't). We're more likely to keep a crap article than delete a good one. I think it's absolutely right that someone other than a blog fan also runs through these lists. Of course, if Mr Ego were to take a back seat for a minute the bloggers and GNAA could work together to get the blog content down to manageable proportions, and cover the lesser but still moderately important subjects, like minor subgenres, without creating disporportionately vast articles on nonentities (can we say merge, children?). - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 17:49, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to endorse JzG's comment above. Why is this being debated still? Eusebeus 16:56, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Based on the jeering comment Timecop left on the Wikiproject Blogging page, it hardly seems like he's interested in "working together" with them. And what to make of his comically over-the-top threat to me... he seems to have delivered it in earnest. Maybe someone should Kelly Martin his inane "Jews did WTC" userboxes.

I can understand the "it's all good" attitude some have expressed here, but just like even the guiltiest defendants deserve a fair trial, even blogcruft deserves a fair vote. The appearance of fairness is not served when each vote starts out with half a dozen GNAA meatpuppets stacked against it, and new ones being created all the time (eg, User:Viscid created today and already voting, or User:Blackyheartiez a little earlier). "Process" is hardly being respected.

And they're not exactly civil or assume-good-faith-y in their Afd replies either [21], which seems likely to drive away good contributors or create another webcomics-like fiasco. -- Curps 21:59, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I bet you are a real contribution here Curps, whenever you want i can start fixing thousands of articles wich are completely wrong and also help to get ride of a LOT of articles wich are using text from another websites with no authorization at all. I guess you didnt know this till now, because all you do is to point your finger at the GNAA with no real evidence, you just hate gay people, you hate the GNAA. Whenever you have time, visit my page, i have some great userboxes.Blackyheartiez 23:14, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. It's true that most of these articles should be deleted - but at least make it a fair fight. And there's no excuse for telling some poor blogger that their site is garbage or their neologism is crap. If you can't act like an adult you shouldn't be voting in AfD. AfD is one of the most public (and nasty) sides of Wikipedia. Rhobite 22:43, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

This whole thing is silly. As an administrator, Curps, you should know that administrators are capable of making judgement calls on the veracity of an AfD vote before closing it. If they feel the vote has loaded by sock/meatpuppets who have barely made any edits, then they are able to make a decision. And both sides of this argument could do with consulting WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL a little more closely. Rhobite, if you dislike what the 'war on blogs' is doing, then perhaps you could try and present pertinent, researched, cited reasons during blog-related AfDs. Even if the GNAA mass-vote, if there is a good, researched reason to keep, then enough people will vote keep to ensure the article remains. If there is not, then the article will - rightly - be deleted. Proto t c 12:21, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Mediaa

I left a warning at User talk:Mediaa about making threats. We might want to keep an eye on this user. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:21, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

MediaWiki messages: a call for stability

The last few weeks, there have been a lot of rather important changes to MediaWiki messages that weren't discussed and were not necessarily a good idea. Examples include the Symbols menu, changing "history" to "page history", adding "all pages must cite sources" to edit text, and changing "rollback" to "revert vandalism". All of this has now been reverted, by the way. There may be more, such as the recent revert war over Sitenotice.

We need some people watching RecentChanges in that namespace (it's not that long) to keep an eye on it. We should stress the point that nobody should change the basic interface layout without discussing it first, except for the Devs, and presumably board members sticking up an important message. Radiant_>|< 21:33, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. There is way too much experimentation on this messages too... in the best interests of everyone, you should have a local MediaWiki installation which you can test these changes, and make sure that it's HTML not Wikitext the message wants. — Ambush Commander^(Talk) 21:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, I suppose. But we need a place to discuss them, that people actually watch. I will experiment with another wiki. Notice the "history" tab there is unambiguous to newbies.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 21:50, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

That's why the MediaWiki namespace is the cabal. ;-) — Ambush Commander^(Talk) 22:06, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

You know, ambush commander is fun magic card :).Voice of All^T|@|ESP 22:44, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there have been edit wars raging between usually the same sets of users on various MediaWiki pages. I wonder if the attraction is a kind of "bright lights" thing when you know what you do will instantly affect everyone everywhere. Whatever it is, it needs to stop, as I've said in several places. We should have a rule, yes golly some instruction creep, that admins, by convention do not edit those pages without discussing there changes on WP:AN or WP:VP or somesuch first, and defintiely never without providing a working test somewhere that people can hack about with in advance. There were times when I've come close to blocking the lot of the people afflicted with MediaWiki-itis. -Splash^talk 23:17, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually I think not even the devs and the board should change it without discussion unless they have a good reason since much of the edit warring on sitenotice was caused by the fact that certain unnamed people who may or may not have been devs and/or may or may not have had impromptu and definitely unnoficial board meetings decided to unilaterally add ugly notices to the sitenotice message and used the so called "will of the board" as an excuse to revert all changes to it. That being said those who were rabidly anti-notice weren't much better. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 23:39, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

• Splash is probably correct. I should also point out that discussing it on a MediaWiki_Talk page is not really going to help since nobody much ever reads those. Radiant_>|< 00:39, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, that's why I suggested AN or some other high-profile page. It takes me 15 minutes just to work out which file someone has "edited", let alone the time it takes to work out why/when and then to post a note on a talk page that noone apart from the "editor" is likely to read. -Splash^talk 01:44, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

historicaly I suspect people have kept quite about mediaWiki in order to limit it to those who have at least some idea what they are doing.Geni 01:48, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

• It shouldn't take long to figure out which message someone's edited. Just pull up Special:Allmessages and search for the text that's appearing. Warofdreams talk 02:04, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank goodness the set of symbols to insert has been reverted back to the simple, but effective medium sized list that we had available for so long and that was so useful. Hu 02:11, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

• Uhm, no offense, but the split apart version was far more useful to a wider variety of people. Now we're faced with the existing single box being expanded and consuming even more screen real estate... —Locke Cole • t • c 02:13, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • The split apart version did not work, as I explained in a section above. Even if it did, it imposed a burden on new users and a bother to experienced users with the requirement to install javascript code into monobook.cs or similar. Hu 05:38, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
    • AFAIK none of the versions required user interaction to get working (they only required Javascript to be enabled, which must be enabled in any event because <charinsert> utilizes Javascript to do its magic). I'll try and find your complaint regarding the split-apart version and perhaps address that seperately. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:44, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
    • The instructions I was required to follow on the Edit Tools page (I think that was the page, but I don't remember I just followed the instructions that appeared where the characters used to be) required installing code into the monobook "page". My remarks above are here. Hu 06:59, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

• That's fair enough... however could I request a prominent link to our site policies when people create an account? We shouldn't give them the excuse that they didn't know about what is expected on the site. I have added the link to appear after you login, but don't know about new signs. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:28, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • There is one when users log in already. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 06:14, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I am aware of that: I put it there. We still need a link to the policies when the create an account. I just created one, and there is not a single link to inform new editors of our site policies. How can they be expected to play nicely when they don't know the rules?! - Ta bu shi da yu 15:39, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Official complaint to the BBC

I have made the following official complaint (this is somewhat misleading... what I really meant here is that I made a formal complaint. It's been pointed out my sig maybe somewhat misleading, however it is not: I am a Wikipedia admin) to the BBC (form can be found here, I recomend that as many people as possible fill this out so they will know our disgust at such irresponsible behaviour: UK people are especially encouraged to fill this out):

I wish to make a formal complaint in regards to your radio show "The Scott Mills Show". On January 19 they made various edits to the free online encyclopedia, Wikipedia that were false and/or ridiculous (for instance, they wrote "Edith has been romanticly linked with an ironing board." on the Edith Bowman article).

I can provide exact links of where they did this, we maintain an audit log of every change that we make. They also had to create an account "Joshworkinghard". When they log in to the site, they are expected to follow certain site policies: these can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines One of the policies is our policy on adding absurd or ridiculous information, which we class as a form of vandalism. They appear not to have followed this policy.

My complaint is that a media organisation appears to have decided that it is OK to vandalise our website, with the participants seemingly paying no thought to the consequences of their actions, or the reputation of the BBC. After all, I was not aware that the BBC, a respectable institution, condoned and encouraged vandalism!

Would Scott Mills and Mark Chapman create an account on Kuro5hin or slashdot and then proceed to add malicious or ridiculous information? There are similarly easy ways of gaining accounts on these websites, methods in which you will not be identified. The point that Scott and Mark were apparently trying to make was that anyone can edit the website with impunity.

Perhaps I should put this a different way. You can go to a public space where there is no surveillance underway, grab a can of spraypaint and then vandalise the wall. You would do this with impunity. Does this mean that the DJs of radio shows should broadcast that they are vandalising public property because they can get away with it? I think that the answer here is fairly clear.

So, to summarise: I would like to make a complaint about the conduct of your employees, Scott Mills and Mark Chapman when they vandalised various pages, of which I can provide detailed evidence. I would like to know what the BBC's position is on the deliberate vandalising of Wikipedia, or of any other website that are publicly available. Does the BBC encourage or condone such actions?

Finally, I would like to request that you cease and desist from such actions. We provide a valuable service to the public, and while we have some issues of vandalism from individuals, we NEVER expected to see such an august institution as the BBC participating in such petty and irresponsible actions.

Cordially,

Chris Sherlock

Wikipedia Administrator

I was not aware that the BBC condone vandalism. Does this mean that Scott Mills and Mark Chapman will be creating a slashdot or kuro5hin account to deliberately vandalise those websites? - Ta bu shi da yu 02:26, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Since Wikipedia and the BBC are both in the information industry, this could be seen as anti-competitive behavior on the part of the BBC and might even be illegal in civilized countries like the UK. (It matters not that Wikipedia is non-profit.) Is it more than the miscreant's jobs are worth? Hu 05:44, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I am more concerned that the media thinks it's OK for them to vandalise pages. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:55, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

That's the point, of course. It doesn't matter much what the motive is. Not much excuse for it. Hu 07:02, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Could you provide some more details? If, on the one hand, journalists were trying a breaching experiment to understand and report on how Wikipedia deals with vandalism, and they repaired everything when they were done, I wouldn't really be bothered by it. But if they were just messing with us for the sake of messing with us and getting some laughs, then I would agree that it was entirely inappropriate. From the summary you give above I can't really tell what they thought the purpose of their actions were. Dragons flight 07:09, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

It looks like vandalism to me. [22] If they wanted to understand wiki all they needed to do was watch recent changes, or ask someone. It's not like we don't have enough vandals already. Regards, Ben Aveling 07:15, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, they continued to vandalize after being reverted several times in the span of a few minutes. I think what's worse is that they (either indirectly or directly) encouraged other anons (and a few users) to vandalize those pages. — TheKMan^talk 07:20, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't really think anyone but the Wikipedia board can make an "official" complaint. The BBC's facilities have previously been used to create hoax articles (see Jamie Kane), and the BBC was quick to attempt to dissociate themselves from them. [23] Jimbo seems to have a good relationship with them, and I would suggest that perhaps an approach by Jimbo might be a more productive avenue to pursue. - Nunh-huh 07:20, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I think writing as "Wikipedia Administrator" makes it looks like you are writing on behalf of Wikipedia, when you are not. It's not up to you to complain to large outside organisations, seemingly on our behalf, without discussing it first. Secretlondon 07:27, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

What are you on about? I am a Wikipedia administrator, and that is how I will continue to sign my emails. It does NOT mean that I am a paid employee of the site, but nonetheless I am still an administrator, and will continue to be an administrator doing admin tasks for the foreseeable future. My admin status is not in dispute, and in fact never has been. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:49, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

When you sign a letter Wikipedia Administrator you are writing on behalf of the organisation, or so it appears. Offline, Administrator can be the title of the senior member of staff, certainly in the voluntary sector. No-one is denying that you have the post of administrator within Wikipedia, what you don't have is the authority to speak for Wikipedia. I'll try and give an example to make things clearer. If one is elected as an officer of a trade union for example - you can support a campaign without the permission of the Union by signing it (Personal Capacity). If you'd signed your email Chris Sherlock, Wikipedia Administrator (Personal Capacity) I would have no problems with your conduct. Secretlondon 15:06, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, point taken. Apologies for getting snippy, there probably wasn't an excuse but rather my over defensiveness (I can be a spiky bastard sometimes). I will do that in future. - Ta bu shi da yu 15:34, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Are we 100% sure that Joshworkinghard was from the BBC? Regards, Ben Aveling 07:30, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

If we need to, we can request that the IP address of this user be cross referenced to the BBC netblock. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:50, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Not a bad idea. But what I meant was how do we know that they did it? Did they admit to it on air? Regards, Ben Aveling 05:11, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

See http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/01/19/wikipedia_radio_one_fun/  — TheKMan^talk 06:09, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I guess that's good enough to proceed on. I won't do it now, but something like "Dear Mr BBC, I am a volunteer at wikipedia. I believe that on <date> two of your announcers commited deliberate vandalism at wikipedia <details> and encouraged other people to do likewise. Thanks to considerable effort by other volunteers here this damage has been undone. Does the BBC acknowledge that the vandalism occured? Does the BBC condone vandalism? Will SM & MC apologise to wikipedia readers and volunteers? Regards, Ben Aveling" Having just seen An Inspector Calls, I'm not of a mind to call for anyone to be sacked, but I think that mainstream media organisations ought to be discouraged from this sort of stunt. Has anyone had a response yet? If not, how many complaints do you think we'll need to raise for them to understand that this is not a good thing for them to be doing? Regards, Ben Aveling 12:47, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

---

I wish to make a formal complaint regarding your radio show 'The Scott Mills Show'. On the 19th January, Scott Mills and Mark Chapman made various edits to the free online encyclopedia, Wikipedia that were false and/or ridiculous. For instance, they wrote 'Edith has been romantically linked with an ironing board.' in the article regarding Edith Bowman). The Wikipedia has a number of policies to help guide people towards producing a better encyclopaedia, when logging in it is assumed that these will be followed. A copy of these policies and guidelines can be found at this url: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines. One of the policies relates to adding plainly ridiculous, insulting or obscene material to articles. This is described as vandalism and is not allowed. In the process of their editing they ignored this rule. Logs are kept of every change made and details can be provided of exactly when, where and from which IP the vandalism was made. Presumably if they are editing the encyclopaedia whilst working at the BBC, they are editing it in a professional capacity. I would assume that you have some clause in their contract which explicitly forbids them from certain actions while working as they are your representatives. I would like to know what the BBC's position is on the deliberate vandalising of Wikipedia, or of any other website that are publicly available. Does the BBC encourage or condone such actions? I'm sure that the BBC would not be particularly impressed if a 'hacker' were to vandalise the BBC home page to make a point. While editing false, misleading or obscene content into Wikipedia is not illegal in the same way as 'hacking', the principle is the same, disrupting a website in order to make a point. I would appreciate it if the stars of your radio show would refrain from vandalising the Wikipedia and also refrain from inciting others to vandalism.

