Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive105

There are many FAs which got promoted under the old FA criteria. A quick glance at these first generation FAs reveals that several of them fall way short of FA-quality under the present guidelines.

11:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes - {{

ム

11:52, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

{{

downgraded to say B-class." - this of course, would apply only to FAs promoted under the old guidelines. So do you have anything else to say other than "sofixit" and "take it to the pump"? Sarvagnya

12:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Admins do not have special authority over content issues, which is what FA/FAR/FARCs are - such issues are determined by the community, of which all admins happen to be a part, but only in the fact we are all also editors. Issues such as this ought to be discussed on the Village Pump because it is the appropriate location for such discussion. Admins do not have special authority to revise community-determined policy - everyone has an equal right.

ム

13:24, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Just work through them gradually. Nominate them at a slow enough rate to (a) allow work to be done on them, and (b) not to overwhelm FAR. Carcharoth 12:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Both these articles have already appeared on the Main Page (see here and here, and thus will not appear on the Main Page again for the foreseeable future. See the "Article Milestones" template on the talk pages to confirm this. Just let these article appear on FAR in the fulness of time. ie. Don't overwhelm FAR with excessive nominations, and, as always, be prepared to work on the articles you nominate. Carcharoth 12:01, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. FAR is the way to go. That is exactly what it is for. This is not an admin matter at all. --Stephan Schulz 12:11, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

So whenever the FA criteria changes all FAs should be un-FAed for not meeting FA? Luigi30 (Taλk) 13:19, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

A generally good approach is to comment at the article talk page and solicit help from the relevant wikiprojects. Brush it up a bit yourself if you have the knowledge and sources. If no one steps in to help after a month, then FARC it. I've done this a few times. Durova^Charge! 16:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The bottomline is, an article is FA if it meets FA guidelines. If it doesnt, it shouldnt be FA. And if it doesnt by a good distance and by reasonable estimate requires substantial work, we shouldnt have to go through a pointless FAR to get it de-featured. I dont understand the community's obsession with bureaucratically holding on to FAs when they are clearly not FA-quality and also stand no realistic chance of making it past a FAR. Sarvagnya 03:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Articles get promoted to featured, standards get tougher, articles get reviewed and either improve or are defeatured. Nothing new here. Those two articles you list are more like third generation FAs. This is what a 'first generation' FA looked like. And the articles being promoted to FA now? In two years they'll be sub-par unless they continue to improve. We don't go and wipe away the featured status of every article immediately each time the standards go up. Yes, that means that some of our featured articles are still under what I would call 'third' (inline references only for salient points) or possibly even 'second' (detailed and well written, but few references at all) generation standards, but that's hardly a problem. The day will come, I am convinced, when we adopt FA standards requiring that every fact in an article not only be referenced, but that those references have actually been looked up by independent reviewers and verified to support the information. When that happens every current FA will be failing of those standards... but we won't de-feature them all immediately. There would be no point to it. Ditto with the present. We allow a 'grace period' for articles to continue improving towards the current standards. The point of FAR isn't to get things de-featured. It's to see whether people will put in the time to get the article up to current standards so it doesn't need to be de-featured. --CBD 11:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I occasionally come across some strange articles. That have issues with the scope or just seem like they don't belong in an encyclopedia in the form that they are in. If they are stubs and contain very general information like

) 14:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

If the issue is that their context is unclear, then {{

RM to discuss what to keep and what to move elsewhere. Warofdreams talk

15:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The strangest one I found was Library damage resulting from the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake. Articles like these tend to be people dumping their research papers on Wikipedia. I recently cleaned up Arsénio Pompílio Pompeu de Carpo from this to this. But sometimes they are not needed or so obscure it is not clear how to start rescuing them. I sent the library one to AfD to see what to do, but it was kept and I did a brief tidying, moving lots of data to the talk page. Carcharoth 14:40, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I am a new user to wikipedia and recently noticed that a page had been reverted overnight. I corrected the revert and placed the appropriate antivandalism template on the user page of the vandal User:Jack Merridew. I think I may have walked into an ongoing dispute as another user User:Eusebeus removed the template and accused me of being a vandal and a sockpuppet? Anyhow an edit war on the reversion of the page Chris Conley started between two other editors and the page was eventually protected from editing. Since then page has been unprotected User:Jack Merridew has put it up for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Chris_Conley and spammed my username with accusations of sockpuppetry. For evidence he has removed my civilised warning here [1], left me with an uncivilised and rather rude commenton my user talk page [2], vandalised my user page accusing me of being a sockpuppet of another editor (who happens to be blocked [3], accused me of various other stuff on an administrators user talk [4], and another admins [5]. He has then taken his malicious editing to the talk page for the chris conley page, failing to address and debate the issue at hand and accusing me of being a sock puppet [6]. he makes comments to other editers such as this guy [7], and here [8]. Now correct me if I am wrong, but he has made more edits to try and discredit me and make me look like someone who I am not, than actual edits that I have made. From reading about wikipedia it is supposed to be an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, however all I have encountered is incivility and an onslaught of accusations that have no basis or merit. Is there any proof that I am a sockpuppet of the R:128 whatever guy? Of course not, as I am a new editor! I would appreciate it if someone could look into the matter and take the appropriate measures to pull this Jack Merridew guy into line. It is editors like him who give wikipedia a bad name. Punkguy182 18:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

You're new (you started editing 25th Sep) yet you know all the wiki terminology? You also know how to provide diffs and where to post this message. Have you edited before under any previous account at all? It would really make this situation different if you had.

Seraphim ^Whipp 18:24, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

• No I have not, but I have been looking and reading code for a while as I am interested in the simplified HTML format (I'm a web designer). I had made a few anon spelling corrections, but decided to get more involved last week. I feel it mayhave ben a mistake now and wikipedia is not the place for me. Punkguy182 18:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

'triff.... that was that editors last edit to date! Was he a sock? Well, we'll never know now... Can we remember not to

WP:BOLD enthusiasts (or at least lead them gently into this "Encyclopedia tht anyone can edit"). Remember, we were all new once. LessHeard vanU

20:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Aww I tried to make sure that it didn't sound bitey. In this suspicious situation, I was trying to give them a legitimate reason that would explain why they are so knowledgable about the workings of wikipedia, despite being brand new. I remember when I was new...I definately couldn't have told you what a sockpuppet was and I didn't know this admin noticeboard existed until a few months ago (although that could be because I'm a bit slow sometimes :( ). Since that didn't come across properly, I'll modify my tone for the future.

Seraphim ^Whipp 21:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to target you with my comment, and I apologise if that appears to be the case. I did AGF with your response, but thought the point was made by the other editor. Perhaps it is to the good, you need a reasonably thick skin to edit in some areas of WP! I've left a welcome message on their talkpage; maybe they will come back and maybe not... LessHeard vanU 21:43, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

• I believe a CU will quickly clear this up. This is almost certainly a sockpuppet, and any futher response here falls under
  WP:DNFTT. Eusebeus
  21:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

  If Punkguy182 is the returned (as promised) User:R:128.40.76.3, User:A.J.1.5.2./Curious Gregor, Mad kemist then I don't expect a simple CU will link him, for reasons explained here WRT User:Mark1mark2. See User_talk:Newyorkbrad#Punkguy182 for links to more history. Pete.Hurd 04:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I stand by my statements to the effect that User:Punkguy182 is a reincarnation of User:R:128.40.76.3. Given that he has since copied a portion of my user page onto his user page, I would say it is quite likely that this ‘user’ is also User:Jack..Merridew who copied my entire user page and attempted to impersonate me. I am sure someone will end up restoring the sockpuppet tag I added to his user page once this is all said and done... and he's blocked again. --Jack Merridew 13:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I also think they are the same user, but I doubt a CU will provide definitive proof, given his apparent use of different IP ranges for different users in the past. Note also, User:R:128.40.76.3 socks have copied excerpts of my userpage to his user page: User:Mad kemist [9], User:Tim.Boyle [[10], and User:Curious Gregor [11], but in a slightly different manner than was done with Jack's page. Whether User:Jack..Merridew is a User:Gorge He or User:R:128.40.76.3 sock seems besides the point, which is that User:Punkguy182 is clearly here to troll. Pete.Hurd 16:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Since yesterday,

14:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• Note All the templates created by the user have now been nominated for deletion as they are depreciated and redundant. Thewinchester ^(talk) 15:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I reviewed the situation and left an appropriately detailed warning on the user's talk page. AKRadecki^Speaketh 15:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

It has been pointed out repeatedly to

20:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

This seems just plain silly. Yes, there's an infinitesimal chance that the photograph was first published after 1937, but it's a minute one. It was taken in 1879 for god's sake. Aside from anything else, given the sitters there's a reasonable chance this is a crown copyright in which case it's undoubtedly now in the public domain. Can you really not find more problematic images to worry about? –

iridescent (talk to me!)

21:10, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

There's actually no chance that the photograph was published after 1937, as it was published in 1879 by being handed out to the participants in the house party that is the subject of the photograph. - Nunh-huh 21:27, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Contrary to "anons" statement above I don't care what copyright tag it has (I see it has just been changed [13] so long as Anon is not trying to have it deleted), as that is plainly daft. I just though {PD-old}} was the most logical.

Giano

21:43, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Anon never mentioned the word "deletion", but simply requested that the tag be changed. If the change had been made then, all this fuss could have been avoided. 41.208.243.92 07:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Not quite true [14] you mention deletion twice in this one short post. You also kept reverting my changing of the tag. Never mind all is well that ends well.

Giano

07:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

FGS [15] If Carnildo is happy what on earth is all this about?

Giano

06:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Truly, if Carnildo is satisfied that's the last word on the matter. No administrative action is required here; the IfD will run its course. Mackensen (talk) 10:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The administrative action is required here. The IP needs to be investigated for sockpuppetry and the account(s) has to be blocked for pesky harassment. --Irpen 21:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be a fascination to adding false future destinations to the G8 article. I think this is due to some website or another linking to an incorrect past revision as a joke... but subsequent vandalized versions are staying unreverted for way too long and I have no idea how much longer this will continue. Some extra eyes would be helpful. --W.marsh 01:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to watch the article. NCurse _work 05:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• It got
  MC
  ♠ 22:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Policy for transferring photographs to Commons

A humble suggestion follows. Motorrad-67 21:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• Before doing anything to initiate a transfer, the photographer must be contacted to discuss the potential transfer. No transfer will ever be made without prior communication with the photographer.

• The person wishing to execute a transfer (transferer) must ascertain the photographer's opinion about making the transfer. If the photographer does not understand the meaning of the transfer or the nature of the Commons, the transferer must explain this to him or her.

• If the photographer agrees to the transfer, the transfer may be made.

• If the photographer does not agree to the transfer, discussion must continue to ascertain the reason(s) for the disagreement in an attempt to implement reasonable and mutually acceptable procedures to secure agreement.

• If no agreement can be made, the photographer will be provided the option to have his or her photograph(s) deleted completely from Wikipedia. If the photographer does not agree to deletion and does not agree to the transfer after reasonable efforts are made to secure his or her agreement, the transferer may transfer the photographs 14 days after the initial contact with the photographer was made.