Yours,

Francis Tyers Wikipedia Administrator (writing in a personal capacity)

Larry H. Miller

I just removed some vandalism from this page. Among the additions was a suggestion that Miller has fathered a couple of his own grandkids. I'd suggest deleting it would be a good idea. James James 02:30, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Done. Physchim62 (talk) 13:01, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Repeated deletion

I just deleted the article Puh. This is the fourth time this month that someone has deleted it - for the same content. I known that there is a procedure for these cases to prevent it being recreated but can't find it in the guidelines. Rmhermen 03:22, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

{{deletedpage}} and protect. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 03:33, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

If there is something remotely suitable to redirect to, you can do that and protect that too. The policy on the deletedpage template seems to imply it should only be used temporarily, which I find a bit odd. Either way if a really good reason comes up to have the article it can still be discussed on the talk page so there's no major problem. - Taxman ^Talk 15:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I think {{deletedpage}} should be used indefinitely. It's not like any admin should be arsed to come back in a week and remove the template from GEORGE BUSH SUCKS DICKS because someone might have a good reason to create an article with that title, and most of the time someone used the template, it was on an article that should never be created in any form. Maybe we need to revise the policy. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 03:31, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

That's what I think obviously. I guess the downside is it makes a blue link, but that's not really a problem for readers of Wikipedia because they should never see a link to an article with deletedpage on it. I can't really find where I saw that it was supposed to temporary so maybe I just made that up? I suppose we can discuss it on the template talk page. - Taxman ^Talk 16:05, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Your help is appreciated

Irismeister (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hello all. Sorry to have to call in the cavalry, but (pursuant to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Irismeister 3) I thought I’d point out the following diff. [24] Assuming I am reading the ruling correctly, if an admin believes I am being legally threatened or personally attacked by this comment, the AC authorizes a ban of between one month and one year, at your discretion. If you don’t, that’s fine: we can try waiting and see if he’s learned his lesson. Given the diff is one of his first ten edits back after a year’s ban (and I’d encourage you to review the others if you want to see how else he’s spending his time), I feel as though his meaning is pretty clear. Thanks in advance for any help you care to offer (and any advice you may offer, if you think I’m overreacting—I would be open to hearing such an argument). Unless/Until he's banned, I'd humbly suggest somebody keep an eye on Irismeister's contributions: having played that role twice to the limits of my ability to handle stress, I doubt I'll be as proactive this go-round. Jwrosenzweig 07:24, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I find that statement "And you thought you can spread lies and libel endlessly, without yet another judicial procedure and without your being personally and financially accountable in a court of law..." a blatant threat. I have blocked for three days, to give us time to discuss block duration here (meaning I'm not saying I think it should necessarily be three days). I have a further question though, and it's this: why is Irismeister back? This case is from a while back, but looking at the history of User:Irismeister, where the log of ban resets was being recorded, I find that the ban was reset in March of this year [25] by Theresa Knott, and as such Irismeister should still be banned. In fact, any of these edits he's been making may as well reset the ban another year, and considering the immediate legal threat, I don't see a great reason why not to. Thoughts? Dmcdevit·t 07:59, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Well earliest should be 5th March 06 as that's when the ban was last reset. However considering his behaviour I'd have no objects to extending it further, if not indefinitely. Secretlondon 11:39, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

That's a blatant legal threat and seems clear grounds for another reset of the ban for a year from now at least. - Taxman ^Talk 16:23, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

OK. As an administrator I consider that to be a legal threat. I also believe that he is currently banned from editing Wikipedia until 5 March, 2006 as his ban was last reset on 5 March, 2005. I am therefore resetting his ban from today for a year. Secretlondon 16:30, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

He should be blocked indefinitely, until he disassociates himself from wikipediaclassaction.org. User:Zoe|^(talk) 17:56, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked him with an expiry time of indefinite (blocked, not for a period of time, but rather until legal threats resolved). ➥the Epopt 16:44, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Tom Rubython / legal chill

Could someone with knowledge of Wikipedia legal issues check out Talk:Tom Rubython? An edit war (well-referenced hatchet job vs. unreferenced whitewash posted by Tom Rubython himself) has got into legal threats. Tearlach 15:51, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

If that is another Wikipedia user which posted that legal threat, then by all means provide us that person's user name and they will be blocked. If however, it is an outsifde party simply saying they will sue us, there is not much we can do since they wouldnt have an account here. That really just looks like big talk, though, nothing serious yet. -Husnock 15:56, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I should specified: yes, it's Tajr@businessf1.com (talk · contribs), with probable sockpuppets including 86.128.0.48 (talk · contribs), 217.40.136.50 (talk · contribs) and 81.139.84.174 (talk · contribs). The whole article history is largely an anonymous edit war. Tearlach 16:06, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I think we ban Tajr@businessf1.com (talk · contribs) for legal threats. The article needs cutting down into something referenced and neutral. Secretlondon 16:42, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd agree, I'd also revert the page now as it's currently the unformatted unreferenced version. Would that be the right thing to do? - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 17:04, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

He just violated WP:3RR. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 17:12, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I've banned for a week - mainly because of the legal threats, but also for 3RR. Also serious Wikipedia:Autobiography problems. Secretlondon 17:17, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, but it seems nobody had formally warned him about conduct at all; I have now done so. I suspect that if we can engage him we will end up in a better position than if we lock him out, so you might want to reconsider on the sole grounds that no warning was issued on his Talk page and he wasn't properly warned on the article's page either. I suspect that he may have the smarts to play nice. But I'll leave it to your judgment. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 17:27, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

He's been involved in actual legal cases regarding libel etc. This gives his legal threats more weight in my mind. It's not just a freak with an internet connection. He's only edited the article on himself, and has threatened to sue over content. He should have been warned (and welcomed for that matter) but I can't not take threats to censor us seriously. Secretlondon 17:33, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I will see what I can do to find out the facts. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 17:37, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Great Secretlondon 17:42, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Outdenting again for clarity. I have had an email from him: it does seem that he knows (or knew) pretty much nothing about policy, and is in a blind panic about the article because of the timing, which may have been deliberate on the part of person who posted it. Here is his email:

Most of this stuff is total nonsence. There are references to it but not

genuine ones. It is being put up by a character called Richard Woods who

originally used the identity of a photographer who works for me to post it.

The original posting was put on Wikipedia on 6th January. It was then edited

and then sent out separately by e mail to 3,000 readers and cutomers at a crucial time for our business when we are trying to renew subscriptions. The impression was that this was an independent biography published by

Wikipedia.

This is turning into a disaster and if you leave this up we will go out of business and ten people will lose their jobs.

The people who have done it have also managed to move it up the Google search list so when people are googling the first thing they see is this.

If this was a genuine biography the people who posted it would not need to

steal someone else's identity to post it. And they would be open with their

own identity.

Can you please do something about and put the stub up until this is investigated. I don't mind a fair biography but this is hurtful rubbish.

Now, I'm not suggesting that ten jobs outweighs policy - if the man is a shit, we should say so, in neutral terms of course, but this does highlight that he saw a pressing need to fix the problem. It is also largely my fault that he violated 3RR because I rolled back when I should have reverted to Tearlach's stub - Tearlach was absolutely right to do that, I have seen Jimbo do the same and I have been there before so I should have known and have now fixed it. So I think the 3RR could legitimately be put down to a combination of clueless newbieism and me inadvertently pouring petrol on the flames. I have advised him that debate is best conducted on talk pages, and that WP:AUTO is not there for fun, so I'll see how he responds. Meantime, I'm trying to get some neutral biographies (profiles from business papers etc.) It is undoubtedly the case that he has been sued, but so have Richard Ingrams and Ian Hislop (many times), and I note that his travails were at least partly at the hands of Carter-FRuck and partners ([26]) so I am almost sympathetic; the phrase "his legal costs, which are likely to be substantial" is a masterpiece of understatement where Carter-Ruck is concerned :-)

Anyway, I'd like to suggest that at least the block be shortened to the original 24h, since I am to blame for the escalation. But I will not get into a wheel war, it's your call. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 19:19, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I suport a reduction of the block in this case, if he violates again then reinstate a serious block. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 20:16, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I've reduced the block to 3 hours which hopefully will make it approx 24 hours. Left him a message on his talk page . I also had emails threatening to sue us for libel fwiw. Secretlondon 14:45, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm pleased to see Google now shows the stub version. Worth putting a block on the article itself for the moment? (I'm also partly to blame, by temporarily restoring a slightly toned-down version of the "bad" one because it looked superficially OK as references had been cited).

This is a pretty nasty attack, as it was obviously professionally written. As I've said to JzG, the details, individually, mostly check out; a skim of the NewsBank newspaper archive shows these legal cases aren't made up. However, with the "bad version" it looks well likely that they're cherry-picked to give a uniformly negative impression, and there's a lot of weasel phraseology. For instance, you don't get "prosecuted" (terminology from criminal law) for civil cases. Tearlach 15:23, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

It's an attack - but if it's factual I don't think we should whitewash. Secretlondon 15:34, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Requested unblock of Bonaparte

As a member of the AMA, I am appearing on behalf of Bonaparte (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been blocked indefinately for "malicious sockpuppetry and running a botnet." While this block was justified, he has since recanted his poor behavior, seen the light and is sincerely eager to rejoin the community and edit in an appropriate and civil manner.

As an example of the kind of editor that he has been and is eager to be again, he has made some excellent contributions to Wikipedia in some very obscure areas that most users know nothing about. He is not your typical useless troll; he has actually contributed something to our community.

• • Examples:
    • Accession of Romania to the European Union
    • Arvantovlaxika
    • Romance plurals
    • Dinosaurs of Romania
    • Andrei Pleşu
    • Intellectual property in Romania
    • Religious education in Romania
    • South-East Europe Regional Energy Market

• He has expressed regret for trolling and is willing to apologise and never use sockpuppets to troll ever again.

• In a similar cases, where a user was using *many more sockpuppets than Bonaparte and was doing the same thing as Bonaparte with them, he got blocked for 48 hour whereas Bonaparte was blocked indefinitely and has already served more than 48 hours for fewer sockpuppets.

This user has been reformed and he is formally requesting that he be unblocked and given a final chance to prove that to you. Thank you for your time.Gator (talk) 15:55, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I would not be overly concerned at his return. However, I would demand that he undertakes not to attempt mediation, whether formal or informal. I would also like to see him submit to a period of mentorship. I am not sure as to the specifics of the case, so I don't know whether I'm being too lenient. I am sure, however, that I'm not being too harsh. [[Sam Korn]] 16:01, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Sounds more than reasonable. I am sure he would not object.Gator (talk) 16:06, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

He got banned indefinitely only on the 11th Jan 06. However I can't see any explanation on his talk page or elsewhere. All we have is "malicious sockpuppetry and running a botnet". He got banned earlier for repeated attacks on Node over the Romanian/Moldovan dispute. He clearly has a history of edit warring but this is a controversial and heated issue. The fact that he's made useful contributions isn't in doubt. I'd like to know what the details of the "botnet" were before we unblock. This probably wants to go formal - we may want to stop him editing articles on Moldova for example. Secretlondon 16:55, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I will speak up for Bonaparte here; I think he is not malicious, he is just very passionate about his subject. The closer he gets to Moldavian nationalism, the more worked up he gets. I would offer to act as mentor but I know next to nothing about his chosen subject areas and don't speak Romanian, so that would be hard since many exchanges are in Romanian. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 17:01, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I've asked the blocking admin to comment here. There are comments on the admin's page that Bonaparte has been problematic on ro.wikipedia too. I don't think we should unblock until we get more info - one problem with admin blocks like this is that we don't have enough info - unlike blocks from the arbitration committee. Secretlondon 17:12, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Bonaparte was trolling as hell all this time on Moldovan wiki and continues to this day. It was on account of his sock puppets that Wikipedia lost one of its most precious contributors, User:Mikkalai. It is worth pointing out that running a sock puppet farm is just a fraction of Bonaparte's offenses. He will be more careful when vote rigging in the future and will post from different computers, so you won't catch him again. If the troll sneaks back, more valuable contributors will leave. People who have commented on the issue so far seems to have had very little experience with this archtroll. --Ghirla | talk 18:25, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

It was Ronline that made Mikka consider to leave, but in the end, Mikka did not leave Wiki. He' still around, tho not as much as before. --Candide, or Optimism 06:05, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

If it weren't for User:Node ue and the Moldovan conflict, Bonaparte would have been a normal contributor, as would I have been. But it's not a perfect world. --Candide, or Optimism 17:35, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Anittas, you will comment on your interactions with Bonapatte when your own case reaches ArbCom. There you and Bonny will have to explain your concerted homophobic attacks against Node. If things don't go his way, Bonaparte already promised to us that "Anittas and me will come and turn all them to dust. Let them disappear from there...". --Ghirla | talk 18:48, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive64#Sockpuppetry_by_Bonaparte_.28talk_.E2.80.A2_contribs_.E2.80.A2_page_moves_.E2.80.A2_block_user_.E2.80.A2_block_log.29 pretty much says it all about Bonaparte (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). If he is unblocked, it would be a piece of cake to make a case to have him banned by ArbCom in view of the evidence. The only problem with unblocking him is a giant waste of time that ArbCom will take from us and arbitrators and another giant waste of time to deal with his trolling in the meanwhile. --Irpen 18:36, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

From reading over the information here, I'd want a lot more evidence of reform and a lot more time with no disruption. What this sounds like is a disruptive user who when sanctioned is loudly promising to be good next time. That's not very convincing and we should be careful unbanning and wasting everyone's time. - Taxman ^Talk 18:55, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with all the above. I am just saying that I think the whole stupid escalation was not malice, much of the blocking was done by Mikka and even Mikka's friends have said that he did not exactly improve things, which is a shame because Mikka is a good guy and this made him look bad. I don't think Bonaparte is a saint, but I do think that he has trouble with strong opinions, and I think he has at least some justification for feeling aggrieved since nine of the blocks were by an admin with whom he was engaged in a content dispute; my problem is that I don't honestly believe in his ability to stay calm if provoked, and some people deliverately provoke him because they know this. I do not know if he was placed on probation before and violated it, I do know that the reason he wants to come back is not just to fight the same battles, it is that he is actually interested in contributing to the encyclopaedia. Which is not to say that, if unblocked, he won't get straight back into a fight. Feel free to ignore me, I am notoriously naive. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 19:05, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

That's a fair summary. Certain people take advantage of their ability to provoke Bonaparte, and also me, and then when we react, we pay. The provokers never pay, because some admins are simply blind. --Candide, or Optimism 06:05, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

As a Romanian-speaking Wikipedian who knew Bonaparte rather well, both on Wikipedia and through email contacts, I must say that I would be very very doubtful of his desire to reform. Bonaparte holds very ultranationalistic beliefs, and has been known to use any means to advance them. That being personal attacks, either logged in or anonymously, the abovementioned botnet, revert wars, trolling, etc. I don't believe he does it maliciously, that's who he is, and these things don't change easily if at all.

I believe he will be a lot of trouble again if he comes back. I would like to see a written statement on his talk page promising to not do revert wars, no personal attacks, no multiple accounts, and be constructive on talk pages before even considering that. And I would support an indefinite block the first time he violates any of these. Bonaparte is one of those users who are a drain of energy and puts strain on others editors. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 19:22, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment: His abysmal performance as a member of the Mediation Cabal might be something to toss into the mix of things to weigh and consider. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:25, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

As the blocking administrator I have been asked to comment so I will briefly comment here. I blocked Bonaparte for being blatantly disruptive, being repeatedly rude towards other editors, edit warring relentlessly, using a number of sockpuppets to violate policy (especially 3RR), also for running a malicious bot net which is grounds for an immediate ban. I am opposed to any unblocking of him until a clear and concise case can be made that he will not continue his previous behavior even if that means him staying away from certain categories of articles and certain users. If he were allowed to continue now I feel that he would continue to edit war on articles, be incivil and this would just give him a chance to do a better job in the future of hiding his edit warring and bot nets. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 21:05, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Much as I like Bonaparte, it's hard to argue. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 21:37, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Let him in guys. He is not much worst then the user Node ue. But I did not see him getting blocked. In any case I think he has learned his lesson. Plus he DID make good contributions too. It's not like he is a troll or something.Constantzeanu 22:27, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

It is not clear at all whether he learned his lesson. It is unfair to compare Bonaparte with User:Node ue. Node ue is a 16 year old kid who has a lot more common sense than Bonaparte and who got verbally abused in many ways by Bonaparte. I sympathize with Constantzeanu who is Romanian, like Bonaparte, but I don't find his arguments convinsing. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 22:45, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Hey folks. I'm not sure if I should be divulging this, but I was corresponding with Bonaparte via email on & off during the past two months or so, and in one of his last emails some days before he was blocked he indicated that he desired to leave Wikipedia because, according to him:1) he had more pressing matters to attend to 2) he had already accomplished a lot of what he aimed to achieve 3) he never intended to be a contributor over the long haul. I will email him again & inquire about this some more. Besides the emails he sent me, which indicated clearly that he planned on leaving the English Wiki, does anyone have a shred of evidence that Bonaparte wants to return/be unblocked? Alexander 007 22:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Last I heard he was off to complete his PhD. Silly thing is he's been unfailingly polite in dealings with me, so he can do it if he tries. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 23:06, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about Bonaparte's Ph. D. but voting four times (with socks) to disrupt an RfA, trolling there in full-throttle and turning and RfA of an unquestionably worthy and decent editor into a circus (with the help of a couple of buddies) and, ultimately, through gullible unsuspecting Bcrat achieving the goal to make the RfA a failure is enough, it seems to me. If others think they need to see more reasons, read above one more time. --Irpen 00:24, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I have talked to Bonaparte in e-mail correspondence, and he has been very polite, moderate and overall a nice person to talk to. For this reason, I don't think Bonaparte would be a danger to the project if he is unblocked. I support his unblocking. Ronline ✉ 00:48, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I am sure that Bonaparte is quite capable of good edits. He can be very rational and polite when he wants to be, and I wouldn't be opposed to his return, but if he comes back, we'd have to ensure that "he wants to be" all the time. He has a history of trolling and harrassment, and has been warned more times than many of us can count without taking our shoes and socks off. As someone else mentioned above, if he went up before ArbCom tomorrow it'd be a dead cert ban even without Jtkiefer's evidence. If Bonaparte returns, I don't think the rules can apply to him anymore. He knows what he's doing, and following procedure — dispute resolution, warnings, etc. — just gives him extra opportunity for trolling. If he returns, he's on permanent probation. He's wasted the time of too many editors. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 02:47, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

After he used sock accounts on two RFA's: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Alex Bakharev and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Juro...my answer is no way.--MONGO 02:53, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't see the problem with an unblock here. If he has repented and will not be disruptive again then he should be allowed to resume editing Wikipedia and I counsel my fellow editors to grant him some space to do so, while not relaxing vigilance against possible recidivism. We only block editors if they are a net detriment to Wikipedia. If Bonaparte will not be such a detriment then he should not be blocked. This goes for any editor who has been blocked or banned in the past. Blocking and banning are preventive, not pre-emptive or punitive. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:29, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I strongly oppose any unblocking of Bonaparte. It's a very bad idea with no real benefit to the community. Bonaparte has a long history of supporting troublesome and abusive editors and created a large number sockpuppets, not just a few, and knowingly used them to rig votes among other things. All while he chose to participate as a mediator in resolving disputes, most of which were very poorly executed and likely done in just as bad faith as his sockpuppetry. His actions are by definition acts of bad faith and significantly abused the community's goodwill. Claims that he "is willing to apologize and never use sockpuppets to troll ever again" raise new questions. What will he use sockpuppets then for, if not trolling? An apology and promise is woefully insufficient for the community to again trust someone who so knowingly and repeatedly betrayed that trust for months already. Unblocking Bonaparte now is a slap in face to every good faith contributor whose vote or contributions were discounted due to Bonaparte's bad faith acts. FeloniousMonk 17:30, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I thought that Christians - especially monks - are supposed to be willing to forget and give people a second chance. I'm guessing that after your wrong usage of your tools on me, you are different kind of monk. --Candide, or Optimism 17:35, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Don't be rude. [[Sam Korn]] 17:43, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Anittas (aka Candide, or Optimism) was one of Bonaparte's pet projects. He was always there to excuse this sort of trolling. That's one reason I oppose unblocking him. FeloniousMonk 17:47, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

You are trolling right now and you accuse others of trolling? If you're not familiar with the situation, why speak out? And I was Bonaparte's pet project? What exactly does that mean? As far as I know, I joined Wiki a few months earlier than he did. --Candide, or Optimism 17:50, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Since Bonaparte only seems to have problems with Romanian-related articles and mediation, how about we unblock him with the promise that if he edits any Romanian-related articles, he will just be blocked again? Talrias (t | e | c) 18:00, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

His problems go beyond just "Romanian-related articles and mediation." For example he also cast RFA votes with socks. For a full accounting, see: [27], [28], and [29]. FeloniousMonk 18:20, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Let's just do a community probation on him. Prohibit him from editing anything related to Romania, including articles, talk pages and discussing contributors from Romania. Block him for 24 hours if he breaks it once, 48 if he breaks it twice, 1 week third time, and so on. Talrias (t | e | c) 18:24, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Bad idea, just like your serial unblocking of Marsden forcing Jimbo to step in. FeloniousMonk 18:32, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:Civility. Talrias (t | e | c) 18:34, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

"Block him for 24 hours if he breaks it once, 48 if he breaks it twice, 1 week third time, and so on..." What overwhelming need is there that requires the community to risk going through that much disruption and extra effort on someone who has already sufficiently proven his contempt for the project's aims to earn a indefinite block that had very wide support [30]? Please explain that to us. FeloniousMonk 18:37, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not explaining anything to you until you remove your personal attacks first. I came to discuss this sensibly and I was most surprised to see your previous comment. I would like to discuss this, but only in a civil manner. Talrias (t | e | c) 18:42, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I've made no personal attacks. I've merely said that that your doggedness in repeatedly unblocking shortening the block of Marsden required Jimbo's intervention to correct [31]. That unblocking shortening the block of Marsden was a poor idea was apparent to Jimbo, it seems. FeloniousMonk 18:49, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

FeloniousMonk, I find your comments to be utterly irrelevant to this discussion. They were also incorrect - as shown by you having to correct them. I also initiated a request for comments specifically about this issue, as you well know as I told you on your talk page. You did not comment on this RFC. Since you did not participate, I believe that your comments here about me are bordering on disruption. I believe you are attacking the person presenting a suggestion, rather than constructively criticising the suggestion itself. I would like you to apologise and withdraw your comments. Talrias (t | e | c) 04:02, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

As one who was once actually nominated for Adminship by Bonaparte once, I can say that for a while, my impression of him was that as a user, he could be both constructive, active and kind, as long as he wasn't provoked (or dealt with provocative subjects). He also seemed to have good relations with many Wiki contributors (and not just Romanians). When provoked he would indeed react in an objectionable way, but as time went by, he seemed to learn that there was some subjects he should avoid in order to not damage the Romanian cause unwillingly (Anittas for one gave him some advice of this kind).

However, the sockpuppetry activity on multiple RfAs was far more disturbing, and gives me second thought about speaking in favor of having him unblocked. If he could be placed under some sort of probation in which he would be closely watched, and banned for any kind of offense, An unblock might work in a positive wat, but I don't know if he himself would accept such a deal. Anclation 18:39, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

His extensive history of being blocked before his sockpuppetry and running a botnet would indicate otherwise [32]. Temporary blocks didn't make much of an impression on him it seems. FeloniousMonk 18:44, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

His sockpuppetry alone does not mandate an indefinite block. I actually feel that his persistent edit warring, personal attacks, and hamhanded attempts at mediation have been far more damaging to the community. While it is undeniable that he has made significant contributions to Wikipedia, it is questionable in my mind whether his readmittance to Wikipedia will do more good than harm. If he agrees to stop pursing the "Romanian cause" while on Wikipedia, an unblock contingent on supervised probation would seem reasonable. Absent such an agreement, I feel no strong desire to unblock him. Kelly Martin (talk) 19:13, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Just like unblocking User:MARMOT this will only server to exert stress on good contributors. I have no idea how many people MARMOT harassed (aka vandalising wikipedia by using their ips) and scared away. MARMOT was able to evade blocks as if they never happened since he could tell wikipedia servers which IP he wanted to pose as. See User:Brion VIBBER/Cool Cat incident report for the marmot incident report. People will be less hesitant to use sockpuppets and vandal bots if they face serious consequences. Sweet talk of "ex"-malicious users dont warrant my or yout attention. I oppose the unblocking of any user blocked indefinately unless it was an automated block. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 19:22, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why MARMOT's failure to reform should mean that no indefinitely blocked user ever can. [[Sam Korn]] 19:50, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Bonaparte has been notorious for his returning to various sorts of malicious activities every time after his promise to be good next time. He got the idea that this tactics work and he needs finally to be taught a lesson. I see no better lesson than a block for several months, at least, so that he knows that his behavior brings some real consequences rather than the counter having been reset every time he promises to be good next time. The main goal of the punishment in any society is to serve a deterrent from the potential malaise. There is no reason to believe that Bonaparte will reform only because he promised to. Only after he feels the consequences (that is forced to wait a long time) he may loose the desire to resume his trolling. After his unblock, he needs to me vigorously watched and still I think that unblocking him is a bad idea although I see, in view of the prevailing sentiment here, that sooner a later he will be unblocked. --Irpen 21:30, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, as Bonaprte's advocate here, I have quietly watched the discussion and was impressed with the dialogue. I understand the hesistancy, but formally move that he be unblocked, be carefully watched by multiple users and that a zero tolernace policy be adopted, whereby his indefinite block will be replaced if he reverts to his old behavior. Thank you again for your time and thoughts on this matter.Gator (talk) 14:55, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Well I will repeat what I wrote above, and specifically note I am against unblocking at this time. It's not that hard to edit constructively and follow the rules and anyone that has repeatedly shown they are unable to do that and is willing to disrupt wikipedia is a net loss to the project even if they make some good contributions. I don't see the value in wasting so much time having several users babysit a known problem. - Taxman ^Talk 15:20, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Just like Mikkalai, I never received apologies for having been blocked when I tried to fend off Bonny's socks from vandalizing an article, although that block violated both WP:BP and WP:3RR. But when I see the tolerance demonstrated here towards all the trolls and POV pushers who are allowed to roam freely on Wikipedia, awaiting their reform to become good and productive editors, it makes me think about reconsidering my own membership in this Wikipedia. --Ghirla | talk 16:12, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

One to check over.