The best place to discuss policy isn't on the AN, it's on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Will ^(talk) 22:03, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I have posted it there. Motorrad-67 22:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Could someone look at this, it's a sock puppett case that I got into when it was on ANI and it is snowballing. This user keeps dropping notes on my talk page, I want to help but I'm not very knowledgeable in sock cases and I'm now in over my head. Can another admin please help? Thanks. Rlevse 01:53, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

• User:SarahLover has been indefinitely blocked as a suspected sock, obviously picking up where another account left off[16]. Keegan^talk 02:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Can you be more specific? What sort of further help do you need? I see Betacommand's analysis suggesting all of these are related. I'd hate to actually run CUs on all these userids. I suggest
    WP:DUCK. ++Lar: t/c
    02:21, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Hey Lar, I think the issue was over the fact that SarahLover was not blocked, although a non-admin placed the indef-blocked sock tag on the userpage. A CU could reveal the underlying IP, but I'm hardblocking to take care of that anyway. So, case closed I think. Keegan^talk 02:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
      • Other users were hard blocked, so why can the person keep editing? Dynamic IPs, different computers? Also, the reporting user seems frustrated that the sock can keep creating accounts--can anything be done to stop this? Rlevse 02:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
        • Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser, second door on the left. Seriously, it is the only avenue to take care of account abuse. We as admins don't have the capacity to track socks to the extent required here. Keegan^talk 02:34, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
          • And it's already there. Sharp eyes and an even temperament, that's all you can have. Keegan^talk 02:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
        • Hard-blocking users is only effective for 24 hours via
          WP:AUTOBLOCK. It's not like hard-blocking IPs. —Wknight94 (talk
          ) 02:40, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Rats, this guy's really bad. Sounds like we really need CU to stop this guy.Rlevse 02:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

• Learn something new everyday. Keegan^talk 03:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

This user keeps removing deletion templates w/o following policy despite two warnings i left on their talk page. The Placebo Effect 02:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I have left a message for the user, plus a standardized welcome message (and a 3RR warning at that). The user hasn't reverted the most recent templates, and it's been about an hour, so perhaps your message did the trick. We can always still monitor the situation. -Andrew c ^[talk] 03:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I've noticed that even after the user warnings have been cleaned up, templates such as

19:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The reason the older templates have not been made similar is that, when the newer ones were made, the admins who used the old ones didn't want to see them changed. Perhaps it has been long enough now to just redirect {{

CBM · talk

) 19:42, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

There is probably a better place for this discussion, but as somebody who uses the test templates, and not the new ones, I would not like to see them simply redirected to their new counterparts. For numerous reasons, including my dislike for the new wording and use of icons, I (and I assume others) prefer not to use the new templates. - auburnpilot talk 20:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

• I suggest
  WP:TFD. >Radiant<
  08:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Portal:Current events

Camptown

20:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I've cascade protected it for 12 hours, after which an admin should restore the original protections. Maxim_(talk) 21:40, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

• Several of those templates can probably be protected as
  high-risk. Except for the one you mention (Portal:Current events/2007 October 1) which really isn't. >Radiant<
  08:56, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

User:ClaimJumperPete

FYI

An FYI. There's an odd persistent vandal, ClaimJumperPete and sockpuppets whose habit is to insert seemingly misguided "ant-vandalism" comments in random articles, using a highly stylized southern U.S. accent. He plays the "just trying to help" and "I don't understand why you don't like me" games, but has also started scoreboarding his vandalism (see Example 1, Example 2). I've asked for full protect on the user and user talk pages this vandal can edit, to stop the scoreboarding. I mention the guy here:

• to alert a wider range of admins, since he plays the naive user game very well
• to inquire if there's more that can be done

I'm not an admin and don't know all the tools you guys have for squashing vandalism. Studerby 19:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

You may also want to mention this at

WP:LTA.--Avant Guard

20:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for the notice, Studerby. It appears that all the known and declared socks were all blocked independently by different administrators, so it is nice to tie it all in one package so we can keep an eye out. Appreciate it. Keegan^talk 20:06, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

CheckUser filed. Lets see if we can catch some sleepers, or an IP address. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 20:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of posting Studerby's comment on

WP:LTA along with a modus operandi section that I've written.--Avant Guard

21:04, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for the transfer over to LTA, I overlooked that board. Sounds like the admins are on the case... Studerby 22:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Threat

The vandal just used a new sockpuppet, User:GhostofPete, made the general threat in this edit:

It won't take ya long ta be figurin' this is yer ClaimJumperPete. n' I dun really care how fast yar gunna be choosin' ta report this account neither, but I gotta cupple uh werds for ya pal. I been noticin' yer takin' quite n' involvement revertin' my rosters, ya know i had to be takin' notice uh that. 'nother thing, it's kinda clear that ya got an interest 'n silencin' me. Perhaps ya might want to know what yer gonna be up against. Ya might be thinkin' dis is sum sorta game: yer bullet hit the mark. Jus' the other day me 'n a friend kicked it off the same time, he dern got 37 hits n' I got 31 before we were both cleared out. Soon enough yer gonna see a site such as CJP.suddenlaunch3.com or a better variant. A forum where I'll be roundin' up a posse of dudes I dun even be knowin' yet. Ya think 'am havin' a wild time doin' this? ya don't know the half of it. But y'all got a choice. ya can either get ma' account unblocked, and move yer merry way, er I can keep doin' this till the cows come home. Ya herd that clear: If ya unblock me, ClaimJumperPete, I'll never be makin' another edit again, 'n it'll be over. But if y'all shut me down again, it'll be back ta yer status quo right here. Otherwise 'am perfectly fine wit dis lil' charade, in all actuality. The ball's in yer court, pal. GhostOfPete 02:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

...and

we can do this 'til the cows come home, too. Don't feed the troll, vandals are dealt with as they pop up. Keegan^talk —Preceding signed but undated

comment was added at 03:19, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Newest sock added to checkuser. Hopefully, he'll keep making accounts so we can CheckUser him and report his ISP. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 13:41, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London tunnel run contains many socks. Send help. Luigi30 (Taλk) 13:01, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Here are some of his edits of the past 10 days:

Examples of sources being deleted:

• [17]
• [18]
• [19]

Examples of citation requests being deleted:

• [20]
• [21]
• [22]
• [23]
• [24]

Examples of changing sourced information:

• [25]
• [26]
• [27]

Hoponpop69 23:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, but why was this not even acknowledged by anyone?Hoponpop69Hoponpop69 22:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

What I see is a classic content dispute over the band The Classic Crime being a Christian band or not. This does not require admin attention. Please talk it out on the talk page. Though I will say that Skateremorocker's remark "or I will ban you" was inapropriate.  – Edokter • Talk • 23:02, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

We've tried that but it didn't really work, so I'm using Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal. Thank you for responding. Hoponpop69 01:30, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi,

I need your help. There is an admin called

article. I have made an edit and he threatened to ban me. He tries to edit most medical school articles, and in the end, all that is left is "[a certain medical school] according to Leuko". Would it be possible for you to help me?

Thanks

DrGladwin 17:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

First,

American University of Antigua College of Medicine violates NPOV. My own feeling is that the names "American University of Antigua College of Medicine" and "University of Health Sciences Antigua" are not similar enough to warrant disambig notices at all. I have removed the message accordingly. Third, your removal of it is not vandalism and Leuko was wrong to imply it was such. Forth, this noticeboard was probably not the best place for you to bring up this concern, as it does not involve use of administrative powers. Mike R

17:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Mike. I always thought Leuko was an admin from the way he "bosses" over other other mods. He even threatened to ban a fellow mod! Can you believe that?! Leuko hacks through articles and no one, I say no one, is allowed to undo the changes he has made. Notice his edits and the sentiments he as stirred up on his talk page from his previous edits. People who go against him are threatened by bans. Anyways, thanks for your help. DrGladwin 17:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Replied at

User talk:DrGladwin so as to desist from clogging up AN. Mike R

17:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to keep posting here, but it is clear that Leuko is implying he is a mod/admin. He posted on my talk page a message regarding a different medical school and indicated if I continued making certain edits I would be blocked from editing. He very clearly implied that he has this power. I have removed this from my talk page as it is plain silly and very bullying of him. While he makes no explicit statement of being an admin he clearly implies it. BTW, the article in question is Caribbean Medical University. I beg for your assistance. Bstone 17:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Looks like he used a standard 3rr warning template. There is nothing wrong with any editor warning other editors to not edit war. No idea if it was warranted in this case, but there's nothing automatically wrong with a non-admin using that template. Friday (talk) 17:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Has Leuko been notified that this thread exists? There are mechanisms for

request for comment, rather than soliciting people with a dislike for Leuko to comment here. MastCell ^Talk

18:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

MastCell, it's not a question of disliking Leuko. It's the question of him threatening to ban other editors and mods if they make changes in articles that he disapproves. I had removed one line from the AUA article (this same line has been removed by an admin), and notice the warning Leuko wrote on my talk page: he simply threatened to ban me. I feel this is not right and is against our principle of "Being Bold." DrGladwin 18:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

It should be pointed out that in posts on DrGladwin's talk page, Leuko specifically and unambiguously stated on DrGladwin's talk page would be blocked from editing if he continued with certain edits. He wrote, "you will be blocked from editing" (emphasis not added). Leuko's incivility, bullying and implying he has the ability to block someone is what is making is incredibly uncomfortable. Thank you for the dispute resolution links. I shall be following up with them. Bstone 18:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The block warning is a part of our standard warning templates. They in no way indicate that the person leaving the warning will be doing the blocking and, in fact, are for the use of all editors. See

WP:WARN. -Chunky Rice

18:40, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

it's a standard template message - if you don't like the wording then obtain consensus to change it, the fact that certain words within are highlighted does not provide you with a stick to hit Leuko over the head. Do some basic research in future before attacking other editors with such claims. --Fredrick day 18:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Unless one reads and is familiar with

WP:WARN they would immediately to the conclusion that the person issuing the warning has the ability to make good on it. The policy for issuing warning should change as it is very ambiguous as to the standing of the person issuing it. Notice that by issuing this message two casual editors (DrGladwin and myself) were both convinced Leuko as an admin. Be that as it may, I will be drafting a request for mediation based on Leuko's incivility and bullying. I don't see the need to post here again. Bstone

18:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Contrary to what you and DrGladwin believe, it doesn't matter whether an admin or another editor or a kitten issues a warning. Your response to one should be the same regardless: you'd ignore it if it's meritless or adjust your actions accordingly. However, I'd warn against going for the former method, as some tend to see every warning they receive as meritless, even when some are not. – tariqabjotu 19:18, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Second opinion on external link adding...

) 20:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I checked a few of the entries; the linked to website is merely regurgitating other people's advertising copy and reprinting the game instructions, which are copyrighted. I'm sure it's a very helpful site for people who have downloaded warez, but I can't think of a particularly good reason wikipedia should link to it. Studerby 21:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

(third opinion) Oh, definitely external link spamming. Someone else already gave them a final warning, and they seem to have stopped half an hour ago. Revert all. I'd help, but I'm not automated. --

barneca (talk

) 21:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I added the final warning before spotting this thread, even though they were only on level 1 previously, as I looked at their contributions beforehand. I didn't revert any of the changes myself, as I too am unaided, but I called on User:Moonriddengirl to rollback the changes. However, this leaves a lot of links to cpczone.net, and many of the user's edits were simply modifying the existing links (possibly spam). Would it be too much to remove all ELs to cpczone, while leaving any legitimate uses of the site as a reference? --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 22:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what's with this page. Obviously, wikipedia is not for image galleries. The page isn't linked from any page in the mainspace either. So, what's the consensus on what to do with this page? -

) 01:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the talk page, which redirects to an archive, the page appears to have been used as a testing ground for the image dispute related to

Talk:Muhammad/images/archive) to an archive of main talk page. - auburnpilot talk

01:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• cross-namespace redirect
• Talk:Muhammad/images - re-redirected to Talk:Muhammad
• Placed
  Talk:Muhammad/images/archive 2 on Talk:Muhammad
  as archive link.
• Fixed double redirects.

Finished. – Moe ε 02:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

) 09:22, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks sign bot!!!!

StuartDD ( t • c

) 09:28, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, the user in question hasn't broken any rules. Unreasonable demands to not edit, sure, but the pages are in fact allowed as it has an obvious purpose for the 'pedia. See

Wikipedia:User page. --Ben^chat

12:20, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd agree with that, but there is no indication that it is a sub page, and therefore he can't claim it to be personal.

StuartDD ( t • c

) 12:25, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I have moved the page to his userspace where it belongs. The page looks like it might be part of his encyclopedic work, so we can

) 12:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Well seeing as it's in userspace (even though it tosses naming conventions out the window), and I would call it a subpage although it technically isn't one. He's not claiming it to be personal anyway, just telling people not to edit (people are entitled to ignorant opinions). Heck, look at my sandbox, I use it to formulate template designs and article edits all the time. <edit conflict hit me here> thanks Kusma. --Ben^chat 12:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

It's a sub page now, so that deals with it. Thanks.

StuartDD ( t • c

) 12:36, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Requesting Outside Opinions

Earlier today, I placed

^{[omg plz]}

 17:06, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

WoW

I'd like to report 82.45.40.89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) as a sockpuppet of Willy on Wheels. He has similiarity to his other socks. The use of "WWWWWWWWWW" [29] [30], the term "fucking bastard" [31] [32], and more if you check his contribs. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 22:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Those are signs of an uncivil vandal, but far from proof that it's actually the same person as the earlier famous vandal (who, I think, had more class and couth... he just moved articles to titles with "...on Wheels", without cursing anybody out as far as I know). *Dan T.* 22:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Did you even click the diff links? Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 22:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think it's a pretty blatant WoW sock. east.718 at 22:32, October 2, 2007

Or a "me-too" vandal trying to ride the coattails of WoW's fame or infamy, anyway. Didn't the real WoW supposedly "reform" and apologize? *Dan T.* 22:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Accoriding to a rejected arbitration case, someone claiming to be WoW said that the one who apologized was not really him. hbdragon88 00:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed with Dan T; this WoW sock business needs to stop. That's not Willy's ISP, at least not the one I remember, and any random jackass with an internet connection can fill the edit summary with the letter 'W'. Moreover, this is a non-static IP that hasn't made an edit since June and which has no sockpuppets active on it. What would you have us do? Mackensen (talk) 22:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• Frankly we shouldn't care whether or not this is the "official" WoW. It's irrelevant. If it's a vandal-only account,
  revert, block, ignore. Even the Ancient Greeks had that one down pat. >Radiant<
  08:55, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
• It's worth noting, that this IP hasn't made an edit in nearly 4 months. SQL^{(Query Me!)} 08:59, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
• At the risk of feeding the trolls, I heard last night that WoW (or a wannabe) hit another Wiki site – not recently, though. (Details available in email.) I guess he gets around, like a social disease. – llywrch 20:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I just semi-protected his user page based on this which he repeated. I really like the last two sentences. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 02:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Is this a static ip?