I have just speedied British Republican Party; I would have tagged it as nn-group and let it pass by a second set of eyes but for the fact that at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/British Republican Party the article's author states: "we have just started up, and this is one of the only notable mentions of the party on the net. Currently we are creating a manifesto and bringing togther our viewpoints"; they don't even have a website. Now I am, of course, wracked with guilt, but frankly this didn't stand a snowball's chance at AfD, numerous others endorsed the idea it should go, and I couldn't see any point in wasting yet more people's time on it. But now I am having second thoughts so I'd like to just check that I did the right thing, more or less. And I probably didn't, so if I didn't I won't do it again. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 16:44, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it's vanity to be honest. We're not good PR, sorry. Secretlondon 16:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

If it is "one of the only notable mentions" then its unlikely to pass WP:V as well... --Syrthiss 17:42, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I think you did the right thing, people make up groups all the time, and if the only notable mention of the party is the article it self, then keeping this article means we keep ALL articles regardless, your decision was right dont worry. Mike _{(T C)} 03:29, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

AOL: Ain't what it used to be

Okay, it's official, Wikipedia now has a higher Alexa rank than AOL [33].

So can we block them all now... pretty please?? Dragons flight 03:34, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Wow. -Splash^talk 03:37, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Old grey mare she ain't what she used to be, ain't what she used to be.... :p--Shanel 04:30, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Is this sing-along time with Shanel? :-D SWD316 ^{talk to me} 04:34, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Well... I hope that at least comes with some added weight to complaints Wikimedia decides to lodge with AOL in the future, if they decide to do so... Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 06:15, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Questionable user creations

WOW: User:WhiteOwlWho ??? Just thought I'd mention it. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 04:35, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Highly doubt it's Willy on Wheels since his only edit lists his e-mail address at the bottom of his contribution. Since Willy is known for high-speed page moves, it's probable that it's not him. Willy would have vandalized by now. :-P SWD316 ^{talk to me} 04:41, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Except moves are restricted when the name is first created. And I wasn't saying for sure it was Willy, but I think we need to be aware of WoW names. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 04:44, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, the name means that this user's contribs should undergo some scrutiny, but let's be careful not to give this user the same welcome we gave to WoWjUnKiE7290. :-P --Deathphoenix 04:59, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I wasn't advocating anything but a watchful eye. Doesn't hurt to be alert. Wow, I just frickin' rhymed. Awful. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 05:05, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Tis a danger to rhyme when on wheels

for one might become someone who feels

so overwhelmed by the power

that it all might go sour

Playing tactics like a card-player who deals.

FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 06:28, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

• If that's supposed to be a limerick, you seriously need to work on your meter :) Radiant_>|< 12:09, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I dropped what I intended to be a friendly greeting on the userpage, so if it isn't Willy on Wheels at least he'll know why people are giving him funny looks. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 16:35, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Don't necessarily avoid meta-templates

By the way, for those not watching WP:AUM or Wikipedia:Village pump (technical), Brion says there is no server based justification for avoiding meta-templates and more generally "'Policy' shouldn't really concern itself with server load except in the most extreme of cases; keeping things tuned to provide what the user base needs is our job." Please see his statement at the top of AUM. Dragons flight 04:57, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

• Does that mean we don't have to substitute code for userbox templates w0000000t!!!!!!!!!!!--God of War 06:05, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Second opinion

Jason Gastrich (talk · contribs) openly uses the sock account Big Lover (talk · contribs). The edit history of Wiggins2 (talk · contribs) is also highly suggestive (look at all the talk page edits). This [34] shows a rapid series of edits by Gastrich, Wiggins2 and 207.200.116.11 (talk · contribs) all of which are, to my mind, unmistakably Gastrich. If these are one and the same then the period between 06:10 UTC, January 21, 2006 and 08:33 UTC January 21, 2006 shows four reverts to one article by one user. I am sure it is Gastrich because a neutral editor would simply have removed both the disputed articles in References rather than playing ping-pong with them. Comments? - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 09:34, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

We to have to find a way to stop him from continually using socks. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 11:49, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I think this has got to the stage of a user RfC, since there are several people unhappy about that. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 12:31, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Is this an error?

I just noticed -- on this page [35], when you hit edit there is some nice red text on the top which says the article can only be edited by admins. But this isn't true! I just edited the page. Unless I have been promoted without anyone telling me -- looks like there is something wrong with the wiki softare/ page. Could someone check it out novacatz 10:47, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

It appears to be semi-protected, which means that anonymous and very new users can't edit it, while everyone else can. --Carnildo 10:54, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I noticed that too. Might MediaWiki:Protectedpagewarning be modified to cover sprotect as well as full protection? (or otherwise make the message less confusing?) --Interiot 11:04, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it'd be better if we had a seperate warning for semi-protection. For what it's worth, I've made the same suggestion (as well as suggested messages in the event a semi-protection warning message is added) at MediaWiki talk:Protectedpagewarning. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:11, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

This is related to bugzilla:4667. — Ambush Commander^(Talk) 17:00, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo on userboxes

Copied from Wikipedia talk:Proposed policy on userboxes and various userpages:

Note from Jimbo

I wonder if you might consider...

I wonder if you might consider simply removing your political/religious/etc. userboxes and asking others to do the same. This seems to me to be the best way to quickly and easily end the userbox wars.

Userboxes of a political or, more broadly, polemical, nature are bad for the project. They are attractive to the wrong kinds of people, and they give visitors the wrong idea of what it means to be a Wikipedian.

I think rather than us having to go through a mass deletion (which is what is likely to happen if the userbox fad Jtdoesn't go away), it will be better to simply change the culture, one person at a time. Will you help me?--Jimbo Wales 10:53, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

In three years I have found the people who are easiest to work with, and most honest to deal with, are those who are totally open about their viewpoints. It didn't matter whether they were liberal or conservative, Catholic of Jew, pro-life or pro-choice, being open about who they are and their viewpoint enabled a reasoned, intelligent debate to ensue and meant people knew what viewpoints x or y would add into an article. I have found userboxes a godsend in that regard. Rather than having to write a long explanation of who they are, they can communicative their viewpoint quickly and effectively using a userbox. Others can use them to A line has to be drawn but most user boxes IMHO are perfectly valid. The genie is out of the bottle on userboxes. They cannot now be deleted without provoking a Wikipedia civil war. All we can do is try to ensure extremely offensive users (eg, This user hates queers, This user wants Israel wiped out, This user hates blacks) aren't used. The last thing WP needs is about outbreak of political correctness on WP, whereby users are banned from saying what their political or religious identity is. Allowing people to state their preferences also would enable WP to disprove claims of bias by showing that it has conservative users and liberal users, pro-israel and pro-palestinian users, pro-life and pro-choice, etc. Imposing censorship would frankly be a disaster that would drive many users away. Already the forced deletion by a cabal of a reference to a pro-life group on users has offended many and driven away some of our best contributors. People should be entitled as of right under free speech to say who they are and what their views are. Either user pages are deleted altogether or people should be given the right to reveal as much as they wish about their views. Free speech in a free encyclopaedia demands no less.

FSThis user is believes in FREE SPEECH
in a FREE ENCYCLOPAEDIA

FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 20:03, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Why presume that people only edit to add their POV? I know userboxes make me feel hostility to some users - I'd rather deal with their behaviour rather than their support for things that I hate. I see a userbox and I think POV warrior. Secretlondon 20:19, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

It you feel hostility because of a box, then you have the issue. People are perfectly entitled in an open society to express their opinion. Saying you oppose Bush, the House of Saud, abortion, Scientology, or whatever is your right. Saying Bush should be killed, the House of Saud all massacred, that pro-choice people are child killers, that scientologists are a threat to mankind, etc moves from free speech to incitement to hatred. That is unacceptable. Most of us much prefer knowing that 'User:v' is right wing, 'w' is left wing, 'x' is pro-life, that 'y' is pro-Bush and 'z' is anti-Bush, to not knowing. Professional editors can factor in a sensitivity based on knowledge. It is harder to do if they don't know the legitimate viewpoint of the person they are debating with. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 20:34, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree as a general rule it's not the editors with an admited POV who are the problem. It's those who claim the be neutral.Geni 20:48, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Well put, its a recurring theme on Intelligent design. Jimbo seems to have uncharacteristically missed the mark, userboxes haven't changed the culture... it merely more clearly labels the pre-existing (sub) cultures in Wikipedia. Thus it encourages summary (encyclopedic?) transparency, which is the core of Wikipedia culture. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 21:06, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

To give a practical example, three editors I can think of hold strongly republican viewpoints on Northern Ireland. One is up front and honest and is respected by all sides for his honesty he strives to use neutral language in all his edits. Two others never declared their POV but spend their time sneaking into articles to change NPOV language to pro-republican language, deleting links that don't support their agenda, all while pretending to be neutral. So while when the first guy enters, Irish users (a) know his viewpoint, and (b) know his trustworthiness, when either of the other two edit the edits have to be checked line by line to see what little barbs and POVs have they sneaked in this time. The first guy has never been involved in an edit war, even though he holds strong views. The other two, who feign neutrality, provoke edit wars everywhere they go. I am always happy to see POV userboxes on pages because it tells me the person is being upfront and honest about any agendas or viewpoints they have. It is when I see no userbox explaining their views, yet find they are engaged in heavy POVing, that I get suspicious about what is going on. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 21:00, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Couldn't users just tell people about themselves on their talk pages, without having to use userboxes? Do we need such rapid characterization of users, or are users so lazy that they can't write a little about themselves and have to resort to userboxes? "I'd like to tell other editors I hate Eskimos, but I'm just too lazy." ;-) But seriously, you'll be able to tell whether they are biased by their edits. Having a userbox just tells you their beliefs or where they're from, not whether they will add NNPOV content. All content should be checked, regardless of who it comes from. Userboxes should not be used to identify which users may be biased (by their presence or absence). Who the content comes from does not matter. What matters is the content and whether it is verifiable.

WP:AGF means that if someone claims to be neutral at least intialy you have to act as if you think their claim might be true. Someone who doesn't admit thier POV is a pain to deal with since they can of course point blank deny that they are pushing thie POV.Geni 03:29, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Also, userboxes make it look like Wikipedia supports the user's beliefs because the template makes it "official looking". If someone just stated their beliefs on their user page in text, it would seem more like their individual beliefs. -- Kjkolb 21:57, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I'll have to agree with this. When I first created my userpage, I thought I had too many userboxes as it was, but I've seen other users just go overboard with them. It reminds me of those cars that just have way too many bumper stickers. — TheKMan^talk 03:24, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo has replied on his talk page with this edit - [36].--God of War 03:18, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Checkuser lite

Since it involves admins in gereral, admin opinion on this is more than welcome. :) --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 12:53, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Samscone

The only edits this account makes is to vandalise the Sam Sloan page and to remove references to Sam Sloan in other articles. Isn't this the kind of impersonating account which gets blocked from Wikipedia? Surely, it's just been made to rhyme with Sam Sloan's name? - Hahnchen 17:25, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think a block is justified yet. I left another warning on his talk page. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:48, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't mean blocking for general vandalism or anything, he isn't that prolific. I thought that this was a candidate for one of those "username blocks", like Jimbo Whales, or when people replace an l for a capital I to impersonate people. - Hahnchen 18:48, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Paolo Fontaine

I suspect I'm coming into something halfway through here. Paulo_Fontaine (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has added nonsense claims to several articles, and appears to be using sockpuppet accounts (e.g. Barbara_Osgood (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Baron_von_Economo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Deborahdare (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Five_O'clock_Dog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Articles include

• Dog Standard, linked here
• Hoots mon, linked here and here
• Yes, cheese
• Noel's Things, hoax / attack on Noel Edmonds
• Added fictitious data here [37]
• Semi-fictional article for Simon Woodroffe (nearly bankrupt? Excessive generosity? Not the show I've been watching!) also includes this [38] linking to...
• Hummingbird (TV), a completely fictitous programme based on a book by...
• Roy Silk, a hoax.
• This [39] questionable edit
• This[40] may be true but "Pete Burns" "facial augmentation" does not Google, which would be unusual for a "leading exponent" in whom such obsessive interest is shown
• This [41] is, at least according to my friends in the States of Jersey, complete bollocks
• Edits like this [42] slipstream bogus content by including a "genuine" edit
• Others like this [43] are simply nonsense.

I am still working through the edit histories, this is a somewhat tedious job.

Various (low) levels of warnings have been added to the talk pages of these socks, but I suspect that I should be taking stronger action. My current thought is to leave a strong warning on every one of the linked talk pages, but others may support an immediate block. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 21:03, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Anon problem

There has been a very disruptive vandal IP Address, 165.247.83.151. He has been repeatedly readding personal attacks/nonsense on his talk page and yet he has not yet been blocked. SWD316 ^{talk to me} 00:33, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked the anon for 24 hours and sprotected the talk page. Canderson7 ^(talk) 00:51, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

user:Iron Jew

Iron_Jew (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) created a nonsense article, father mcginnisberg. When I listed it for speedy delete, he removed the speedy delete tag twice without comment. He then removed two afd tags and vandalised my user page twice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liamdaly620 (talk • contribs)

This sounds like an imposter/sockpuppet account of User:Ironbrew. Not only did he vandalize and possibly create a imposter account, but it looks like apossible usernameblock could be in store for "Iron Jew". SWD316 ^{talk to me} 03:00, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't see on the user contribution pages about deleting the AFD, maybe becuase the article's gone now. He has an apology posted on his page after two warnings. Further vandalism should be dealth with swiftly, without a doubt. -Husnock 03:04, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Curps blocked him indefiently for vandalism, well, I guess the apology was no good. :-D SWD316 ^{talk to me} 03:08, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I think his apology was an idle one, since I think he kept vandalizing after he posted it. Anyway, he kept removing several speedy tags and AfD tags that were posted on the patent nonsense/attack page he created. — TheKMan^talk 03:31, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Category:Living people

Ok, I just stubbled upon this category. This is probably the most broad category ever made on Wikipedia. Do you know how much of a hassle it's going to be to list EVERY single person who's alive. That's a pretty useless, if you ask me. I don't think we need a category to help us divide the people who are alive. I think Categories should group people/things that are unique. Unique in bieng able to list a few people/things into a category of something specific that not everyone has. Something that broad like if their alive or not is hardly useful. IMHO, I think this should be deleted, but I wasn't sure if everyone would agree with me or not so I posted the message here. SWD316 ^{talk to me} 06:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Related discussion may be found at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Disrespect of community opinion from an admin. — TheKMan^talk 06:51, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

The category will exist, by fiat from Jimbo, as a way to avoid another Seigenthaler incident. I think the idea is to form a "bio patrol" to ensure that living peoples' WP entries are up to snuff. · Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 06:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Also see discussion on wikien-l here. --Interiot 07:06, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

But listing people who are alive is useless and time consuming. Placing all of those categories by hand is just wasting time. I think users can keep articles up-to-date without the use of a mass category. SWD316 ^{talk to me} 07:11, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah but what can we do about it, the almighty Jimbo has spoken. The best thing to do is just ignore it and ignore articles in it. That's what i plan on doing to show my opposition to it. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 07:45, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

How very mature and helpful of you. — Dan | talk 18:10, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, what I did about it was send Jimbo a message and see if he will respond. I proposed deleting the category Living people and expanding on Category:Births by year. I don't think avoiding the articles are going to help Jtkiefer because it basically is every article. :-D SWD316 ^{talk to me} 15:40, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

As I understand it has to do with automation. A number of tech geeks have spoken up and noted that the catagory is the best way to handle it.--Tznkai 17:49, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

There is also the (vague, rumoured) possibility of providing an optional filter for RC. Bios of living people account for less than 10% of our articles but much more of our legal risk. Physchim62 (talk) 17:57, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

The Most Noble

Please note that discussion has moved to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies)#The Most Noble

Is this the right place to have a moan? I keep being reverted here. [44] Is it really true that Wikipedia policy says all articles about British Dukes dead and alive have to begin "The Most Noble" Tarquin Chinless-Wonder? as most of them recently seem to do. Because in 2006 it does sound (to my ears) really rather silly. For example Andrew Russell, 15th Duke of Bedford , Murray Beauclerk, 14th Duke of St Albans and David Somerset, 11th Duke of Beaufort. What about Spanish and Italian dukes can they be noble too? Thinking about this matter some more are any of the above (live) dukes notable anyway, apart from possessing their own names the same as anyone else. what have they done to be here? - but just for the moment let's consider "The Most Noble" Giano | talk 17:45, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

You're being reverted because you're acting against the Manual of Style. Please see here: [45]. Mackensen (talk) 18:18, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

This also covers The Right Honourable for members of the Privy Council, The Most Honourable for Marquesses, and so forth. Mackensen (talk) 18:23, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• I see nowhere there that antiquated terms should be used - are the married females who have an article on Wikipedia to be change to Mrs. John Smith or whatever their husband's were called because that was etiquette some time ago? Giano | talk 18:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

(sigh) That's because we didn't bother to spell out every single honorific prefix that exists. Honorific prefixes are included in Wikipedia articles, whether they refer to peers, priests, or politicians (with the exception of monarchs and popes, for whom we have different rules). Mackensen (talk) 18:34, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• ::::::(big sigh) you talk to your fellow countrymen in these terms (bigger sigh) that's terrific is it for the tourists? Giano | talk 18:41, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I'm an American, and if I appear short it's because I remember that long weeks of debating which lead to the established of the policy in the first place. I highly encourage you to read the manual of style before making changes which are simply going to be reverted. Thanks, Mackensen (talk) 18:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd also note that this is a content and policy dispute, which is better suited for the policy pages in question. Mackensen (talk) 18:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

As someone involved in sorting out the mess on royal styling I have to say that Mackensen is correct in interpreting WP policy as regarding peer's styles. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 19:01, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

The complaint about admin behavior is relevant here, though

I don't understand this reference to MOS at all. Mackensen,have you reviewed the MOS section you link to recently, are you sure you remember it right? As far as I can see, it shows that there is no policy, and no recommendation, for such cases; it says "The inclusion of some honorific prefixes and styles has proved controversial". That's it. How do you figure Giano is "acting against" that? The only actual policy mentioned by the MoS is that for royalty and popes we don't include comparable honorifics. That obviously doesn't mean that we do include them for nobility; theoretically it's not relevant at all, and insofar as it's a hint, it implies the opposite.
OK, this issue should go to the policy pages in question (where, again, are they?), but Giano's "moan" is appropriate on this page in regard to the behavior of User:Proteus, who has been persistently reverting him over many pages. Proteus isn't — just — in breach of the 3RR (it takes 4 reverts within 24 hours to be that) but he's certainly keeping just inside the 3RR[46], reverting the same change persistently on a number of articles, referring bad-temperedly to policy[47] without saying where it's to be found (apparently nowhere, so I can understand that), and some of the time using admin rollback to revert[48], implying that Giano's edits are vandalism. Oh, and I see a strong protest on User talk:Proteus against earlier such misuse of rollback ("at least 19 admin rollbacks to well-meaning edits")[49] — —I can't find any response from Proteus to it. None of these actions are appropriate admin behavior. Bishonen | talk 19:10, 22 January 2006 (UTC).

I would disagree with your interpretation. Unexplained deletions from articles, when there is strong consensus that they should remain, is hardly the way to go about things. The manual of style notes that such usage, while not universally accepted, is common. That's pretty solid for the MOS. I would also note that WikiProject Peerage, which does its level best to keep articles on peers, baronets, and British politicians in order, regards the use of honorific prefixes as standard practice. Giano's complaint against these prefixes seems to be that of many Americans; he regards them as antiquated appendages. That may well be, but they're still in use today. If he wants to get ride of The Most Noble then he's going to have to delete The Right Honourable as well. I think Proteus was perfectly justified in reverting these unexplained deletions. Mackensen (talk) 19:19, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

The Manual of Style doesn't force you to do anything, but stand this on its head: nowhere is there justification for just removing honorific prefixes. Mackensen (talk) 19:22, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm strongly against the use of these prefixes. I have checked all the main encyclopedias and biographical dictionaries and they are not used in these so I don't see why Wikipedia should use them. Arniep 19:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Because the community reached a consensus on this matter about six months ago. I would stongly advise you against reopening the issue. Mackensen (talk) 19:34, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

There is no rational reason why we should use the styles for Dukes but not Monarchs, therefore I think this should be reconsidered with wider community involvement. Arniep 19:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Please, try to understand that it was considered with wider community involvement, and this was the compromise that was reached. Mackensen (talk) 19:50, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for responding to me above, Mackensen. I'm glad to see you back-pedalling on the claim that Giano's "acting against the Manual of Style". Looking for the "wider community involvement" you mention: I see a very modest discussion on the Project Peerage talkpage, under "Honorific prefixes", dating from last summer and with four (4) users taking part, wherein Proteus suggests honorifics be used, the others appear well enough pleased, and Proteus dismisses a question from one of them about how/when to decide on this "proposed policy" by saying: "We don't normally have a formal approval process. As it's been here for a while and no one seems to have objected, I suppose it could now be considered an acceptable policy." Is this the consensus you refer to ...? Then perhaps you need to bear in mind that consensus is subject to change, especially if it consists of four users on an, uh, not high-profile talkpage. Style policy, AFAIC, is the MoS.

On the rollback issue: Giano removed the honorific with in every case an at least somewhat explanatory edit summary[50], [51] , [52] (A fuller argument by Giano on talk would have been better, I agree. Note that Proteus, an admin, never once used or suggested using the talkpage either.) Proteus rolled him back without any explanation at all. [53], [54]. [55]. Are you defending the position that Giano's edits were vandalism and therefore rollback was appropriate? I'm not talking merely about reverting them (though I personally have some doubts about that as well, with so much reverting) but using the admin rollback button, which is only to be used to revert vandalism. Do you have any comment on the talkback message that I linked to, protesting Proteus previous misuses of rollback ? Or on the low information content and poor courtesy of Proteus' edit summaries on those occasions that he didn't use rollback? (I won't offer any diffs here, since the histories of the pages I've already linked to are easily viewed). Is this "perfectly justified" admin behavior? I'd be grateful for a bit of feedback from other admins, and other community members, here, if possible. Bishonen | talk 20:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC).

Actually, I was referring to this set of archives:[56] [57] [58] [59] [60]. That's by no means everything that was said on the matter, just what I was able to find. Styles have been in the MoS for a long time. They are frequently removed by users who are either unaware of this fact or who do not approve of them. I would note that it is not yet accepted that rollback can only be used for vandalism, and that said discussion is still on-going (I myself try to only use it thusly, but there's no requirement that admins do so). I can say that I would have reverted Giano myself, but Proteus beat me to it. Mackensen (talk) 20:54, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the general consensus, as well as the general feeling, is that use of rollback ought to be restricted right down to cases where it is obvious as to the reason for the reversion. First of all, rollback is not a simple revert, so you need to understand that it's all too easy to do some serious damage. If you try to revert a single edit with it, depending upon the pattern of edits, you may end up reverting a whole string of them. Second, rollback provides no scope to give a summary, leaving only the daunting X rolled back edits by Y to last version by Z - the preferred option is to use a manual revert and provide at least some sort of summary, if only to avoid being damn rude.

Misuse of administrator-only abilities will lead to their revocation in short order, so please check your facts and make sure you want to continue on that pattern. At the least, I would advocate that you stop using rollback, and avoid any revert warring which may spring up. Rob Church (talk) 21:40, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• Yeah I bet you would strongly advise - Incidentally I am not American, and I may know a great deal more about the peerage than you. so please do not be patronising. British Dukes do not refer to themselves as Most Noble or expect others to do so. Most Noble is only used today in documents issued by Buckingham Palace when conferring even greater honours of chivalry on an existing Duke. Or in the very rarified language of the courts of Heraldry. It was used in the House of Lord's on occassions, but they have now expelled Dukes, si it will not be happening again there. At Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington after being reverted I changed to "The late and most Noble" which incidentally was the correct term for a dead duke when "Most Noble" was in common parlance has again been reverted - very odd. Dukes no longer even have Most Noble placed on their own tombstones. So there is absolutely no reason for an international encyclopedia to use these antiquated and near obsolete terms of deference. If the Pope cannot be His Holiness how come the distant (and sometimes dubious) descendents of British heros and King's bastards can be " Most Noble". Giano | talk 20:14, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you found my tone patronizing, let me back up and try again. What you are describing here is a content dispute. The issues you have raised were raised six months ago and hashed out in what has become know as the "Style Wars." I'm not sure where the relevant talk page archives have ended, but I'll start looking this evening. Incidentally, the Duke of Montrose still sits in the House of Lords as an elected hereditary peer, and there is no bar on Dukes now entering the House of Commons. If you want to re-ignite the Style Wars, a good place to do so is Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles). I remind you again that this would also cover The Right Honourable, which is hardly antiquated and indeed in almost constant use. The Manual of Style, in my view (and I'm not alone in this), as presently written, backs up Proteus's version of the article. Perhaps he could have been friendlier about it, but consider his actions in light of the above. Mackensen (talk) 20:41, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• We are not discussing "Right Honourable" but "Most Noble". Please let me assure you of one thing for dead certain without debate or confusion, the British House of Commons will never, has never and never will refer to any of its members as "Most Noble". The Duke of Montrose may well sit as an elected peer, but I suspect he is not about to begin a campaign for the return of "Most Noble" - not if he wants to remain in the House of Lords. The term is antiquated, it is dead, it is gone, only on Wikipedia does it seem to remain. Giano | talk 20:54, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Well I don't think we should use Right Honourable either. The only prefix that does seem to be used in mainstream encyclopedias and biographical dictionaries is Sir. I think the point is those styles are only meant to be used when addressing a person formally not in an encyclopedia article. Arniep 21:36, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• Quite right! Giano | talk 21:42, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

It's a shame that no one (excepting a few individuals) on Wikipedia seem to realise that this is the case. Arniep 21:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

It is policy and like other policies remains so until WP users (plural), not just one or two, decide otherwise. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 21:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Jtdirl, it differs from "other policies" in not existing. At least no one has been able to point to this policy, to link to it, or to quote it. Unless you mean to repeat yet again Mackensen's claim that this is a policy in favor of using honorific prefixes? I'm baffled to hear anybody say that their "interpretation" allows for such a random, contrary-to-the-words-on-the-page reading — I don't know how to respond, really. Dear reader, please click on the offered MoS link — here it is again — as Sannse did. Read all about it. It won't be policy until you can show us a policy that says so, Jtdirl; that one ain't it. Bishonen | talk 00:31, 23 January 2006 (UTC).