WP:LEGAL might be invoked if so. LessHeard vanU

12:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Not likely. He'll be back with a new one again, see Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Burgz33. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 14:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Just incase anyone's wondering, s/he is wrong and can't revoke their edits. See

WP:REVOKE for more specific info. James086^{Talk | Email}

14:27, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Ha, well, the contract can only be severed on stipulations, like any contract, not just an "I say so." You can only have the license revoked by misuse, you can't revoke it. Once you hit save, it is free for anyone to distribute and modify as long as credit and source is given. Paraphrasing Essjay, only hit save once you're sure about what you want to put out there. Keegan^talk 05:08, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Forgive me if this is not the proper forum and please tell me where I can post this. We have been having problems with user(s) creating an article

21:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Done. Page salted. --B 21:54, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

OK. Great. Thanks - Rjd0060 21:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I've opened a discussion on the next generation of our license at Wikipedia:GSFDL since admins tend to deal with copyright issues rather more than most comments from as many as possible are requested.Geni 02:50, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I notice admins protecting Wikipedia images before they are added to the main page. I don't believe that's necessary anymore because of the cascading protection. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.

I'm less sure about images on commons. If an image from commons is on the main page but is protected on commons, does it still need to be uploaded here to prevent vandalism? —Wknight94 (talk) 01:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Ideally, all images should be protected prior to being put on the main page, as it is possible for a vandal to vandalize an image right before it gets placed on the cascade-protected main page (especially DYK and ITN, as they aren't on the cascade-protected

Main Page/Tomorrow prior to being on the main page). However, if an image is already on the main page (or Main Page/Tomorrow) without normal protection and it is protected on commons, then it isn't necessary to c-upload it. Basically, if you don't know exactly how cascade protection works, you should upload and full protect before placing any image on the main page. --- RockMFR

01:31, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

RockMFR is correct - non admins can't upload images to the same title as an image on Commons. So if the image is protected on Commons, it need not be here. Those who are admins on Commons can protect it there rather than having to upload a local version. Otherwise, if the image exists unvandalised on a cascaded page, there's no need to protect it as well but if its possible for it to be vandalised just before automatic inclusion on such a page it should be. There's probably no harm in people playing safe and double protecting though. WjBscribe 01:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

One small caveat would be that the regular protection should have a time limit. Otherwise, the admin removing it from the main page will have to check that it doesn't become permanently protected. It seems simpler to let cascading protection do its job. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh absolutely - whether protection is here or on Commons, I can't see why it would need to be for more than 1 day... WjBscribe 01:50, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

With the exception of items on ITN of course, which have lingered on the Main Page for over a week in rare cases. - BanyanTree 11:23, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

But once it's actually on the main page, protection isn't necessary. RockMFR and WJBscribe are referring to the time before it gets to the main page. I'm not sure I follow that but I'm also not familiar with the processes involved in assembling the main page. (I know only that there are a lot of pieces to sort through!) —Wknight94 (talk) 21:42, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

There's a technical solution to that ... create a page that displays tomorrow's main page (ie, use {{#expr:{{CURRENTDAY}} + 1}} in relevant places) and cascade protect it. That way, everything is protected 24 hours in advance and you can take a look at it to make sure that it hasn't been vandalized right before the protection took effect. --B 21:59, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

We already have that I believe -

Main Page/Tomorrow. Its just that DYK and ITN aren't included on that (as they aren't necessarily known in advance...). WjBscribe

07:21, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I need some help in re-writing the template at Portal:LGBT/Quotetemp to where it supports more than 10 quotes from Portal:LGBT/Quotes. User:WJBscribe created LGBT/Quotetemp but said he copied it from another Portal. He said the template only supports up to 10 quotes. I haven't a clue how to do this. Any help would be greatly appreciated. – ALLSTAR ECHO 01:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The template (quotetemp) itself is just a wrapper that displays content when and only when one of the values given is equal to a calculation applied to the current time. The quotes page itself has each possible number available associated with a transclusion of the template with a quote for the content. To expand the template without breaking anything, you must first have a number of quotes equal to the number of possible values a new expression will create (just add quotes with additional numbers to the page), and then change the expression to cause it to output that new set of variables. If you make a total of 20 quotes available and replace {{#expr:({{CURRENTMINUTE}}*3)/20 round 0}} with {{#expr:({{CURRENTMINUTE}}-1.5)/3 round 0}}, it should expand it to 20. The important thing is making sure that the function resolves itself to the right set of different values over the course of the hour. ${\displaystyle \operatorname {round} \left({\frac {x-1.5}{3}}\right)}$ is the function I'm using to make it work - as long as you use ${\displaystyle \operatorname {round} (\operatorname {f} (x))}$ where ${\displaystyle \operatorname {f} (x)}$ resolves to the right set of integer values using {{CURRENTMINUTE}} and a fraction, you're fine and can easily have up to 60 without making the code much more complicated. Make sure, however, that the step function starts at zero for the fraction you use, or you have to offset it with a subtraction or addition in the numerator, as I've done here. This helps ensure that all quotes are displayed for the same amount of time. Nihiltres^(t.l) 22:06, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I can't see it so there doesn't seem to be a problem. Mrs.EasterBunny 23:30, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe the contents of this page should be cleared? He hasn't made a revision since July, 2005 as evident here. - Rjd0060 19:02, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I have speedy deleted it as an attack page.-gadfium 19:33, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• Raëlism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Here is the Wikipedia Raëlism/Raelian scheme:

• History of Raëlism
• Raëlian beliefs and practices
• Raëlian Church membership estimates
• Raëlian cosmology
• Raëlian Embassy for Extraterrestrials
• Raelian Foundation
• Raëlism
• Category:Raëlian beliefs and practices
• Category:Raëlians
• Category:Raëlism
• Template:Raëlian
• Template:Raëlism

The above categories and templates lead to a significant number of more articles that are soapboxes for Raëlism/Raelian. It seems likely to be growing due to those with COIs. The trifecta requirements of

20:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not too sure where it's best to post this since it involves an apparent misuse of admin and/or oversight rights to "massage" past diffs and a couple of quotes involving SEWilco to hide a lie. I just finished posting a long description at User_talk:Charles_Matthews, so I won't repeat it here. This is the link to it for the curious and/or more: [33]

FYI, I guess. -BC aka Callmebc 21:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Apparently Callmebc trusts his memory so much that he thinks people changed many Wikipedia database entries in order to change the records. See Callmebc's inability to read a document in Talk:Killian documents authenticity issues#Copy of "Mother's Day" talk moved from Talk:Killian documents. I assure you that if I had the powers which he ascribes to me, Callmebc would be viewing a private copy of the articles and leaving the rest of the editors alone. (SEWilco 21:54, 5 October 2007 (UTC))

The Alice Bailey article needs monitoring. Some editors there are anti-Bailey and work against the development of the article and seek to undermine constructive progress of it and have continued to do so for months. James 16:52, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

NB: Jamesd1 seems to have intended to put this notice here, but put it in the Administrators' noticeboard archive by mistake; so I am moving it here for him. As it happens,I am the "Some editors" Jamesd1 is referring to, and I would certainly be happy to have more eyes on the Alice Bailey article. I would love to have more editors participating (if they agree with my views, or not); and, certainly, administrators are very welcome editors - and the more experienced the better. Kwork 20:26, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. It may be useful to note that Jamesd1 (talk · contribs) (edit article count summary), who entered this report, seems to be a single-purpose account. He has edited only the one article he is reporting, plus a couple edits to very closely-related articles. There are one or two other SPA accounts working on the Alice Bailey article also, on the same "team" as James so-to-speak. There may be a COI issue with them, as followers of Alice Bailey's teachings , but I did not report the SPA/COI activity, because it seemed to me we were working it out OK with the help of several established non-SPA editors now contributing. Also, I am not now identifying those other SPA editors, because it seems to me they are learning about Wikipedia, and that the problem with them is less than it was a month ago. But since James entered this report, I thought I should provide the additional information about his SPA editing. --Parsifal _Hello 21:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

This does not require administrative attention. Look to

Conflict of interest noticeboard if edit warring becomes an issue. Keegan^talk

05:01, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I concur that this report did not belong here, which is why I added the additional information for context.

WP:CONSENSUS seems to be working things out OK on the article at this time. --Parsifal _Hello

21:19, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Joshd1991

Joshd1991 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) just left this. It's based on his deleted pages from April 2007, I think. I just gave him an indefinite block and bring it here for review. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 16:28, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• I cannot imagine a more clear cut case for needing an indef block. WilyD 16:37, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• I completely agree. An indefinite block should certainly be used in this case. You made the correct decision. нмŵוτнτ 17:33, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• I don't see any gems of articles in this list. Yet he seems oddly defensive of what he's written. Yeah, an indefinite block is suitable. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 18:20, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• I checked all his contributions and I strongly support an indef block in this case. Neozoon 20:53, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I have been watching

20:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC) seems oddly defensive of what he's written. Yeah, an indefinite block is suitable. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 18:20, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• I checked the edits and the differences and took a look at the article and the history. I support the block. Neozoon 21:22, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I've given

01:09, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Hoax user, trolling. I fail to see a single constructive edit. In fact, most edits are vandalism disguised as verbosity [34][35][36][37]. I wouldn't mind if you made the block indefinite as a SPA-vandalism. Keegan^talk 05:02, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Done. Just wanted a second opinion... –

iridescent (talk to me!)

14:57, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

• I support the block, this is bad faith SPA-vandalism. Neozoon 21:24, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I've preemptively blocked Tennesseetrumpet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). See [38] for background. I'd appreciate it if someone gave this a second look. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 05:17, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Looks good to me. That's a hell of a find. Keegan^talk 05:31, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely a good call. Rlevse 11:25, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Appreciate that action Neozoon 21:34, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Please refresh my memory if this isn't the place for this. User:If you think wiki pedia is reliable you have downs syndrome does not look like a suitable username to me. Let me know if I'm overly rigorous. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 13:11, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Disallow (soft block) the username for several reasons: it is both disruptive and offensive, violating

WP:U. нмŵוτнτ

15:26, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Because the user went on to create more usernames that violate policy, I hard blocked the account. WODUP 16:15, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

For reporting username violations, see

WP:UAA in the future.--Avant Guard

17:58, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, will bookmark the link. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 21:28, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

How do you deal with users whose goal seems to be mostly to push their images on articles, disregarding presence of other, possibly better images as well as article layout? New user

.

Problem is, I'm not sure how exactly to deal with that. It's not disruptive per se (and I admit this is a bit silly, but I'm very queasy at the idea of leaving a FL in a state I feel is less good than it was), and I'm not sure how to approach the user about it as he seems pretty wiki-immature too (e.g. "ditto. lawl"). Circeus 16:56, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Try to convince them that they should concentrate on expanding relevant galleries at Wikimedia Commons, perhaps? Image overload is disruptive; which image is better should be discussed on talk page, and when consensus (majority...) is reached a few reverts should end the issue.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:00, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Make sure that the overly photographed article such as Tucson has a template which points at the Commons material, so contributors can easily find the appropriate place in Commons. (SEWilco 19:01, 6 October 2007 (UTC))

Suggestion to ask user to extend the commons section and start discussion on the talk page if he wants to replace a picture of existing article with his own. Article Tuscon seems picture overloaded to me. My opinion on that, new pictures should go to the commons and link from there as gallery. Neozoon 22:00, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

17:49, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

No offense, but I don't think that's really a useful template. If you have a vandalism only account who also happens to have a bad username, I wouldn't even bother with a template and would just indefinitely block them. Do we really need to create a template for every possible combination of the circumstances for blocking?

Cowman109^Talk

18:30, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

{{

iridescent (talk to me!)