Look, I just don't see what you and Sannse are seeing. I see two groups excluded: royals and popes. They are clearly and explicitly excluded from having styles included in articles. Nobles do not belong to either of those two groups. Mackensen (talk) 00:40, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

...Abusing admin privileges, such as rollback, for content disputes or edit wars, is not only incredibly wrong, but also just as stupid and immature as edit warring in the first place. --Phroziac _. o º ^{O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!)} 21:38, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Again, I refer you to the discussion above. This is a policy question, as Jtdirl rightly noted. Mackensen (talk) 21:40, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

It is a settled policy question. Additionally, the use of rollback to revert non-vandalism IMO contravenes our policy on Civility, since it provides no edit summary and implies the user's edit was pure vandalism. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 21:56, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

My two penn'orth: Proteus's position, as a matter of English usage, is ludicrous. However the first of his reverts seems to be this one, which does give a reason for the revert. If you revert for the same reason twenty times, I don't see any need to do it the slow way after giving a reason on the first occasion. Mark¹ 22:09, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

The policy as written does not say what is claimed here. It lists some that are "viewed by many (but not all) as acceptable", and lists some that should not be used. It does not say "these titles must be used". I can see that the dispute over this was heated and can understand that everyone involved is sick of the whole argument - but that doesn't change that the quoted link does not support the change. I've looked at the links provided to old discussion, and it's a complete mess that seems to lead nowhere. Unless there is an agreement to change the Manual of Style, then there are no grounds to insist on one form or the other. Certainly there are no grounds to use rollback - as said above, for a non-vandalism edit, that's just plain rude. -- sannse (talk) 22:11, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and those it lists are royals and popes. Only royals and popes. Those were the only ones excluded. Mackensen (talk) 00:40, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

However, note that the users above would remove The Right Honourable, which is one of those listed as acceptable to most users. That would definitely be against consensus. Moreover, it's clear from the wording that while you do not have to use styles, there isn't support for going through and taking them out. The peerage project, for one, has a made a point to use them, because it aids in describing historical figures. My impression, unless someone inserts diffs which prove otherwise, is that Proteus didn't use the rollback button until the removals continued. The matter of styles is settled at the present. The usage of The Most Noble and The Most Honourable was never explicity stated because it did not appear necessary to do. The distintinction in the MoS at present is between royal and papal styles on the one hand and all the rest on the other. While examples are cited they are by no means inclusive. Mackensen (talk) 22:21, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• I see you have just reverted again at 1st Duke of Wellington [61] - amazing. Whatever the rights or wrongs of roll back (I don't know what that is incidentally or that he had done it) that if three or four admins can decide on a obscure talk page that a living human being, who has often done nothing more than be born (remember even today a baby can be a duke) has to be referred to in 2006 as The Most Noble, then the whole encyclopedia looks sycophantic and ridiculous - and that definitely should be discussed here. Giano | talk 22:31, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, that's my first revert on any article in this matter, and it was done in response to a revert by Arniep, whose reverts I can't begin to count. If you would please look at the links I posted above, you would see that the style policy was hashed out by dozens of editors, many of whom were not administrators. I would also remind you of WP:NPOV; your personal views on the relative importance of dukes shouldn't enter into this. Mackensen (talk) 22:43, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I love titled people - quite a few of them. I merely point out that they come in all ages, shapes and sizes. Some even do noble and heroic things, and some lie in their crested cribs and scream but by describing them all in a medieval term in 2006 makes them and more importantly Wikipedia ridiculous, and it should cease now, before the place becomes a laughing stock. Giano | talk 22:50, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Do you know that Queen Elizabeth II still styles herself "Duke of Normandy" on her official website? If the title is official, then we should use it in the article. Otherwise, I support Giano in this dispute. A note to admins: please remember that rollback is intended for reverting vandalism. If you enter a content dispute, please revert the ordinary way and explain your changes in edit summaries. Otherwise, your rollbacks may be interpreted as rudeness and arrogance towards other editors. Take care, Ghirla | talk 09:31, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Disruption

I would like to draw everyone's attention to this edit here, [62], in which User:Arniep removes the style from Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington with the edit summary "removed most noble style in keeping with all other modern reference works". Such a justification is neither here nor there. It is done without reference to the manual of style, accepted practice, community consensus, or even the discussion above. Other encyclopedias do not dictate practices here. Mackensen (talk) 22:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I refer you you my edit immediatly above (almost a conflict) Giano | talk 22:36, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I've seen it. That edit is skating dangerously close, in my view, to disruption. Mackensen (talk) 22:43, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I only reverted twice, and secondly these prefixes are only meant to be used in formal spoken addresses, not even Burke's Peerage uses them!!! Arniep 22:54, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

And yet, interestingly, inserting the title isn't part of the Manual of Style, either. Thus, removing it isn't a violation of the Manual of Style, and inserting it isn't a violation of the Manual of Style, and there isn't policy to insert or remove it. How about that? Seems like a content dispute. Also, Arniep is correct that this particular title is spoken, not legal, so perhaps what we can do is have the audio version employ it, in a "Masterpiece Theatre" imitation, and the written version not? Geogre 12:08, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

A Modest Proposal

At this point, what we have is a policy dispute. Policy disputes don't belong here. Before this degenerates into a revert-war (moreso, at any rate), let me try to state the situation as I see it and suggest a way to handle this.

A number of Wikipedians, particularly those active in articles concerning the British peerage or British government (and the two do overlap quite a bit), are in the habit of including styles and honorific prefixes in articles. These range from The Most Noble and The Most Honourable, which designate nobles only, to The Right Honourable, which can refer to both nobles (e.g. Earls) and commoners (members of the privy council). Furthermore, these Wikipedians believe that the Manual of Style backs them up, to say nothing of common practice. Other Wikipedians dispute this interpretation, or, more broadly, do not agree that styles should be included in articles. The Manual of Style does not seem to support their interpretation, but that matter is not entirely clear. The Manual of Style is silent on removing styles, but the which styles are approved may be an open question.

Two things need to happen at this point. One, I think we need to agree that Proteus could have been kinder about his reverts, but that from his point of view they were entirely justified (and he did give reasons in the beginning). We've ceased to discuss him in all of this, at any rate. Two, we may need to re-examine the policy on styles, but that's something that should be done at Wikipedia:Naming conventions. Mackensen (talk) 23:06, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

This is a matter that belongs here because it is making Wikipedia look ridiculous - you want in the civilized western world Wikipedia to call certain human beings Most Noble and such like when even their own stud books do not. The peer project crowd seem to have made a right antiquated hash of it so far - so lets sort it here in public. Giano | talk 23:12, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Mackensen, your summary is hardly fair. The MoS is silent as to whether these styles should be used. It simply notes that some people consider some of the styles to be acceptable. Mark¹ 23:31, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Nor did I say that it did. I stated that a number of Wikipedians belive that it says that, but the matter is not entirely clear. Therefore, I invited Giano to take the matter up in the proper place. Mackensen (talk) 23:36, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

You also said the MoS "does not seem to support their interpretation". You're entitled to your view, but don't try to pretend it's a neutral summary. Mark¹ 23:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

What I mean by that is that it doesn't say that you should remove them, and in fact gives examples of styles that are often used. I've rewritten it a little. Mackensen (talk) 23:53, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Let me help you out a little bit here. At the top of the page there is the following clause: Please be aware that these pages aren't the place to bring disputes over content, or reports of abusive behaviour. This is a content dispute. I suppose we're heading towards mediation if you keep making rather offensive remarks like the one above, but I'm not one to go round quoting WP:NPA at people. I encourage you to read up on how policy is made, and also have a look at WP:NOT, when you get a chance. Thanks in advance, Mackensen (talk) 23:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC) (Your helpful representative from those worthless fellows at WP:PEER).

Mackensen, I realize people post in a hurry sometimes, and can feel beleaguered sometimes. May I ask if you stand by the above message with its sarcasm, self-praise, false "helpfulness", and paralipsis ("a rhetorical figure or figure of speech in which one emphasises something by pretending not to mention it") today, after sleeping on it? Bishonen | talk 04:00, 24 January 2006 (UTC).

Mackensen, where's the best place to discuss this, would you say? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I should think Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies) would be a good place, since that's where the disputed words lie. Mackensen (talk) 00:43, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I can see there's a lot to read. There would be, wouldn't there? ;-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

• Is there any point continuing this discussion anywhere. As far as the noble peer pushers are concerned grey is both black and white, and it does not really matter if it isn't as a noble admin can come along and use magical tools. No where else in Wikipedia would such a ridiculous charade be tolerated. Quite rightly Kings, Queen, religious leaders etc all have no honorifics, (no disrespect intended to them, just a level playing field) yet somehow it seems on Wikipedia the British monarch's "support cast" can have all kinds of Ruritanian prefixes, not given them elsewhere. A limited discussion on the subject seems to have started at this popular debating forum Talk:Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington. This is an admin or higher administration matter as it makes the whole project look toadying, pretentious and daft.Giano | talk 08:23, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

By the way, Mackensen, I know this is completely off topic, but was your section title (A Modest Proposal) a coincidence, or was it an allusion to either the term or the essay A Modest Proposal? Just curious.... Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:53, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

The latter, although it was a serious proposal :) --Mackensen (talk) 00:57, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

• For anyone interested in defining future policy on this subject in a clear and definitive way I have instigated a debate here at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies)#The Most Noble Giano | talk 10:25, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

It may be worth pointing out that our written policy is a crystalisation of community consensus: it is not fixed in stone, and if the consensus changes then the policy needs to be updated. Besides which, one of our most treasured principles is Use common sense (which, you may note, is a redirect to the, IMHO, misleadingly named Ignore all rules). -- ALoan (Talk) 11:56, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

One Modest Proposal would, of course, be to eat the peers. However, arguing that "there is no law against calling them by honorifics (where there is for Popes and Kings), so there is a law calling them by honorifics" is the worst kind of offense against logic and common sense (something that Swift's Projector would not do, as he is entirely logical and thoroughly immoral). We call saints saints only if they are known as saints primarily (e.g. if Mother Theresea gets the nod, she won't go in as Saint Theresea of Calcutta, but rather Mother Theresea, saint, as a job title). In the cases of kings and popes, the job title is included ("king" and "pope"), but not an honorific. If the honorific is an indication of job title ("sir" or "knight"), then it should be present. However, an article that honors its subject by using exaltation in its description violates NPOV. I don't get to say that the 3rd Earl of Sandwich was honorable (or honourable) or noble or pure of heart. I get to say that he was an earl. Anything more than that implies my encyclopedic value and my desire to stroke his vanity. Well, he's long dead and has no vanity to satisfy, so there's no need to please him, and NPOV prevents my flattering him. Geogre 12:18, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

On the other hand, members of the privy council are also styled The Right Honourable. That being said, I've no more desire to flatter the departed duke than the next man, but was concerned to prevent a gigantic revert war from breaking out. That object being achieved, there's a good discussion on the Manual of Style, which I've linked to at the top of all this. Mackensen (talk) 12:26, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Jason Gastrich

Jason Gastrich (talk · contribs) has been warned a few ties about civility; this [63] seems to me to be unacceptable. Any reason I should not issue an npa3 warning, and act on it if he continues? I have an ongoing dispute with Gastrich (see also Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jason Gastrich, which shows some history of attacks) but this is neither to or about me, so I see no reason not to issue a formal warning, but I want to do the right thing. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 18:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

There's an ongoing discussion about this fellow on WP:AN/I plus a RfC at the obvious place. I blocked him for 24 hours earlier for various stuff. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 04:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. I think a block now would hinder the RFC process. I will leave a not on his Talk page to that effect. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 11:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Need my user pages rescued

My user and user talk pages were moved around by Voterrightsparty (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log), I could use come assistance getting them back in the right places. Thanks! — TheKMan^talk 19:58, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• I think I fixed it. android79 20:02, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Mcfly85?

I think everyone might think I'm paranoid or something but I think:

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

is Mcfly85. Evidence may prove in the last few edits by the anon linking my less than popular rant about Wikipedia to his talk page (if you look through the history you should see it). I don't how an random anon IP address would know about that if he wasn't involved in the earlier mishap. It's nothing really but it does show similar connections, don't you think? SWD316 ^{talk to me} 22:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Possible admin meeting and mailing list

User:Danny has been kicking around ideas on the wikien mailing list about an IRC meeting for admins and a mailing list for admins. [64] [65] - Haukur 22:34, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, admin behavior needs to have greater transparency to regular users, not less. Why isn't this page, communication on talk, and the existing IRC channel if necessary, sufficient? Superm401 - Talk 22:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Hear, hear. My sentiments exactly. Bishonen | talk 01:11, 23 January 2006 (UTC).

• Hey everybody, please look the other way for a moment, we're trying to form a cabal here. Radiant_>|< 23:21, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Ugh, not more mail. The stuff I get from the vandals is bad enough. Mackensen (talk) 23:26, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I agree. I'd rather spend the time editing than reading through yet more emails, and I don't like the hysteria that seems to come from the current IRC channel. Secretlondon 10:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
• I prefer that all Wikipedia "business" take place on Wikipedia, it is public, open and accessible by all. For that reason I do not participate in IRC or the mailing lists. Paul August ☎ 00:36, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

  I prefer it too, by much, but it seems to me more pious than useful to eschew IRC and the Mailing list to that end, and encourage others to do the same. If there were no IRC and no Mailing List, editors would surely simply e-mail one another through the "E-mail this user" feature even more than they do now, and they would continue to discuss Wikipedia business in these mails. Would you disable the e-mail feature? And also, how hard would it be for users to find other real-time internet venues? I don't believe it's anyways possible to stop Wikipedians from talking Wikipedia business privately. IMO it's a little better that they do so on IRC and the ML, where there is at least continual open discussion which reminds people of the ethical issues involved, than to be driven wholly underground (or into venues that only the techiest among us can find). Let's avoid separating the admins off into special channels, let's keep them visible to at least those non-admin who do choose to frequent the same spaces; I think that's the best we can do. Bishonen | talk 01:11, 23 January 2006 (UTC).