18:33, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

It seems a bit redundant when compared to the preexisting template {{

UsernameHardBlocked}}. Plus, this template is already part of the drop-down-box on Special:Blockip. - auburnpilot talk

18:36, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I like it. I think it is good for the reason for the block to be on the user's talk page; it makes it easier for those coming along later. I don't like indefblocked because it gives no reason. I like the Vandalanduser one because I've come across this very issue several times and I think both reasons should be on the talk page. Rlevse 18:52, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

And also, the "usernamehardblocked" template is if i'm not mistaken meant to be used for accounts blatantly inappropriate names (e.g. "I will destroy Wikipedia") that haven't necessarily been given the chance to edit.--Avant Guard 19:06, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Usually, such usernames are caught before they have a chance to edit; however, whether or not they've made any edits is irrelevant. We don't treat someone with a blatantly offensive username different just because they have or haven't made edits. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:40, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

If it's a vandalism-only account, just use {{

Vandalblock}}. If they've got a bad username, too, it doesn't matter; first and foremost, they're a vandalism-only account. EVula // talk // ☯

// 19:22, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Cyborg Ninja is not pursuing this matter. LessHeard vanU 23:16, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Could someone set this user straight? He appears to be trying to harass people who voted to delete List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people at the most recent AfD, for example here and on my own talk page. Both me and Melsaran have removed the notices, but he has only given kinda weird responses to my query, not to mention threatened Melsaran that there would be consequences for removing his notice on the talk page. David Fuchs ^(talk) 22:32, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

The first link should be this one. I will check it out, but would prefer more eyes on it. LessHeard vanU 22:49, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

After some of the discussion on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia:Requests for adminship, I've decided to try my hand at creating another desysopping proposal. Please read it over (a read of the RFC might help too) and discuss it on the talk page. Mr.Z-man 01:14, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I've run across various POV anons (most likely the same individual). The IPs in question are:

• 212.158.244.124 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 213.120.125.184 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 217.34.36.195 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 81.136.30.91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 82.153.172.139 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Two obvious examples of POV edits are this and this. This user almost exclusively edits in relation to categories, and seems to add the category "God" to Judeo-Christian specific articles, and removes the category "Jesus" from non-Christian articles. But not all of the edits have been this obviously POV. This has occurring since Sept. 29th. Two of the IPs have been blocked for these sorts of edits. Obviously, part of me just wants to block the user on sight for continuing this mess (just look at this history of Homosexual readings of Jesus and John). But I know it would be better to try to communicate with them and get them to stop by understanding wikipedia policies. So I guess I am writing so that others can be aware of this problematic editor so more eyes can be on the look out, but I'm also writing to see what would be the best steps to take in handling this situation. I just wrote a message to the user (see User talk:81.136.30.91), but seeing as how the address is dynamic (and possibly shared), it is unlikely that they will get the message. So any comments or advice would be great. Thanks for your consideration. -Andrew c ^[talk] 22:30, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

More reasons every on wiki should have an account.Rlevse 11:33, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, Maxim has blocked 212.158.244.124 for 3 months. I guess now I (and anyone else) can block any of the other accounts on sight for block evasion. An issue that remaines is of course because this is an anon user with dynamic IPs, long blocks can affect other users.-Andrew c ^[talk] 14:18, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Is there a specific wikipedia guideline on users who violate privacy by posting private info, such as offline ID of wiki users? I've having trouble finding it. I think I've seen it before, but for some reason I am having trouble finding it right now. Also, other than the general rule of thumb of talk/warn first then block, what policies are in place for handling these cases? Thanks. Rlevse 13:02, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

You might want to look at

Wikipedia:Request for oversight.  – Edokter • Talk

• 13:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I knew I had seen it. I guess my memory isn't what it used to be-;) Rlevse 13:10, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

This is a bit of a complex problem... can someone help me clear this up?

Several user pages are being listed in C:CSD, for speedy deletion. This is presumably because one of their templates was listed for speedy deletion, and the pages need to be touched to remove them from the C:CSD category. I'd do this, except when I edit the user pages, I hit the spam filter, because they all transclude User:Scepia/The Game loser, a userbox template with an apparently now-forbidden link. So basically, with my limited technical knowledge, I cannot remove these userpages from C:CSD. Solutions? --W.marsh 16:37, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I substituted The Game for the spam site link. So hopefully it should work now. - jc37 16:40, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks... I had a feeling there was a simple solution I just wasn't seeing. --W.marsh 16:42, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I am being wikistalked by

14:10, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Looks to me the other way around, ex: [39]. It looks like you're really User:Jun_kaneko, [40]. If you have evidence, please present it. I'd also like to hear Nat's input, so I've asked him. Rlevse 14:32, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I never denied that, and mentioned many times I was Jun Kaneko (sometimes even adding - Jun Kaneko to my IP) I unregistered my account before, as stated I would. My contributions to the article

15:42, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I provide reliable sources with my information, which users Cyrus XIII, and Notjake13 vandalise, and in turn cause disputes. 219.90.180.76 15:44, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Regarding this issue, I do believe the anonymous user who registered the complaint is

Dir en grey, as well as User:Jun Kaneko all have the same editing style and have IP addresses logged from southern Australia. --Jacob ^Talk

15:14, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I have to be in agreement with Notjake13, if anything this anon. is the one who is harassing other editors. I issued full protection on the article

uncivil. Well thats my 2¢. nat^tang

16:03, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Those two users "Cyrus XIII" and "Notjake13" receive much disagreement from many editors on those articles, myself being hot-headed enough to stand up to their nonsense and find hard facts and reliable sources for those articles (which receive the consensus of most other editors) is not uncivil, its fighting the bully tactics of these users. After a long fight the articles Visual Kei, and Free-Will (which was resolved with an admin who speaks Japanese) were finally released of their bully tactics, the article Skin has the consensus of almost every other editor for the contributions I made, but still remains in limbo. I welcome you to read those talk pages, and investigate for yourself. 219.90.180.76 02:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

The only major disagreement I personally have received on such issues have been from you and other anonymous editors. There have been minor disputes with User:Denaar in the past, but nothing as complicated as the controversies you have brought about. So far, you have taken this issue across a numerous User Talk and Article Talk pages making the conflict difficult to follow. You have contradicted yourself on occasion, lied on several more, and personally attacked fellow editors even more so. I recommend you steer clear of spreading your lamentations to yet another talk page and center your focus on one issue on one page at a time. --Jacob ^Talk 03:45, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, please stop insisting that any editor in disagreement with you is a friend of any other user against whom you have personal grievances. --Jacob ^Talk 03:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Dynamic IP edit-warring and incivility. The only reason this is a problem is that Jun kaneko (talk · contribs) has been using dynamic IP addresses to edit-war and harrass users (myself included). If not for that, this would be easily and quickly resolved with AN/3RR and other routine procedures. I don't know how Wikipedia handles the dynamic IP situation, I hope there is a solution.

He has been blocked for 3RR and civility violations, with extension for block-evasion using IP addresses. When he realized that his user name account could be blocked, since then, he has edited as an IP, with multiple addresses, as listed in this RFPP (and probably more than those). The RFPP link also includes links to prior 3RR and AN/I reports regarding the same user.

When I first encountered him, he was using his user account. I didn't know it at the time, but I was told later that he had been edit-warring as an IP before I had any communications with him. For a while, on Visual kei, I tried to help him bring his sources into the article according to policies. He seemed to be learning, and I encouraged him to add good information. But then he resumed edit-warring, repeatedly removing sourced information from articles, and I reluctantly placed a uw-3RR warning on his talk page.

Please take a look at his extreme response to the warning. After that, he was blocked, and since then has edited only as an IP, with various editors repeatedly reverting his tendentious edits.

Summary: I'm not trying to "get him in trouble" as he has stated. I have only one agenda: peaceful editing according to policy. I don't have anything against him as a person, however, his behavior has been disruptive and time-consuming to several editors and articles. I haven't even been editing that group of articles lately, just once in a while, and I only posted the RFPP request to try and help out the frustrated editors who were repeatedly reverting his vandalism. I don't want him to be indef blocked or banned, I just want him to edit with respect for other editors and Wikipedia policies. --Parsifal _Hello 04:19, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I got the Free-Will and Visual Kei articles written the way they should be, with hard facts and reliable sources. I am happy with that. Cyrus XIII and Notjake13 can disagree all they want, they can't change the facts in those articles. I already explained why I removed all my content from the Visual Kei, which I knew would get me trouble (I knew it would remain in the article, and I was not about to remove the hard work I had done) It was a spiteful response to Parsifal vandalising the article after helping to fix it, and I stand behind my response to him. I only created an account because the Visual Kei article became semi-protected because of Cyrus XIII and Notjake13's continued vandalism. My account was deleted once the article was fixed. I have done what I wanted. 219.90.180.76 05:34, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

• I've blocked said IP as a block-evading sockpuppet. --Haemo 05:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. Hopefully he'll get the idea that his methods aren't working. For the archives, in case this information is needed in the future, here is a list of the IP addresses he has used in the last 72 hours or so:

• 122.49.149.115 (talk · contribs)
• 122.49.157.149 (talk · contribs)
• 122.49.173.58 (talk · contribs)

• 172.203.23.174 (talk · contribs)

• 219.90.164.94 (talk · contribs)
• 219.90.249.86 (talk · contribs)
• 219.90.167.206 (talk · contribs)
• 219.90.248.128 (talk · contribs)

And these are IP's he used on Sept 24-25 during his previous block-evasion:

• 122.49.175.210 (talk · contribs)

• 219.90.158.81 (talk · contribs)
• 219.90.253.69 (talk · contribs)
• 219.90.229.216 (talk · contribs)

Thanks again for your assistance with this. --Parsifal _Hello 06:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Why is Tweety21 able to edit their Talk page, if the page is protected until October 10? Corvus cornix 21:44, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Despite the fact that the most recent protection is set to expire on Oct 10th, and there have been no unprotections in the log, it does not seem to be protected. (

('Stop') : ('Go')

) 21:47, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Ugh. I'm a backwards American. 10-7 is meaningless to me. Never mind.  :) However, Tweety21 is still engaging in the same behavior which got the page protected in the first place. Corvus cornix 21:54, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I've been attempting to clean up the informational train wrecks that are the

wikis, which have had more than their fair share of anonymous IP's, sockpuppets, and editors of less than noble intentions messing with them. Both wikis are about a sensitive issue dear to the US right wing, and most of the editors "watching " over the Killian have demonstrated no interest in the wikis aside from promoting and protecting the loony – not to mention factless – right wing agenda associated with the documents in question. I've been fairly successful so far via uncovering the sockpuppets one by one (or two by two) and making use of 3RR, but there still some remaining problem editors intent on blocking any improvements by whatever means, and they appear to have some quiet, higher up support. I'm not exactly spinning a POV here – I'll gladly point out some, um, interesting discrepencies between the Wiki contents and any available ref or source doc related to it.

I'm not asking anyone to take sides – just to put both wikis and their talk pages on your watchlists and maybe pop in from time to time to see what's going on. I'll probably end up going to Arbcom at some point when I have a better handle on who's who and can firmly prove it, but maybe if some truly neutral admins who are good with complex topics, as well as sorting out the bad guys from the good pay attention....

A vague-ish request, perhaps, but this is a rather ephemeral world.... -BC aka Callmebc 23:37, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

He is not spinning a POV? This from the proud owner of http://aheckofa.com/FoolMeOnce/CBSBushMemos.html ?! Where is that ROFLcopter when I need it? htom 00:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Participants should be aware that User:Callmebc thinks these articles are part of some sort of war [41], has stated an intent to cover these articles with changes [42], and expects to break 3RR a lot more [43]. Meanwhile, he erroneously challenges one small issue (Talk:Killian documents authenticity issues#"Mother's Day") and pretends he expects us to resolve many entangled alterations. I have to admit he did produce one amazing work at User talk:Charles Matthews#SEWilco - Revising quotes and diffs to hide a lie (yes, he notified administrators above in #SEWilco revising quotes and diffs to hide a lie). (SEWilco 05:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC))

Hi there. I normally wouldn't request an urgent edit to a protected page, but since the change will affect categorization for a WikiProject moving to a task force (Filmmaking) and I really would like to start the whole process of doing all the needed legwork to accomplish the move with complete functionality while I'm still editing tonight, I was wondering if anyone could expedite my editprotect request so that I can get on with the rest... Many thanks! :) Girolamo Savonarola 04:22, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Roxorzursoxorz2 says on his userpage "im 10." I think that's a bad idea...what does anyone else think? Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 23:30, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Since he's not providing any identifying information, I see nothing wrong with it. --Carnildo 00:08, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I see no problem in identifying your age, unless you're a minor and are posting other identifiable information. Seems harmless.

(talk)

00:11, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I would think that he should remove it just because I know some users won't take him seriously... but no pressing issue. David Fuchs ^(talk) 00:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Very true; I have noticed that younger editors (me included) are often taken less seriously than their older counterparts.

(talk)

00:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry about it; no immediately apparent harm can be done while he divulges only his age. True, his judgment in several, or even many areas might be questioned by peers, but that presents no solid reason to actually request him to remove the text from his page. – Anonymous Dissident^Talk 00:37, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone think a little note/warning about editing as a young person is required? x42bn6 Talk Mess 09:41, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I am 15 years old, and have been editing for three years. I have been treated very well, I never got any slack, as the other editors saw that I am a good editor and that I genuinely know what I am talking about. Th eonly times I got slack was when this one editor, User:Wiarthurhu was giving me crap because I was reverting his POV edits and his edits that were sticking pictures of toys into car articles, and well, he eventually got blocked. I don't think this kid will have any problems to worry about. Karrmann 10:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I know enough editors who act like 5-year-olds, so if this kid acts his age, he won't be doing any harm ;) Cheers, Pedro Gonnet 10:37, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Gurch has pointed out that the button for blocking a user/IP/range says "Block this user", but the button for unblocking a user/IP/range says "Unblock this address". It's not clear whether this inconsistency is harmful, or what consistent text should be chosen if it is; more input at MediaWiki talk:Ipusubmit would be helpful. --ais523 17:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

(Empty message for archiving reasons)

09:41, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Can someone block Gavegave30 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Velvet80 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), please? Checkuser confirms them as sockpuppets of Maplefan, blocked for sockpuppetry and POV pushing a few days ago. Thanks! CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 14:51, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Blocked. - auburnpilot talk 17:53, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey, just a note that we can definitely use some more hands on the gigantic backlog we have at

; i.e. they may, or may not, have rationales but the rationales do not specify which page. However, most of the time it's pretty clear what the rationale is for when it has one – generally, there will only be one page where the image is used. As a result, the best plan of action is to:

• Delete any images with no rationales, or clearly bogus ones.
• Add the article to the rationale for those with valid rationales.