  Well, I disagree. I'd blow up the IRC channel in a minute, if I had the chance. For every piece of business done there that couldn't be done on the project (VIP, DR, AN, AN/I), there are ten pieces of distortion, chat, and piling on. If I go to IRC, I chat, as, other than emergency issues, it's fairly useless to actually unlimber an argument. Geogre 14:09, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

  Which is exactly why I created WP:AN. Apparently this isn't enough. - Ta bu shi da yu 10:11, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

• I agree with Bishonen. It's too cabal-ous to form communication channels that are solely for the use of admins. Joyous | Talk 01:31, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Playing devil's advocate, the only possible reason to do something like this is to have a page protected so that only admins can discuss (still readable to public) is to help reduce the signal to noise ratio (if there is any). — Ambush Commander^(Talk) 04:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

• -I have access problems with IRC so i never use it. I strongly object to policy discussion taking palce ther unless it is at least copied to the wiki. I alo think this is mostly a better forum than the amiling list, to which i don't plan to subscribe, but at least the archives are avaialble via a web link. DES ^(talk) 18:09, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Copyrights

I and several other people have posted comments to Wikipedia talk:Copyrights only to have them be totally ignored by administrators. You mustn't forget that only you have the ability to edit protected pages. Superm401 - Talk 22:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• You must not assume that every talk page is actually watched and read by anyone. That's what we have public noticeboards for. Radiant_>|< 23:13, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I added the shortcut, the other things probably should be breached in a more public forum. — Ambush Commander^(Talk) 04:26, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view recent edits

All -- there have been some questionable edits going on recently at WP:NPOV, with some concomitant edit warring. I'd encourage everybody to stop by the page and weigh in on the debate over these changes. · Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 01:44, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Messing around like this with the key Wikipedia policy is blatant disruption. I've blocked Bensaccount for 48 hours and locked the page; experienced admins are invited to try to fix the page. If any admin feels this is an egregious block or protection, you childmind him - David Gerard 18:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Block of Dyslexic agnostic

I have blocked him for 24 hours over a dispute over at Talk:Enemies of Batman between him and T-man, the Wise Scarecrow. Benon tried to mediate, and it appeared to be working, but then Dyslexic agnostic personally attacked T-man, calling his T-man edits "a waste of everyone's time." T-man may have been guilty of personal attacks earlier, but to me it seemed that he was trying to be civil and cooperative, so I didn't block him. A review of my actions would be great.--Shanel 04:05, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

hi ive been trying to mediate this with some help from shanel, howver im uncovering disturbing evidence of a "stalking" of t-man by dyslexic anyone care to comment??Benon 04:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

WP:NPA explicitly says that one should comment on the content, and not the individual. I really think that the statement is about the content, not the user. That being said, T-Man and DA have been going at it for a few months now. I would point out [66], [67], [68], [69], etc (I would suggest taking a look at that archive and seeing just how many threads are between DA and T-Man). This is from earlier today...[70]...which caused this [71]. This prompted Steve block (talk · contribs) to suggest an RfC [72]. (I can't say I'd certify it, but I'd certainly endorse one)

I don't think DA is an angel, I've seen him violate WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA before (Just not in this case), on a few pages. I think he was lashing out in frustration, as in addition to the Enemies of Batman article, T-Man was partially responsible for creating a few forks on List of limited series. Unfortunately, it seems like you've hit one of those little feuds that keeps going between everyone.--Toffile 04:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

yes but da seems to be appering on every unique article t-man is editing with a couple of hours, often blind reverting, now that is most defintly not acceptable, ive tried to mediate this dispute out but it seems to have proved rather fruitless :-( Benon 04:35, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I think that would be because of this. [73]. Not acceptable behavior by any means.--Toffile 04:44, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

While I do not disagree with the DA block, I think that T-Man should just as equally be blocked for provoking him in a multiplicity of instances. I don't think "stalking" really is made out - it's simply that T-Man and DA both tend to watch the same pages and this almost inevitably puts them in conflict. I've "clashed" with T-Man before over his Bat-Embargo edits, and have tried to give him advice which he ultimately rejetced as unhelpful (which is his right), so he's probably going to say I'm biased, but my assessment of the situation places the cause directly on T-Man. His sub-standard command of English, his verbosity as opposed to encyclopedic style, his insistence (as a self-proclaimed expert) on POV-pushing and speculative info is all producing high levels of tension on the various comic-related pages. It's nearly impossible to sift out and copyedit the good stuff from the dross when sometimes it it hard to tell precisely what he means in the first place. T-Man has also derided, insulted and outright abused people other than DA. By only blocking DA, you're sending the message to T-Man that he has done nothing wrong; and that is a wrong message, not to mention an unfair one. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 04:56, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

t-man has been warned, we havent just let it slide, and i gave a stern warning to both parties during mediation Benon 05:09, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I left him a stern warning on his talk page warning him against such behaviour. I did not know the extent of his disruption before, but he's on very thin ice as it is with me.--Shanel 05:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

ive requested an rfc, if anone wnats to give there input on how to proceed it would be very welcome Benon 05:20, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

T-man, the Wise Scarecrow is now blocked for 24 hours as well.--Shanel 05:53, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

this behaviour goes back so far and so deep its been referd to the arbitration comitte Benon 06:16, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

While I do forsee an RfArb coming up in future, I don't think an RFC has even been filed yet. The ArbCom traditionally rejects RfArbs that have not at least gone through the RFC stage first, so I think an RfArb is premature, and a user conduct RFC should be filed first. I'll happily endorse it if someone will write it up. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 06:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

rfc had alredy been filed Benon 06:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see you filed a content RFC. I was actually thinking that a user conduct RFC would be more appropriate. In either case, you should let the RFC run its course before filing the RfArb. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 07:35, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I didn't realise this was being discussed here as well as at the RFAr. I'll paraphrase my thoughts over:

I would question the block on a couple of grounds. Was dyslexic properly warned that he would be blocked on grounds of personal attacks? I still fail to see evidence of a clear warning that either party would be blocked for personal attacks. The best I can find is from Benon who states it is not nessasry to stoop to the level of a personal attack so please don't do, i dont want to but anymore personal attacks and i will be asking admins to impose sancations on either of you. This prompted the reply from Dyslexic that saw him blocked, namely: Benon, it's not a personal attack to say that T-Man's edits are bad, a waste of everyone's time, and that he only knows the animated series, not the comics. These are obvious facts. They affect our ability to edit and spend time on other important matters.

I've been wary to block either user on grounds of personal attacks because my reading of policy was that it wasn't implicit that such blocks are allowed in said policy. I'm also unclear on which user is stalking which, both having claimed the other as stalker. I also have to question why one user is blocked for a personal attack which comes during a period which the blocker in question agrees has been inflamed by personal attacks from the opposite direction. I certainly agree with Khaosworks that you're sending the message to T-Man that he has done nothing wrong; and that is a wrong message, not to mention an unfair one. It also sends the message to Dyslexic that he is unfairly singled out.

Now, taking all things as even I think this initial block was therefore somewhat ill judged. There should have been at least one more warning stressing that the language Dyslexic had used did indeed constitute a personal attack. Steve block talk 16:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for voicing your concerns. Looking back, perhaps I should have given Dyslexic agnostic one more warning before blocking, although in my defence I did not know the extent to which T-man provoked him (at the time). I'm also not sure who is stalking who; they both seem to be following each other. Since blocking them both, they have both emailed me. Dyslexic agnostic, while scarcastic, admitted his frustration. And T-man seems to have realized that he should not respond to personal attacks in kind. I hope they can sort their differences out once their blocks expire.--Shanel 22:15, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

• Fair play, it has been a hard situation to follow, and I probably should have posted my concerns here, so I'm probably a bit to blame, I was hoping they were going to resolve it amicably, there seemed a period just after New Year when they were treating each other fairly well. I agree it is impossible to tell who is stalking who. I've certainly learnt from this one, and I apologise for being somewhat harder on you in the above text than you deserved. If the case does get accepted by arbcom and resolved, it'll be because you got involved, so that's certainly a plus. Steve block talk 19:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Categories -- How big is too big?

There's a discussion happening here about re-populating profession categories that have been depopulated when split into subcategories by nationality, especially when the nationality has little to do with the profession (like actors and film directors). I'd invite anyone interested to take a look. -- Samuel Wantman 08:44, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

• Last time I heard a dev speak about it, the opinion given was that any category with more than "a couple hundred" members should be considered for subcategorizaing. Radiant_>|< 09:12, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Was that before or after we had Category TOC's? the latest software version? -- Samuel Wantman 09:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
    • That concerned the version of about a month ago, which I believe is still current. Radiant_>|< 10:57, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Protectedpagewarning

Since I suggested that admins wishing to make changed to Mediawiki: space pages should run them through here, I thought I'd do so.

All of a sudden, a couple of days ago, MediaWiki:Protectedpagewarning began being very confusingly displayed on semi-protected pages, which people can and are encouraged to edit. Presumably the devs tweaked something for us. Anyway, it needs rephrasing until the problem is fixed. So I'd suggest some phrasing like:

Note: Editing of this page is currently restricted. If you are an administrator and this page is fully protected, please be sure you are following the protected pages policy.

I'd also suggest it no longer be coloured red. It's longer than ideal, but then it's not our fault that the message has come to be used in this way. I think this should be changed post-haste given that I've now seen at least a handful of confused editors around, particularly on George W. Bush. -Splash^talk 12:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, with no responses despite activity elsewhere above and below my post here, I'll go and make the change. I hope that we don't need a massive to-and-fro over the exact words that are used. This should be temporary anyway, I hope. -Splash^talk 22:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Images uploaded by User:Norum

I suspect that all images uploaded by this user (see [74]) are copyright violations of one sort or another. I've started working my way through the list of about 10 images. I've completed 4, but would like help with the remaining images. Note that the user removed a nosource tag from an image [75] without providing a source. --Durin 15:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I think they're all taken care of now and tagged as no source or no license where appropriate. --GraemeL ^(talk) 17:37, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Semi Protection tags

On semi protected pages, when I click on edit this page, as a non-admin it says WARNING: This page has been locked so that only administrators can edit it. Be sure you are following the protected page guidelines. Any way to fix this? Its VERY misleading, and some editors wont edit the page because they dont think they can. Mike _{(T C)} 17:03, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Look two threads up... let's get discussion going in one place please. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 17:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Cooler heads

We have the makings of a wheel war, or atleast some uncool heads. Template:User freedom Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 January 22#Template:User freedom Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Template:User_freedom.--Tznkai 17:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

My head is perfectly cool, thank you. I do however welcome broader input. Having once undeleted, i will not undelete this again any time soon, so no wheel war will result from my actions. I would argue that deletinmg things out-of-process does tend to spark conflict and not infrequently wheel wars, but then so does undeleting out-of-process deletions, as I did. Of course, i instantly reported my own action at WP:DRV which i think is the proper forum in such a case, and also mentioned it in the WP:TFD discussion on the above tempalte. If anyone thinks my actions or statemetns were improper, i would be happy to hear it and am open to considering views that differ from my own. DES ^(talk) 18:05, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

... I really wasn't attacking you, or even indicating you. I'm involved, you're involved, Marksweep is involved, and theres a potential for a lot of other people to get involved. We've already had a vote closing, a deletion, an undeletion, several modifications to a protected page, etc. This was never intended to be personal.--Tznkai 18:07, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. I apologize for assuming that this was aimed particularly at me. You are correct, we have had all the above actions, and things that start that way have in the past caused wheel wars or other rancourous interactiosn, and i don't want another. Having some previosuly uninvolved people join the discussion could hardly hurt, and might help keep things calm. I repeat that I will not delete-war over this or anything. DES ^(talk) 18:12, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Mass PDF upload

Somebody should check what Rajasuap (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is doing. It seems like he's using Wikipedia as his personal fileserver. He uploaded about a hundred apparently copyrighted PDFs. bogdan 17:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

The one or two that I checked weren't used in an article, so they can be put up for deletion as orphans. --Syrthiss 17:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

There is no kind of option to speedy them? Hmmm... this may be something to look at. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 17:59, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't know of a speedy criteria that applies. The person who uploaded them marked them as GFDL so they aren't "unused copyrighted images"... they aren't nonsense, or broken. --Syrthiss 18:04, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, common sense would be that they are all going to be deleted, so why not just speedy them, perhaps under the "Improper license" clause, as I am not sure they are his/hers to release into the GFDL? And my comment was that maybe we need to draft some kind of policy about stuff like this being speedyable. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 18:12, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

If they're fair use images that are still orphaned after 7 days, they can be speedied (I5). · Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 18:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

This is an article from a newspaper, which most likely is copyrighted. bogdan 18:16, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Most of them look like magazine articles, newspaper articles, and government documents (?), which might not be fair use. They may be copyvios, so should probably be deleted even if they aren't orphaned. The tags he/she used specify that they are the creator of the work. We need some explanation from Rajasuap. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 18:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. If he tagged the one that Bogdan noted above as gfdl-self, then I'd say the rest of his gfdl-self tags are definitely suspect. Articles are almost certainly copyrighted; not necessarily true of government documents -- however that's better in Wikisource anyway. · Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 18:25, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Ask Bogdan for details. Also, blindly speeding stuff which seems OK just because it is orphaned will also remove material being uploaded to support a new article. Is it proper to require creation of an unsupported article (violating WP:V) as opposed to uploading supporting material for a new article before creating the article? (SEWilco 18:35, 23 January 2006 (UTC))

They were uploaded two weeks ago and the user had no activity before or after that. bogdan 18:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

These should be mass deleted. The user in question has not responded to inquiries on the talk page as to what the point of these images are. It seems pretty clear that these are being uploaded for the purpose of using Wikipedia as a file server. I also noticed a lot fo the images are identical, and can be deleted as duplicates. -Husnock 18:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

We may also want to ask User:206.207.175.69 Special:Contributions/206.207.175.69 since he/she appears to have changed many of Rajasuap's files. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 21:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Continued block of User:208.183.105.11

208.183.105.11 is, it seems, a school IP from which ther has been considerable vandalism, and whcih is currently blocked for 3 months. I received a msg on my user talk page, which, after quoting the contents of User talk:208.183.105.11 (including the block notices) said: "This is the notice given to my school computers IP. The fact that our school has 4 classes in that room a day, and the fact our school is on a 2 semester block shedulae, means that though 3 warnings were givin out only one ever reached the violater. This message was sent to my friend and me after the vandlizm of the eminem page, not by me, was committed. He nor I was aware of prior offences that had taken place on the computer. For this we got punished by you and the staff of this web site with a 1 month ban from editing. I am pointing out the fact that while you thought 1 person had commited all the vadalization, 2 or more people commited them. I am also pointing out that you are banning a number of inoocent people, including me, from editing for something they never did. I ask you consider the Unbanning of the IP address. Thank you. --User:69.19.14.32 02:54, 23 January 2006 (UTC) (User:Led-zep)"

• I responded that the block was protective, not punitivce. but can we reveiw this block, and perhaps reach out to the relevant school authorities? I hate to leave a school IP blocked if we have any choice. DES ^(talk) 18:43, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

My compassion for this kind of story is growing thinner with time. Primary schools don't make a lot of useful edits because, you know, primary school kids don't know much yet. I'm leaning toward a "fire and forget" policy, explain the situation to the school administrators if they ask about it, and if they can keep their kids in check then they can edit Wikipedia. It's not our responsibility to babysit them on the internet in the meantime. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 19:12, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I see your point. However is this a primary school? I had the strong impression, based on the other edits of User:Led-zep, who says that he is a student there, that this is a secondary school, aka high-school or perhaps Junior High-school. School kinds an research and write decent articels on soem topics, although many of them do not do so. Note I did not suggest an unblosck, merely that we contact the school staff and see what their response is. DES ^(talk) 19:16, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I just sent the following email msg to the addresses liste in the WHOIS listing for the above IP. We'll see if I get any response.