It takes only a little bit longer than just mashing the "delete" button, but it saves a lot of hard work for other editors. I think I've saved probably dozens, if not a hundred-odd images by processing in this manner. I definitely don't want to see the resurrection of an automated delete-bot to process these, given how easily they can be saved. --Haemo 01:12, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I might run an ahem... special script to speed thing up. Some categories are 700+ images big, so if other can leave the NFCC10's, I might run something through tomorrow. Maxim_{(talk) (contributions)} 01:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Many that are tagged as incomplete license, because they are lacking the name of the article, have a fair-use rationale but are missing a source, so only the uploader can correct them. Jackaranga 09:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

It seems a bit silly to fix all the rationales and then tag them all for deletion, because of a lacking source. Why correct something you are going to nominate for deletion afterwards ? To be honest I say just delete them, even if the correct way according to policy is would be to fix the rationale and then tag them CSD missing source. What is the point, if the uploader can't manage to write in the name of the article almost a month after having been warned, he is not going to manage to enter the source either. On a side note though the fact that betacommandbot didn't say anything about the missing source, implies that betacommand does not consider lacking source an issue, whereas it is in fact the most important feature, as it serves to identify the copyright holder, (probably the only element actually legally required in the rationale). If we start deleting all the images that do not say "copyright owned by ...", then I'm pretty sure the list will get rather longer. The stupid thing is that the only way to tackle all these problems is to make a bot, and just go ahead. If you try to gain consensus people either ignore you or make up a load of nonsense, and don't even use their accounts to talk to you, but write from their IP address. Jackaranga 10:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

You can easily add a source if the source is obvious, e.g. a logo, album cover, or book cover. The source of the AT&T logo, for example, is the company AT&T, not any particular website. It is indeed a help if you can fix rather than delete images given that the time you spend fixing a good iamge is a lot less than the time it will take others to re-upload it (if that ever happens). However, do keep in mind that Betacommand has for the moment stopped tagging "legacy" images uploaded before January 1, 2007. So the tagged images are newish, often brand new, where someone who should have known the rules didn't, and probably saw the tag and had a chance to fix it. So you're doing them a favor, if you're so inclined. Also, perhaps you can pay some heed to the importance of the image / article. It's one thing to delete a piece of fancruft, another to delete an image in a former featured article. Wikidemo 11:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

• Jackaranga said "Many that are tagged as incomplete license, because they are lacking the name of the article, have a fair-use rationale but are missing a source, so only the uploader can correct them." - this is because, for some obscure reason, bot-tagging of NFCC#10 stuff doesn't distinguish between a, b, and c. It leaves it to the uploader or the deleting admin to work out which one of a, b, or c (or combination of these) is the problem. This is because often images lacking one of these are lacking the other ones as well. But it does make it harder to actually be efficient about all this. Carcharoth 00:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Over at

05:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

They also have a novel interpretation (Well, if it is applied to organizations, naturally, it will apply to members of that organization.) of BLP. —Random832 12:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Is there a civilly worded guideline based on the principle of "Put up or shut up"? The argument of "We don't want to use the procedures because we don't like the likely result" is not a reasonable position; and the assumption that the closing admin is merely counting votes instead of weighing up the arguments against policy sounds just as hollow. LessHeard vanU 12:53, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

First, let's note that Cheeser1 is complaining that there are discussions on the category's talk page. The category itself hasn't been nominated for deletion lately. Talk page discussions are a great idea and nothing to complain about here on AN – especially since these discussions have been very polite.

Second, I find it ironic that Cheeser1 would complain about editors trying to make an end run around the XfD process. It's ironic because this category's incarnation is an end-run around the XfD process. Category:Homophobes was successfully CfD'd[44] for the reason that it is inherently POV and perhaps a BLP violation as well. The end result of this successful XfD was the virtual recreation of the category by calling it Category:Homophobia – and then applying this category to people. And that's an end run around the XfD process.

At any rate, I would encourage editors to review and comment on the related talk page. It's not all that long and it's civil. Rklawton 13:51, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

First, let's note that Cheeser1 is complaining that there are discussions on the category's talk page - that's kind of taking it out of context, don't you think? I'm complaining that an unproductive discussion is deliberately being used instead of a CfD because a CfD would probably result in the opposite of what they want. The category itself hasn't been nominated for deletion lately - there were two noms July 18 and Aug 30. Are you looking at the right page??

Category:Homophobes was successfully CfD'd[45] for the reason that it is inherently POV and perhaps a BLP violation as well and in that discussion it was firmly established that "homophobia" means "associated with homophobia," while "homophobe" is specifically and almost exclusively applied to particular people inappropriately to say "this person is a homophobe." Both categories existed at the same time, if you'll notice they were both up for CfD concurrently - [46] [47]. Are you sure you're looking at the same category I am?? --Cheeser1 14:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

So your complaint here on the noticeboard is that there is what you consider to be an unproductive thread on this category's talk page? The thread is all about the purpose of the category - and that's a very important topic. Why? Well, several editors feel that this topic should specifically be applied to individuals - in contravention to the CfD previously noted that said such use would be POV. Now, if this subject is only "associated" with homophobia, then why not categorize LGBT leader's biographies with this category as well? In truth, though, this thread belongs in the category's talk page. But that's what Cheeser1 is complaining about - that we're talking about this there. Rklawton 14:19, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

No. I'll thank you not to inaccurately paraphrase my complaint. My complaint is that people have decided that the CfD is not how they want to get a category deleted. This was explicitly stated - they started a discussion, with the intention of having the category deleted, but with no intent of going through the only proper channel - CfD. Now, if you want to discuss the category, and what you consider to be the need for more use of it, be my guest. This is not the place to do so. --Cheeser1 20:28, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Can I ask for a second pair of eyes to keep a (close) watch on the contributions of

20:51, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

That looks like a promotional username. Perhaps you can ask the user to register a different name or request a namechange. If they fail to do that, the account should probably be blocked. The folks who monitor

WP:UAA do a good job of sorting out cases like this one. - Jehochman ^Talk

21:00, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Reported –

iridescent (talk to me!)

21:02, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Deleted their Network Hard drives as a blatant copyvio. Raymond Arritt 21:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep going. Check the whole user contribution history. - Jehochman ^Talk 21:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

24h block following the creation of

iridescent (talk to me!)

21:16, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

This is beginning to look more like random copying of stuff (borderline vandalism) than COI. Raymond Arritt 21:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I would like to report a inappropriate username that constitutes of a website ([48]). If this is not the place to report an inappropriate username, please let me know. Thanks! Goodshoped35110s 03:06, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I am not an administrator, but I would like to point out that you should probably try

Thomas H. Larsen

05:55, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I request someone look at this on my talk page, including it's subsection. I have not been involved in such a case before. I've just trying to prevent escalation of exposure of private info. See the warning and response on Rorybowman's talk page too. He's been warned, so my biggest concern at the moment is if he does it again, at what point do we take action and what sort of action. If a block for how long? Thank you.Rlevse 20:32, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that posting speculation on Wikipedia about the specific identity of an anonymous editor, including adding the city location, is counter to Wikipedia's privacy policy and prohibition on posting personal information about another editor without permission. "Detective work" on Wikipedia editors, including WikiScanner, may reveal information about an editor – but this possibility is does not override Wikipedia policy. I note that after the warning, though User:Rorybowman disagreed with your assessment, no further violations have occurred. I agree that a block would be in order if the editor repeats posting such information. – ERcheck (talk) 00:56, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

He didn't commit a privacy vio again yet, but he did [do this]. I'll take care of it in a hour or so.Rlevse 10:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

AfD closes are falling behind. Please consider closing five of the existing old AfD discussions. Thanks. – Jreferee t/c 07:47, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Per several request and comments Im working on writing a image re-naming bot, I am going to make it like

, the bot will re-upload the image and then replace the image with the new name. What I would like is help creating a new set of templates specifically for the bot to use.

• For the image rename {{template|Image:NEWIMAGENAME.jpg}}
• One for a conflict that a image with the same name exists
• one for noting an image was tagged by someone not on the approved list
• tagging image after rename

Thanks,

13:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I think I asked this before. Approved list? Carcharoth 13:41, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

by default it will be admin only. with admins approving users. Im writing the code now and will set up a userspace page like

β^_command

14:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, we need to tag the old versions for deletion after reuploading. ^

^{[omg plz]}

 13:57, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Forgot that template :P

β^_command

14:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Why is it the three-revert rule?

Why do we have a "three-revert rule" instead of a simple "revert rule", which would prohibit anyone reverting any edit that

Thomas H. Larsen

06:28, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

That criteria is very subjective. Anybody who reverts any edit (especially repeatedly) believes the reverted edit is not improving or maintaining the encyclopedia or else he or she would not have reverted it. – tariqabjotu 07:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

We have a 3RR to prevent edit warring. If we had, say, a 1RR instead, it would prevent alot of constructive editing. See also

the appropriate guideline. --Cheeser1

07:58, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Some editors do, FWIW, adhere generally to

1RR, although I think it to be broadly recognized that a blanket 1RR rule would be, as you observe, rather unconstructive. Joe

20:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Your edit which

was biased, incorrect, and politically motivated. --Haemo

19:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Well said (and linked). EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Anyways, 3RR does not actually require more than 3 reverts, the spirit of the rule is what is generally enforced. I know I have done 3RR blocks with 3 or less reverts when it was clearly edit warring. (

('Stop') : ('Go')

) 22:25, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Unreverted vandalism

How common is it for vandalism to remain unreverted? I found this example which was a week old. Is there any way to politely point recent page patrollers at this example as a way to motivate them, or will it demoralize them? Carcharoth 13:40, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

You know what? I am so demoralized, I think I'll just plain stop fighting vandalism! Ha, I would never give it up. Thanks for showing us; I'll be sure to be more thorough in my patrol now. *Cremepuff222* 14:23, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

There are more than two million pages in the main article space alone, and roughly 10.4 million pages total.[49] It's incredibly easy for things to slip through with that much activity, despite the best efforts of our fantastic RC patrol folk. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

A week old? I've found vandalism that's gone unreverted for several months. (I clearly remember one such case because I found it very embarassing: someone had inserted (IIRC) "poooooop" in the middle of one, long paragraph, and I had worked on the article several times since that edit before I noticed the damage.) The speed of reverting vandalism is a function of how often a given article is read; popular subjects are cleaned up much faster than more esoteric ones. I don't know of any way to fight this except for Wikipedians to monitor more articles (which has its own drawbacks). – llywrch 22:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I've found vandalism that had been there for 18 months. That's one of the few times I've used an "!" in an edit summary besides this edit; people adding their own names or friend's names to articles is a big problem. Graham87 06:01, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Need help with abusive editor

Sorry if this isn't the appropriate forum. I deleted a few inappropriate commercial links on the

conflict of interest. The editor, BelizeExpert, has now been posting rambling and threatening messages on the talk:Belize page (see [50] which says things like "P.S. We are thinking of raising funds to run a background check on this lady to determine what her agenda is."]). Any help would be appreciated. Notmyrealname

14:56, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I posted a comment on his talk page (User talk:BelizeExpert). This is possibly a violation of WP:LEGAL (I consider any sort of intimidation on that sort completely inappropriate). I warned him that if he conducts himself in that manner anymore, he will be blocked completely. I don't feel that single-purpose account attempting to spam is worth keeping around anyway but I gave him a warning, which is fair. – Ricky81682 (talk) 18:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, certainly violations of

WP:NPA (he singles me out on several other posts). Appreciate your help. Notmyrealname

19:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Reason to make sure that vandalism-only accounts are always blocked

I know that many admins already follow a similar principle, but I've reported a couple of accounts whose first several edits were nothing but vandalism to

WP:AIV, only to have them receive a final warning not to vandalize. My proposal is this: if an account with no other edits makes two edits in a row that are vandalism, block it as a vandalism-only account (with autoblock) even if it hasn't received a final warning. Here is my reason: I'm sure that in many cases, once a vandal account receives it's final warning, the vandal just logs out and creates another account to avoid being blocked. So if accounts are always given a final warning before being blocked, the vandal will just use that as his cue to log out and create a new account and so on until he gets tired of vandalizing.--Avant Guard

16:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Strongly oppose unless the vandalism is really serious. The 1-2-3-4-block scale is there for a reason, as is 3RR - your "POV-pushing vandalism" is my "good-faith addition of unsourced material", and your "vandal-only IP" is my "school terminal where autoblocking would affect a whole instution". –

iridescent (talk to me!)

16:23, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Once I've reverted one edit, I tend to check back for more, so it's easy enough for me to rollback vandalism and 1-2-3-4 warn the users. I sometimes block at 3 if they're really obnoxious, but I don't block until I warned them that blocking will occur. Most of our vandals are just high school kids, and learning about actions and consequences is healthy for the dear tots. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:26, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes, often people are confused and can be salvaged after a few warnings. You'd be amazed how many times I leave one to two warnings and the person stops. I've probably left more than 500 warning and only had to go to AIV a dozen times. Only when the disruption is severe and they ignore the first one or two warnings, then something should be done sooner rather than later. If somebody is rapidly vandalizing or spamming dozens of articles, we don't need to stand by and watch while they make a huge mess. - Jehochman ^Talk 16:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

This ides is incompatible with the idea the "admins are never required to use their tools". The fact that we have the discretion to block such accounts on sight is enough, but to mandate it would be ineffective and could not account for all circumstances. I do agree that these accounts should be blocked though, and I do. (

('Stop') : ('Go')

) 16:36, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I proposed it as more of a guideline than an official mandate. And also, Iridescent commented on how this would affect legitimate editors editing from "vandalism-only IPs". I only proposed it in the case of user accounts. I think that IPs should be given the four warnings, but that accounts should be blocked if it's apparant that they're only being used for vandalism, warnings or not. A lot of vandals who appear to "stop" after being given the final warning I'm sure just reincarnate as a new vandal account.--Avant Guard 17:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I've indefinitely blocked accounts with two edits and no warnings (I could provide diffs if anyone thinks I was too harsh). I've also blocked IPs for short spells without giving them any warning (usually a 1-3 hour block) if I see that their in the initial stages of a vandalism run. I completely agree that sometimes we're far too soft on vandalism. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:27, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

(ec) While Jehochman may be right that even logged-in vandals sometimes stop after a warning, I've never seen one stop and then become a productive editor after beginning with blatant vandalism. If someone has a counterexample, please let me know because I block logged-in blatant vandals very quickly. What I encounter far more frequently is people that stop vandalizing from their logged-in account and then login a few days or weeks or even months later and start vandalizing again. There is a term for blatant vandal accounts that stop vandalizing: sleeper vandalism accounts. Same as a regular vandalism account except they can get around semi-protection. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

And I've done the same as EVula. Accounts and IPs that are particularly blatant vandals should be blocked very quickly because they're expecting it anyway. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:36, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, on de:wp we add one (maximum two) warning to the IPs' talk pages. Afterwards we report them to

WP:AIV. The IPs will be blocked for one to seven hours if they are dynamic ones (or static ones if it's the first block). If they return—what we see if the talk page is blue—they will be blocked for a longer period (seven to 31 hours) [static ones up to a year]. 24 hours later, will the talk page be deleted—static ones of course not. Vandalism-only accounts will be blocked if they vandalize, not if they were warned correctly but they normally get one (or two) warning. And de:wp has no 3RR. Regards, —DerHexer (Talk)

18:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC) Btw. here I add two warnings (number two and four) before I block (but of course there are obvious exceptions).

Normally vandals have an ACB block. Only users reported at WP:UAA, do not get ACB. So this limits the number of people who can simply create another account, as much vandalism seems to come from American School Children who are incapable of changing the school IP address. It is true however that some people at home can reboot the modem, to get a new IP address. I think ACB probably works well though in most cases, especially coupled with the effort to block open proxies. Jackaranga 20:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia Statistical Analysis

Not just for admins, but I have prepared a new statistical analysis of Wikipedia to fill the gap created by the lack of any official statistics during the last year.

A surprising observation is that the rate of many of the community's actions (editing, article deletions, blocking, protections, etc.) have been declining during the last several months.

See: User:Dragons_flight/Log_analysis

Dragons flight 23:37, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Fascinating stuff. Thanks for putting all this together.--Alabamaboy 23:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

new comment ... Agreed; quite interesting. I've a gut feeling that the community action metrics decline will go into something looking like steady state over the coming year. Not a flat-line steady state, but a complex multi-cyclic thing. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:58, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Commodore Sloat-Biophys opened

An Arbitration case, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Commodore Sloat-Biophys, has been opened. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Commodore Sloat-Biophys/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Commodore Sloat-Biophys/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (t) 00:40, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

CC template standardization

I made the suggestion of standardizing the CC copyright tags

here. I just finished doing the work of standardizing them in my userspace, which can be seen here

. I've done basically what I suggested at the village pump, as well as the following:

• Made the source code as uniform as possible across all of them, using the template {{CC-Layout}}.
• Changed the combined icon that some of them used to the separate icons, so that the size would be uniform on all the templates.
• Removed the icon mouseover captions that some of them had, which I didn't feel were necessary.
• Changed all of them to start out "this work", since the tags may be used for things other than images.
• Used the wording of the usage note currently on {{Cc-by-3.0}} on all of them, because the other one wasn't accurate enough IMO. (It read "your image," but the image/work doesn't necessarily belong to the uploader.) However, I changed "those who reproduce the image must attribute the work..." to "those who reproduce the work must attribute it..." for the same reason as the above point.
• Added a hyphen between "Attribution" and "ShareAlike" where necessary, to be consistent with the official name of the license and the image category names.

So, do you think they look good? And, if so, could someone update the templates to my new versions? (The ones on my userpage include all the relevant categories/interwikis, so all you'd have to do is copy/paste.) --CrazyLegsKC 01:06, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Lacreta

Lacreta (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a pretty obvious sock of User:Migssant/User:Migssant19. The Migssants were blocked for continuous image copyvio uploads. The edit history for Lacreta is pretty bland, except for this image Image:MDST airport diagram.png which seems too low res, and too professional to be the work of that user (without further explanation, like how the image was created, software, and possibly upload a higher resolution version). Personally, I think Migssant should go through the proper course of requesting an unblock, and we shouldn't let sock accounts slip in, even if the vast majority of the contributions are neutral or positive. I'm also willing to allow a second chance for this user, assuming that they work to understand our image use policy, and not upload questionable image. So, I'm asking if other users agree with me that Lacreta is a sock of Migssant, and what, if anything we should do about that? I'm going to go ahead and list the diagram image at PUI.-Andrew c ^[talk] 22:08, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

FYI, that seems to be standard airport map or approach chart. She definitely isn't the copyright holder but then again, it is not technically a non-free image. See this as a similar example.

Spryde

18:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Pope Benedict XVI

The article Pope Benedict XVI has the semi-protection padlock being shown but anonymous vandals are still editing. (SEWilco 12:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC))

The page is in fact move protected, the semi protection was removed on

2 October. I updated the template, I don't think there is enough vandalism going on to warrant a semi protection. – lucasbfr ^talk

12:33, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Policy violations on Samael Aun Weor article

I posted this here a while ago but received no response, so I'm posting it again because the issue is still the same. There have been some problems lately on the

WP:NPOV and WP:Verifiability, but also which contained factual errors related to OR. Another editor of the article and I tried to explain to that user why his additions were mistaken and not allowed on Wikipedia, and pointed him towards the right policies and guidelines. But he didn't seem to understand or maybe didn't want to understand, because he kept re-adding his edits without any modifications to make them better. After a while I gave him a warning that if he persisted with his behavior I would have to ask an admin for help, and a while after that I gave him a final warning after which he stopped replying in the discussion and just reverted again. So here I am, asking for help with this matter. To me the only option seems to be a block, but maybe something else can be done. His user name is Bluemanang and it seems pretty obvious that he also uses 207.164.192.115. The discussion happened to be located at Bluemanang's talk page

. Maybe it would help if an admin or any outside person explained to him why he is wrong, because he seem to think that we just try to suppress information. The edits in question are:

1. In the section Physiology & Sexology where he changed an existing referenced paragraph into an unreferenced one which is wrong according to the existing reference.
2. The section Official organisms and dissenting organisms is very POV and talks about the "betrayal" of different persons from the Gnostic Movement and other related happenings. All of it unreferenced. Then some other OR stuff.
3. In the External Links section he made a division between external links leading to "Official and authentic" schools and "Dissenting" schools and is highly POV. The editor belongs to one of the said "official" schools. The whole issue of the different associations and schools is a very controversial one.

Thank you. Anton H 14:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Could this page make use of a thread deletion template?

Resolved

 – moving to talk page

We could replace distracting threads with something like the reference desk has for medical advice type questions: {{Template:RD-deleted}}. Sancho 16:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Or possibly something that causes the archivebot to archive the section immediately? This discussion is probably better on

WT:AN, though. --ais523 16:38, 10 October 2007 (UTC

)

Yes, I'll move this there. Sancho 16:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Indefinite block for silly reasons

Appeals of blocks of pro-pedophile activists is directly to the Arbitration Committee by email. It is inappropriate to discuss such blocks in a public forum. Fred Bauder 23:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

That's the statement I was looking for. Thanks, Fred. El_C 23:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Please submit all questions and statements directly to the Arbitration Committee by email. Fred Bauder 00:35, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

New descriptive essay on suicidal wikipedians

Following some email discussions, I have created an on-wiki essay describing preferred and historical processes used for handling apparently suicidal Wikipedia users. This essay is at:

Wikipedia:Potentially Suicidal Users

.

There have been prior attempts to impose a ground-up policy document on how to handle these situations, those both failed to achieve consensus. This essay describes what has been done in prior incidents and the rationales used by those who have done it (or, my viewpoint on those, as one of the people who has done so). Rather than being prescriptive policy it's descriptive of what has been done.

The link

WP:SUICIDE

was redirected to the new essay from prior failed policy pages.

Please note that this is NOT the place to re-fight arguments over prescriptive policy. This essay is intended to document existing informal procedures used and informal consensus used by those who have actually responded. If it is inaccurate or incomplete in areas, further expansion or correction is welcomed. Georgewilliamherbert 21:52, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, evidently I've missed some stuff- has there been a big issue regarding this? David Fuchs ^(talk)

Yes, yesterday there was an incident - see the thread

(talk)

22:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Would it violate

WP:BEANS to put an explicit warning: "Please don't make a fake suicide threat because it will be treated as a real one"? Sam Blacketer

22:08, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Just to nitpick - not every single user that has said they may commit suicide has been preventively blocked. I know one user (who will remain anonymous) who did so. Will ⁽talk) 22:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I will make a note of that, but it seems to have been the predominant response. Georgewilliamherbert 22:41, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest that it is the predominant response because it is good (and therefore recommended) practice. – Derek Ross | Talk 22:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Right. There's been a fairly consistent response pattern which has been used; we talked about prior incidents, and people who responded more recently seem to have implicitly agreed with the response. I think that what's been done was good practice. But I don't want to phrase this essay as prescriptive policy, as we lack consensus for prescriptive policy. I want this document to cover what we've done and why it was done; if someone later wants to make it official policy later, that's fine, but for now just document what and why. Georgewilliamherbert 00:41, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I've added some stuff to the talk page. One thing that might be good, if you want this to deter trolls as well, is to describe how this process has, in the past, led to hoaxers being given "a severe talking to" by the police. See here. But adding details like that might get messy, as you just know some people will then start linking to all the previous incidents... Carcharoth 00:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Uh... yes, it would absolutely violate BEANS to say that. I think that's the sort of thing that is too sensible to need to say. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:18, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

IIRC there was a suicide notice two weeks ago as well, and one about a month ago. Aecis^Brievenbus 22:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe. Then again, making the simple statement along the lines, "All suicide threats will be acted on" would be appropriate. It won't discourage take threats – but it will signal that an appropriate response will be made to the posting, which pranksters may not like. – llywrch 22:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC) Nevermind, I see it's already in the essay. Consider this point addressed. – llywrch 22:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Minor technical edit--I've moved it to

Wikipedia:Potentially suicidal users per the capitalization rules. --Masamage ♫

21:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Possible unblock of Moulton

Floating the possibility of a good faith unblock on this account. The user has contacted me with confirmable information that he is a visiting Ph.D. scientist at MIT and is willing to leave alone the James Tour and Rosalind Picard biographies where edit warring got him into trouble. I've offered to do some mentoring in Wiki dynamics for this editor. I'm willing to give this a trial run. Any objections? Durova^Charge! 01:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I was only tangentially familiar with Moulton, but my reading of the AN/I thread that bore out the indefinite block and of the user conduct RfC suggests that the problems stemmed not from any bad faith or fundamental inability to collaborate, and it seems plain that Moulton has the capacity to contribute quite propitiously; I, for one, then, think unblocking to sound like quite a fine idea. Joe 04:16, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

You guys are joking right? Moulton was an incredibly disruptive SPA, willing to team up with any internet crank who'd listen to his nonsense for more than five minutes.[51] He repeatedly expressed, not only a lack of willingness to work within the guidelines of the project, but a desire to undermine those guidelines. I don't know what he said in that email, but I suspect it's rather similar to the email he's sent to me, and I warn you, any similarity between what he says, and what he actually does, is usually trivial at best. Don't let him fool you.  – ornis⚙ 10:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Regrettably, Moulton has shown himself to be extremely tendentious and repetitive in trying to get Wikipedia to conform to his own ideas of "journalistic ethics" in direct contravention of policies. Others have gone to considerable lengths to try to help to explain how to work with Wikipedia, and have found such mentoring to be a frustrating waste of time. Note that a lot of the problems arose at

A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism as well as the biographies. .. dave souza, talk

11:59, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Durova, if you are willing to take responsibility for the actions of this editor, and block for disruption if you need to. I have faith, and confidence that you will. I see no reason you can not unblock. It is widely known that I feel editors should be given chances to come back and contribute constructively. If your volunteering your time, I say go for it. Do the unblock. Regards, Mercury 12:11, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I was similarly taken in by Moulton. I was goaded into talking to him by telephone for several hours while he pleaded his case. Almost everything he told was a lie. He completely misrepresented the situation in a frantic attempt to manipulate and coerce.