The IP address 208.183.105.11, which is registered to the State of Tennessee Department of Education, and which seems to be used for providing network connections to various in-school computers, has been used on a number of occasions to vandalize Wikipedia (the free user-written online encyclopedia). As a result, this address has been blocked from editing wikipedia.

A copy of the contribution logs for this address may be seen at <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/208.183.105.11>, and of the related warning notices can be seen at <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:208.183.105.11>. The relevant block log entries are at <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User%3A208.183.105.11>.

Some examples of the vandalism can bee seen at <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Humanism&diff=prev&oldid=35688364>, <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=GEICO&diff=prev&oldid=35676512>, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Plutonium&diff=prev&oldid=35675609>, <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eminem&diff=prev&oldid=35567772>, and <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Amethyst&diff=prev&oldid=35675552>.

The matter has recently been discussed at <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Continued_block_of_User:208.183.105.11>,

I am a volunteer administrator of the english-language wikipedia. (I am not a paid employee or official, and have no more authority than any of the more than 700 other administrators.) I have recently received a request from someone who says that he is a student affected by this block. I would like to be able to unblock this address, but Cannot in good faith suggest unblocking unless there is some indication that relevant school authorities would be taking some measures to prevent or at least deter such vandalism. Is there any chance that such measures could be taken so that this block could be lifted? If you are not the proper person, could you please let me know who is the proper person to contact on this matter?

Sincerely,

-David E. Siegel <email removed> Wikipedia user:DESiegel

• I just recieved a response that suggests a partial solution. I am now posting that response and my further reply (edited to show who is writing by different indent levels, and to snip quoting of text already posted above). DES ^(talk) 21:33, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

From: Marc Powell To: <myself and other addresses i copied my original msg to> Sent: Mon, 23 Jan 2006 14:59:04 -0600 Subject: RE: Vandalism of Wikipedia via IP Address 208.183.105.11

Hi David,

The IP address 208.183.105.11, which is registered to the State of Tennessee Department of Education, and which seems to be used for providing network connections to various in-school computers, has been used on a number of occasions to vandalize Wikipedia...

208.183.105.11 is a filtering/caching proxy machine that is managed by us, Education Networks of America as the ISP for the Tennessee public schools. It is one of two machines that proxies traffic for approximately 805 schools in East Tennessee (all grade levels). There are a total of 6 such proxies on our network servicing most of the public schools in the State. Each proxy also passes X-Forwarded-For information containing the closest available IP address to the workstation making the request if you can ban on that (either the workstation itself or a NAT/Firewall device at the school or district).

[vandalism examples removed]

I am a volunteer administrator of the english-language wikipedia. ... Is there any chance that such measures could be taken so that this block could be lifted? ....

While we are just the ISP in this case with minimal enforcement ability, we do have an understanding of how computers are used in the schools and I believe the above request to be unrealistic on a system-wide scale. Computer use is not monitored as strictly as such a policy would require in all cases, computers are not assigned 1:1 nor are unique logins required in most cases making follow-up on vandalism incidents difficult or impossible (not to mention firewalls/NAT that could mask the origin workstations).

We do have the ability to bypass traffic destined for Wikipedia around the proxying devices so that you can see the most specific public IP available for any request. That may be a workstation, school NAT IP or District NAT IP depending on how each District has their internal networks built out. While not a perfect solution, it does provide for the ability to create a more specific block in the event of vandalism and wouldn't affect large sections of the network as the current block does. Additionally, the IP information could allow us to identify and inform the Technology Administrators in the specific District for additional follow-up if possible.

Thoughts?

(signed) Marc Powell; Senior Systems Engineer; ENA/ConnecTEN; <email & telephone removed>

I understand the limitations involved (I am a professional programer myself). Such a bypass might well allow for more specific and more limited blocks, so that at least fewer people would eb affected by each one. (It would be nice if instructors or other relevant authorities at least explained the consequences of vandalistic editing, but that may be unrealistic, and would be at best imperfectly effective).

I am going to post your response on wikipedia's "Adminsitrator's notice board" for comment and further followup, ommitting yopur email and phone number as requested. If you are interested in talking to me by telephone, my work number is <removed>. I will let you know if the response indicates that such a bypass would be considered a positive move by others. Thank you for your prompt response.

-David E. Siegel

• I think that the bypass solution suggested above might be a good idea. At present this block seems to be affecting users at "most of the public schools in the State of Tennessee" (at all grade levels) which is not good if there is a better choice. The solution proposed would at elast allow more specific blocks, and perhaps dealign with authorities at specific schools or districts. DES ^(talk) 21:33, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

• If it minimises the impact of individuals blocks I can't see (from a wikipedia view point) a downside, it might be nice to know the new IPs and where they relate in advance, so we can tag the talk_pages appropriately. --pgk^(talk) 21:54, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

The use of the x forward for information was, if I recall correctly, what allowed individual IP blocking on NTL's network instead of blocking the proxy. So talk to the developers and they should be able to get it working here. It was what allowed the blocking of Marmot. Also go see the Wikipedia:Blocking policy proposal that would further limit collateral damage, and write a patch if you are able. - Taxman ^Talk 22:10, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

From what I recall the x-forward information is effectively a list of ip adresses from source, through eash proxy and on. The software looks backwards through that list until it finds the first IP not on a list of "trusted" forwarders, that is the IP which the edit is considered to come from. In the NTL case the NTL proxies are added as trusted and so it all works, if the devs would be willing to add these proxies to the list of trusted is of course a different question. If they are I doubt they'd trust anything beyond that so if I understand the above correctly we'd probably get the same result as the bypass solution. The bypass solution of course requires no changes at the wikimedia end and wouldn't be open to abuse in the case that those proxies are ever compromised since we aren't extending any trust. --pgk^(talk) 22:56, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, that sounds reasonable and you're right, having the school do the bypassing might be a better idea. - Taxman ^Talk 15:14, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I am in jefferson County High School. I am also in a class full of people who are between the grades of 10 - 12. I would not complain, nor no how to seen my complants to the proper sorces if I wasn't perfectly literat and a good enough english student that i felt that typing to you would solve this issue. I hope that this post clears matters about school level and maturity. --69.19.14.15 00:05, 24 January 2006 (UTC)Led-zep

• I recieved a further communication from Marc Powell in which he says: "Chances are high that the teachers don't even know its happening. It's almost certainly happening on lab time or during study hall, etc. ... We're interested in keeping the resource as available as possible without causing significant burden on either end. I'll check on the discussion periodically but if there are other suggestions that are interesting, let me know." I woulkd like a brqoder consensus before asking him to implemt the bypass solutuion, but it still looks good to me. DES ^(talk) 03:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I did block User:208.183.105.11 and User:66.4.225.11 (these 2 proxies randomly handle requests for these TN schools). This is not the first time they have been blocked, and Led-zep's friend is not the only person who has vandalized from these IPs; it's been going on for over a year. I think it would be great if the school bypassed the proxy for Wikipedia, or set up X-forward. I'm not familiar with X-Forward but it sounds like a good solution. However, if the school doesn't take these steps, these IPs shouldn't be unblocked. They've been a steady source of vandalism for over a year. Remember that students can still read Wikipedia, they just can't edit it. I think that's a small price to pay to stop this vandalism. Rhobite 19:16, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm happy to trust your reasoning on this DES, although I do echo Rhobite's concerns. Steve block talk 19:38, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Blockage of User:213.40.67.66

This IP has been used for vandalism in the past. It had the repeat vandal template on it. Well, twice now, User:J.Spudeman/User:Spum (he recently changed his username) has been inadvertently blocked because of this. Yes Spum had problems 6-7 weeks ago but he's reformed and is now making many valuable contributions to Wikipedia. I've tried to explain how blocks work to him, but he's understandably upset. We need to be *very* careful with blocks longer than 2-3 hours. I think it's something many admins forget about until something like this happens. It looks like it's a dynamic IP that shifts among just a few users, which happens sometimes. I removed the template on the IP page and replaced it with a warning that this is a dynamic IP. The problem is that this just looks bad. Here are admins, who claim we are helping people out, and yet this stuff happens...too frequently. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 19:17, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes I wish people would look at the block log before blocking, a quick look at this one shows that collateral damage has been reported in the past, not to mention it helps to know a realistic block length to set. (Now waiting to be pointed to poor blocks on this part by me....) --pgk^(talk) 21:51, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

We need to put a notice on the user page of dynamic IPsSecretlondon 00:29, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Requests for rollback privileges

Please vote on the requests for rollback proposal, a proposal which would give good contributors, who are not admins, access to the rollback privilege. Talrias (t | e | c) 23:55, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Geogre's talk page

Would someone mind moving User talk:AOL IP, alas. The person needs blocking, but he's at an AOL dynamic IP back to User talk:Geogre? It was moved by WoohooDoggy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Thanks. Chick Bowen 04:00, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Chick. Done. Bishonen | talk 04:05, 24 January 2006 (UTC).

Oops, I think we stepped on each other's toes, Bishonen. Geogre's talk page is currently deleted. I'll step out of the way and let you undelete. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:07, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

We did, Bunch. Now take a look at the history of your userpages. :-) Bishonen | talk 04:13, 24 January 2006 (UTC).

Thanks for that, too. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:21, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. I'm not sure what's going on and I think I've mucked things up twice trying to leave Geogre a message, but I think I'll just leave it alone for now and drop by a little later, when things are stable. My message seems to be the only thing there right now, so someone should just delete it, undelete the proper talk page, and then I'll leave a message later. Sorry about the lousy timing; thanks. Chick Bowen 04:10, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I'll do it, if that's OK. --Bishonen | talk 04:13, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, do, thank you. Chick Bowen 04:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for catching it, Chick. From the way IRC is buzzing right now, it was a biggish attack, but I think most of it is already fixed. Bishonen | talk 04:27, 24 January 2006 (UTC).

Revealing deleted content to non-administrators

I'm not quite sure what I should do here. I recently speedily deleted a page for nn-bio; the page was written by someone other than the subject of the article, and the subject of the article wants to see what was there before it was deleted. Quoting from my talk page:

... another reason as to why i would like to see the material is to determine if malice was intended. i have been getting quite a bit of flak from people who have seen the article and seeing the content would hopefully enable me to identify the person who posted the article and hence, pursue the appropriate courses of action.

So far, I've been politely refusing to do dig out the deleted material. However, what's the relevant policy on this? Thanks. enochlau (talk) 06:10, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

My view is, what would it hurt? fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 06:13, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Would it be a mis-use of admin powers though? I mean, we don't have the ability to view deleted content for the pleasure of non-admins. enochlau (talk) 06:14, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Not according to these admins who have put Template:User recovery on their user page. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 06:24, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Back to your question, you might want to read WP:DRV#Content review. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 06:27, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Cool, thanks for the links! enochlau (talk) 06:31, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Not every user who can be trusted to view deleted content is an administrator. Whether or not to reveal deleted content is a choice you've gotta make — ably guided by Zzyzx11's links, of course — but I don't think it's a good idea to hide everything from non-admins just because they're not admins. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 06:46, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Unless there is a good reason not to release deleted content (copyvio attack page) I've never seen a reason not to. The content is under the GFDL after all.Geni 12:52, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Of course the good reasons would be things like copyright violation and libel, etc. So if the information could be considered as libel, then revealing it after deletion could be contributory in that. - Taxman ^Talk 15:11, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Deleting Image

Vandal image that needs to be deleted. [76] This is the first time I've run into needing to delete a picture. What do I do in a situation like this? I removed the revision from the page. Sue Anne 20:10, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Put {{db|reason for deletion}} on the image page. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 20:32, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Moldovan language again

I'm not sure if this is the right place to post, if that is not the case, please excuse me, and erase this entry. We have been trying to rewrite the Moldovan language article (that has been blocked for over one month and only recently unblocked) for some time, yesterday after heaps of discussions we finally ended up with a clear consensus. Now User:Mikkalai appears out of the sudden and completely replaces the intro part with the parts from the previous, highly disputed article. He engaged in a revert war without caring to explain his edits on the talk page until his 3rd revert. It is not my right to judge, but I think it's wrong to modify good chunks of article and putting back the confusing infobox (the reasons why it is confusing have been discussed on the talk page before) without discussing it beforehand. --Just a tag 22:19, 24 January 2006 (UTC)