He is an unpaid volunteer who attends group meetings of a friend at MIT. He does indeed have a PhD, but is far more interested in journalism than in science. He sees it as his mission to change NPOV and RS standards on Wikipedia. He has written and published negative material about Wikipedia and the way it conducts itself and sought to publicize what a horrible organization Wikipedia is and how awful its principles are in outside venues. He has tried to spread this information as aggressively as he can using his contacts in the media and academia.

He is not above threatening legal action and involving the police, which he did here previously. He contributed nothing of value at WP while he was here, but was involved in endless personal attacks and mounted vendettas against people he disagreed with. He was warned and warned and warned and counselled to reign himself in, which he all blatantly and gleefully ignored. He presumes that his age and degree allow him to dictate to us and lecture to us, when many of us have more illustrious academic and professional credentials than he does. He published personal emails containing personal identifying information on Wikipedia.

His only goal on being on Wikipedia is disruption and destruction. He has no interest in contributing in a positive way. His negatives far outway his positives, in my opinion.

I have had far more extensive contact with him than anyone else here. I know his background, having been both at Bell Labs and MIT and a PhD (and a few other graduate degrees). I had pity on him at first when I heard his tale of woe, and bent over backwards to help him. However, he figuratively spit in my face after. I recommend strongly against allowing him back on Wikipedia in any capacity. --Filll 13:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Oppose the unblock per Filll. Moulton doesn't know how to play nice with others and doesn't care to learn. JoshuaZ 13:24, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Filll and Joshua. My experience with Moulton made it pretty clear that he had no interest in following Wikipedia rules. Despite having it explained to him several times, he expressed surprise (I believe in the talk page of his RfC) that Wikipedia was not the place to publish original opinions. I oppose the unblock. Guettarda 13:41, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I strongly oppose the unblock per Fill, Ornis, JoshuaZ and Joe. Moulton is rude, tendentious, and has vilified numerous editors by email. It doesn't matter what articles he does or does not edit, he'll find himself a place to cause trouble. If he agrees to edit Looney Toons cartoon, then I'll change my vote. Otherwise, we do not need this type of editor in the project. Once again, I am reminded of the comments by JzG, who left this project because of people like Moulton and others. Good riddance to Moulton. We spend so much community time trying to prove Moulton is good for the project, when it's clear he won't be. It's not good faith to bring him back, it's insanity--let's repeat our beliefs over and over and over again in the hope of getting a different result. Oh, let's not forget Moulton's attacks of Wikipedia. Meh. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 13:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

From Moulton's comments on his

Addhoc

14:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

As the one who blocked him, I can only repeat that if anyone else wishes to waste time on him they are welcome to do so. I wish I shared Durova's optimism that Moulton will make any worthwhile contributions to the project; I have not seen him do so. I feel better about Durova giving it a shot than most other mentors; but I cannot help but think there are much more valuable uses of her time than to attempt to mentor this person, who so far has been a complete negative in his actions here. His "expertise" has been of zero benefit thus far and I have no reason to believe it will be in the future, per Filll and my own observations. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:29, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Having been harrassed by Moulton both on Wikipedia and in e-mail there is absolutely no way I can support his unblocking. Even outside the harrassment, I have seen absolutely no redeeming factors to warrant an unblock of Moulton. His complete lack of comprehension regarding Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, or perhaps it is really an utter unwillingness to abide by same, and his ridiculous obsession with a few subjects seems to mark him as someone who should never be allowed on Wikipedia again. Hell, even in his contact with Durova he lied about his actual involvement at MIT. Sadly, much of the proof of his disingenuousness is in private e-mails, but nonetheless, he is quite clearly lying. In fact, as he was being booted of WP, Moulton engaged in a smear campaign of Wikipedia, with the aid of internet blogger Larry Farfarman, going so far as to accuse the Foundation of violating IRC 501(c)(3) in relation to attempting to influence legislation by propaganda (what legislation, or what propaganda remains a mystery.

Durova, think long and hard before you unblock him. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 17:42, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm strongly opposed to un-banning Moulton. Not only is he a colossal time-waster pushing his personal POV on articles and their talk pages, he's been waging an anti-Wikipedia campagain at his blogs, and is outing the IPs of anyone who mentions his ban at Wikipedia. Not to mention his joining forces with Larry Fafarman, another banned anti-Wikipedia nutter, at his blog. Is this the sort of editor Wikipedia needs? No. A million times, no. Odd nature 18:25, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Just as at the end of an episode of any good

soap opera, I am somewhat interested in seeing what happens next. If Durova can steer Moulton towards productive contributions, I will be very impressed. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk

20:14, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

This is a good example of why I like to discuss bans before lifting them, unless I was the sysop who originally implemented the indef. Moulton expressed some concerns to me about a couple of biography articles and the concerns themselves may well be legitimate. Unfortunately those concerns exist at a peculiar juncture of policies: I can't invoke

WP:NOR Wikipedia can't be the first point of publication for doubts of that article's accuracy, but this site could be the second point of publication. I've informed Moulton of a couple of legitimate options for generating material elsewhere that could be cited at Wikipedia in rebuttal, and also informed him that I would support a merge/redirect of one biography that interests him if the subject of that biography sends a confirmable request to that effect. If Moulton's representations are even approximately true then he is in a good position to pursue any of these avenues. Per the feedback to this thread I won't be unblocking at this time, but I'll gladly assist in these other solutions if he pursues them. Durova^Charge!

01:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

You are travelling down the same path I already explored. I suggested avenues to correct the articles. I volunteered to approach people to generate sources we could quote, based on his representations. With his approval, I did approach them in fact, and then all his lies started to become clear. And I was made a fool of since I trusted him. And there were threats and accusations against me, even though he had encouraged and approved of all this, based on his misrepresentations. I have a huge horde of emails I could share with you if you are interested.--Filll 02:32, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not offering to contact these people. It's up to any editor who wants an article to change to provide appropriate sources. If those are forthcoming I'll support a change. I haven't personally encountered conduct problems here, but if such emerge I have the experience to handle them. Thanks to everyone who responded at this thread for the input. Durova^Charge! 03:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Most blocks

Okay, this is silly. I happened to notice that [edited - Tintin] has been blocked 16 times under his previous user name and once under his current account. What is the record for most blocks faced by one person ? Tintin 09:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Possibly one of the users listed at

WP:LTA, and one who was removed (JB196). x42bn6 Talk Mess

09:39, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Counting the number of lines which say 'blocked' isn't always a very reliable indicator. Those '16' block log entries actually relate to seven incidents of the user being blocked for behaviour (edit warring and incivility). The other nine entries are alterations of block durations, attempts to unblock by blocking for one or zero seconds, user requested blocks for testing purposes, user requested blocks for 'forced vacation' (which shouldn't be granted), et cetera.

That said... what positive purpose could this thread possibly have? If you want to discuss some sort of limit on number of blocks... do that. Leave the 'name your favorite blockee' bit out of it. --CBD 11:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

If someone actually had 16 blocks, all for separate incidents, they probably need a good hard looking at for an indef block. Rlevse 15:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I could point out someone who was getting close but they invoked m:Right to vanish and changed usernames in the middle so the blocks are across two usernames. (Don't ask me how that's allowed...) —Wknight94 (talk) 15:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

You also need to consider that White Cat has over 41,000 edits. We do tend to show leniency to editors who provide content. I can remember at least one user with over 100 entries in their block log, but they had over 75,000 edits so we were wary to indef block. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 15:15, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Uh? Why do you care so much? Pilotguy 15:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Just interested in random silly trivia :) Tintin 02:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that the way the question is worded to be a violation of Wikipedia:Civility. There was no need to bring up the name of any particular editor in the question. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 17:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, perhaps I shouldn't have. Have edited the first post in the thread. Thanks. Tintin 02:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

There certainly is, however, the issue of shedding a block log by changing names. I noticed that on another username the other day, an admin had blocked the new user name for 1 second with a comment of "see block log for {previous username}". This, I think, is an excellent idea and should be required for non-right-to-vanish username changes.

ELIMINATORJR

17:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Until block logs move with username changes, that's the general policy. Warofdreams talk 00:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Most block stats

Time for ridiculously inane trivia. Dragons flight 01:52, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Busiest block log (overall)

Overall Rank	User	Block entries
1	202.156.6.54	237
2	207.200.116.0/24	172
3	217.33.207.195	171
4	217.33.74.20	124
5	152.163.100.0/24	122

Busiest single IP

Overall Rank	User	Block entries
1	202.156.6.54	237
3	217.33.207.195	171
4	217.33.74.20	124
6	194.80.20.10	119
10	169.244.143.115	89

Busiest IP range

Overall Rank	User	Block entries
2	207.200.116.0/24	172
5	152.163.100.0/24	122
8	64.12.116.0/24	96
9	63.19.128.0/17	96
11	205.188.0.0/16	80

Busiest user accounts

Overall Rank	User	Block entries
7	SPUI	111
13	Freaksock	77
14	Misza	76
22	Curps	57
26	Mistress_Selina_Kyle	55
35	Naconkantari	49
39	Nixer	47
41	Netoholic	45
48	Tobias_Conradi	44

Note: Freaksock, Misza, Curps, and Naconkantari accounts where all used in testing blocking scripts/bots and so they don't really count. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dragons flight (talk • contribs) 01:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Dragon's Flight :-) Tintin 02:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Community Sanction Noticeboard

Heads up, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Community sanction noticeboard (second nomination) is nearing a closing point, discussion may wrap up in the next couple of days, if not in the next few hours, judging by contributions. I'd close it, however, I am biased. Mercury 12:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

The traditional five day period ends at 3 AM tomorrow - if I'm around tomorrow morning (about 9 AM local time) I'll have a go at closing the MfD. Sam Blacketer 14:16, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

As long as you don't try to apply

WP:ATA, I don't see why not. Odd nature

19:59, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Closing of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Human chemistry

Hi there, consensus on this discussion is delete and the original author has now agreed that deletion is the best option. However, when he tried to tag these as speedys somebody reverted the tags because he used the wrong rationale. Could somebody just close the discussion and delete the pages? Tim Vickers 19:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Y Done Caknuck 20:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Out-of process non-admin AfD close

Resolved

Could someone please go explain to Porcupine that there are issues with closing an AfD 2 days early when they are the original nominator and consensus has not been clearly established? I don't like being ridiculed for no good reason.--SarekOfVulcan 20:21, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I have left a comment to the user. Hopefully this issue is resolved. Either party is welcome to contact me or comment here if there are further issues.-Andrew c ^[talk] 23:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Newt Rayburn

Resolved

 – AfD Closed

Been open for 8, soon to be 9 days. Anyone interested in closing. Your call on the outcome. – ALLSTAR ECHO 22:14, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Looks like a re-list to me. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 23:11, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Request for comment

Because of concerns over how I acted in semi-protecting the William Shakespeare article while it was linked by the main page, I have opened a discussion on my use of my admin powers at User_talk:Alabamaboy#Request_for_comment_on_my_use_of_admin_powers. Based on how the comments go, I am prepared to give up my admin powers or accept other sanctions. I hope people will comment.--Alabamaboy 01:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Controversial DRVs - independent input requested

Resolved

 – DRVs Closed

I recently closed as deletions two overrunning AfDs concerning

Denial of Soviet occupation, which had been the subject of political controversy among editors. Perhaps not surprisingly, two editors who had advocated keeping the articles have taken the closures to DRV. As some editors (especially on the psychiatric article) have raised the issue of the proper role of admins in determining a policy-based consensus, it would be useful if the DRVs could have some independent input from editors who have had previous experience of AfD closures. The DRVs are at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 October 5#Psychiatric abuse and Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 October 5#Denial of Soviet occupation. – ChrisO

01:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

These DRVs are ripe for closure. Indeed, I closed one earlier, but don't have time to read the other in sufficient detail tonight. The issues in the one that remains open did appear to me to be more likely to be of interest to the denizens of this board. Unless there is a massive wave of new discussion, it will probably be closed in the next 12 hours.

GRBerry

05:06, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

CSN

Hello, just so everyone is aware, the MfD for

(talk)

03:08, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Well that made for an interesting experiment. It lasted what, a year? Ah well, I agree with the closure. It diffracted discussion. Keegan^talk 04:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Revert warring

Currently some revert warring going on at

talk | contribs

) 05:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people (4th nomination)

Resolved

 – AfD Closed

Would an administrator please close the

Burntsauce

21:25, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

• Done.
  ELIMINATORJR
  21:50, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you.
  Burntsauce
  22:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the discussion degenerated into an outraged discussion between some LGBT editors and a single user who claims the list needs to be destroyed but he's not homophobic because even though he thinks gay is wrong he had a cousin that was gay. The other deleters were left quite untouched. Keep up, Burntsauce. :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 10:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Backlog at AfD

There is a large backlog of AfDs that need to be closed. Some date back as far as October 1. JoshuaZ 15:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

FYI

I've contacted

(talk)

03:03, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure you wanted to post that here? I don't think this needs admin attention. - Caribbean~H.Q. 03:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I was told it would be a good idea.--

(talk)

03:06, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I told him to, since the images would be copyrighted, yet given permission to be used in BLPs. Since I've seen problems with copyrighted images that Wikipedia has a license to use in BLPs, I figured this should be brought up here. The Hybrid T/C 03:08, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

The

Thatcher131

14:42, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll have to wait till I hear from them but I'll let them know.--

(talk)

16:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

There is a user, Robertlbeukema that has uploaded several FCW free images to Wikipedia, he may be able to help you. - Caribbean~H.Q. 04:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

This recent edit [52] on meta says that our policy is now that proxies are softblocked only and that existing hardblocks should be overturned. The discussion at Wikipedia talk:Open proxies also seems to be leaning in that direction. Can we have some sort of definitive statement on this policy?

Both at meta and here, a recent policy change stated explicitly that legitimate editors may use proxies that are not blocked. Thus, they should not be punished or regarded as suspicious merely for using or having used a proxy.

While I have never yet used a proxy (knowingly), this affects many people and there really should be a consistent policy. The way, the truth, and the light 05:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

There are a couple points to address here.

Those edits were made by an IP, and do not necessarily reflect policy.

As far as "legitimate editors" using open proxies, it is allowed without the user account being blocked. The user just may have to deal with jumping proxies once an exit node is found and blocked. There may be "consequences" as far as things as requests for adminship might go for personal reasons of editors participating.

In other words, if you have an account you aren't seriously affected by the ordeal. Keegan^talk 05:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Aren't softblocks still harmful? A softblock used to make the IP immune to autoblocks, making it impossible to deal with multiple account abuse coming through that IP address. I would prefer not to block the IP at all to softblocking (at least unregistered edits through the proxy will tell me they're using a proxy). Kusma (talk) 05:42, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Is that still true? I seem to remember it being fixed. The way, the truth, and the light 02:06, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Tor is generally hardblocked because of the enormous amount of abuse we get from that network (and other open proxies). No one will block your account just because you have used an open proxy. – zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

What discussion on Wikipedia talk:Open proxies? There has been almost no discussion there since the end of August. Softblocking open proxies almost defeats the purpose of blocking them. It will stop vandals but not sockpuppetry. In fact, if we change all the blocks to soft, we'll just have a great big list of verified proxies for sockpuppeteers to use with the category of blocked open proxies. With the exception of Chinese users, there is no real reason to edit using an open proxy (and there is an extension to make users IP-block-exempt that could take care of that if it is ever installed). If you are blocked for using one, ask for an unblock review and someone will check your IP. If it is open, you may want to contact your ISP or school and tell them that their proxy is open. Mr.Z-man 18:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

It's true the discussion was in August, but, as I said, there seemed to be more argument for softblocking. If there is such a consensus for hardblocking, why didn't it show up there? The way, the truth, and the light 02:06, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

comment by Jaakobou - i apologize for "forum shopping" both here and here. my only defense is that the editor i've complained about continued breaching policy, and my actions helped provide for a volunteer (User:Zscout370) for mentorship. regardless of the advancement caused by my action, i will be more careful not to over-expand any complaint i may raise in the future. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Italian bot AlleborgoBot (talk · contribs) is breaking templates, often adding Italian interwikis outside the <noinclude> zone and thus transcluding the template's interwiki on all pages using those templates (and resulting in a whole column of "Italian - Italian - ..." in the iw column when the template is used multiple times on a page).

• Exemples of recently broken templates demonstrating bot bad code and justifying block [59][60]
• Bot's contribs to template namespace [61]

Please block it temporarily from his stop button on User:AlleborgoBot, I'm trying to contact the bot owner on his Italian page. Thanks.

— Komusou ^talk @ 16:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Blocked as an out-of-control bot; its operator can request its unblock here when the problem is fixed. --ais523 16:24, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I've rolled back all the bot's misplaced interwikis, too. (I haven't rolled back correctly placed interwikis; and presumably other bots or users will re-add the rolled back interwikis correctly noincluded). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ais523 (talk • contribs) 16:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks. I've notified the bot owner and given him a crash course in the

WP:DOC system on his Italian talk page, hopefully he'll be able to resume operation in a debugged way. — Komusou ^talk

@ 17:25, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

The problem will not be again, now you can remove the block. Thanks. --Alleborgo 18:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the block. --ais523 18:25, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the rapidity. Regards --Alleborgo 18:42, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I am a new sysop, and would like a review of the first two vandals I blocked:

• User talk:Phony12345 on 10/10/07, 1 hour
• User talk:Adloph on 10/10/07, 48 hours

Both are SPA's. One attacked Moose, and the other a BLP and my userpage. Should I have blocked these? What specific notice should I use on their talk pages? Should the blocks be extended? Bearian 16:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, first of all, I don't see how SPA applies to either of them; they're just garden-variety infantile vandals. I usually just flip a coin and decide whether to indef them immediately as vandalism-only accounts or warn 'em. But once the "don't do that again" notice is up, then it's proper to give them shorter and then longer blocks. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:45, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

See

test5i}} myself. —Cryptic

17:01, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you both for the useful information. I have placed the template-5 on both users' talk pages. Bearian 17:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Accounts used only for vandalism can be blocked on sight without warning. (

('Stop') : ('Go')

) 17:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I block on sight after they have recieved their first Level 4 warning, unless their usernames cry out SPA, like these. "Phony" and "Adloph" wouldn't be chosen by someone who's trying to help. ·

AndonicO ^Talk

17:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

If it's an obvious vandalism-only account I'll usually just block and give no notice on their talk page, per

WP:DENY. Raymond Arritt

21:20, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Copyrighted userpage

Resolved

 – Sent to MfD and deleted per

WP:SNOW

.

User:777anton has, as her user page, an article which states that it is copyrighted ("copyright held by Vampire High Priestess Libby Hodges and House of Sheol Vampire Coven"), and that "Permission granted to Wikipedia for the use and reproduction of this article". Is that OK? Can copyrighted material appear on a user page, even if permission is granted to Wikipedia for "use and reproduction" of the article? Should this be blanked with a note left to the user, or should the user be asked to remove it, or am I fussing over nothing? 84.13.240.149 17:06, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll leave a note on the user's talk page noting that they have already agreed to license the user page under the terms of the

GFDL. --Yamla

17:13, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Aside from the copyright issue, it's also an issue with that being an abuse of userspace. We're not a webhost for their little vampire club. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:22, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

This group has been around and doing the same thing for a very long time (over a year). the previous cases ended up in blocks and userpage deletions.

β^_command

18:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Having just finished reading some of the xfDs on some of these, I can say they were ... interesting reading. --Kralizec! (talk) 21:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

This user has not made an edit outside of userspace in nearly two years. Seems like a good case for an MfD, as the only purpose for this user seems to be to use the page as a personal website. Resolute 21:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I saw this thread and sent it to MFD. Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:777anton. SashaCall ^(Sign!)/_(Talk!) 22:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

- I have put warnings on his page that he should not post NON-neutral viewpoints. - He just keeps erasing the warnings. - In addition, he keeps trying to add "most successful console" WITHOUT any citations. - .... even though he's been asked by the other editors to stop doing that & stop adding non-neutral viewpoints. - Thus his additions have gone from merely "non-neutral" to annoying & repetitive. - i.e. Vandalism.

I've had enough of his refusing to listen. - Theaveng 17:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I have unblocked JTBX (talk · contribs) and warned both disruptive editors that they need to seek dispute resolution before touching on this subject again. – madman bum and angel 02:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure that's it's there in one of the policy pages and I'm just not seeing the forest for the trees...

But what's the policy concerning indef blocked users who return to edit Wikipedia under another username? - jc37 20:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:BAN? —Wknight94 (talk

) 20:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

He means

Wikipedia:Sock puppetry and Wikipedia:Banning policy. --Ali'i

20:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

So from what I'm reading, reincarnations are to be blocked, as block evasion?

I'm asking because atm, I'm looking at what appears to be a

duck test failure

, and I think RFCU is my next step...

And thank you, btw : ) - jc37 21:13, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello, all. Just a quick heads up :)

) 21:24, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for reporting it- now cleared, GDonato (talk) 21:35, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

No problem :) ( arky ) 21:38, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I'd like to request help with SOCKS article cleanup. Specifically - a cleanup of the external links list. When I first looked at the article, the list was in a complete disarray, so I have reordered it alphabetically. This was meant to help mitigate commercial/promotional bias (top items being more visible, etc). I have also tagged it for the spam cleanup. Since then someone at address 203.87.209.110 repeatedly re-sorted the list by some artificial criteria (presumably to push specific items closer to the top of the list). Trying to reason with the editor yielded a response with a personal attack that neither addressed an issue of bias nor general unsuitability of the list for WP. I am aware that external link lists are generally against WP policy, but I would much prefer to keep the content if there is a reasonable way of resolving the dispute. Please advise. Thanks, Alex Pankratov 02:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

The SOCKS page is way too technical. There is no lead explaining what all the numbers, acronyms, etc give. The page should give the average person a decent idea of what socks is and what it does. On top of that, Wikipedia is not a software directory, there is no need for that many links. Maybe a link or two to the top proxy software, not 10+. SpigotMap 02:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Why is User:JAnDbot being allowed to remove interwiki links? I have contacted the owner on the Czech WP, but it's still removing good iw links from pages after a restart. For example, see this edit and this edit , where it removed links to the Catalan, German, and Dutch WPs. If allowed to continue, the bot could do serious damage to cross-pedia work. Could someone please check up on this bot's recent activity and STOP it? --EncycloPetey 21:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

This may well exist, but if so I've not seen it. Is there a boilerplate template to advise the nominator of an article that the speedy deletion they requested has been declined, and their various options e.g prod, afd. Anyone seen such a thing? Pedro :  Chat  15:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

There's {{

speedy-decline}}, {{speedy-Warn}}, {{speedytag1a}}, {{speedytag1b}}, and {{speedytag2}}. —Cryptic

16:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Cryptic. Pedro :  Chat  07:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

And there is a related template: {{SD warn-needed}} DGG (talk) 12:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes. That's needed too. Which is a shame. As a new admin I'm, well, staggered at the amount of users who don't advise that they've tagged an article, particularly for attack page stuff. I'm also amazed at stuff that gets tagged which is clearly not suitable. But I did find {{

speedy-decline}} to be a bit overly agressive as I think probably >99% of CSD taggin is good faith. Thanks all. Pedro :  Chat 

12:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

New Account Users list

Is there a place to see new accounts as they are created? To aid in catching sockpuppets? IP4240207xx 06:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Special:Log/newusers. --Carnildo 07:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I just blocked

09:07, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Article declared as incorrect

I am not sure what to do about Dale Hample, an article on which the notice has been placed: "As a sidenote: Professor Hample states that something within this Wikipedia entry is incorrect in order to show that Wikipedia is not a reliable source of information. He will not, however, identify the error in this article thereby making it impossible to correct the problem and resolve the issue. This could also mean that the article is not incorrect." I found it on speedy listed as A7, but if the basics are true, he is possibly notable, so I removed the tag-- and moved the above sidenote to the top of the page for visibility. But If anyone wanted to speedy as the equivalent to vandalism, I would have no objection. Alternatively, we could try to verify. I have not yet tried --some of the publications are listed as "in press" or are merely book reviews or conference presentations, so they probably should be removed in any case, which would narrow things down. DGG (talk) 12:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the above sidenote, as such editorial comments are handled by our standard templates (the disputed tag, which was already there). Adding an unverifiable statement that the article is incorrect according to the subject of the article is not the way to handle this. Such sidenotes can go to the talk page, if needed. I have done a minor cleanup of the article, but it needs a major cleanup and verification to be any good.

Fram

12:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I've cleaned it up further, reshuffled the text, removed the laundry-list of publications (I've no problem with significant wiritings, but not a list of 100+ papers) and the POV "greatest ever" statements. The image should probably go as well. I agree that what little there is needs verification, and I'm not 100% convinced he warrants an article - is "argumentation" an important enough field that it automatically makes him noteworthy? –

iridescent (talk to me!)

12:21, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

BTW on a skim I think the "deliberate mistake" is "he coached the debate team until 1980", as his resume says he was assistant coach until 1975. Oh, how I laughed. –

iridescent (talk to me!)

12:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

In that case, you could always fix it and cite the source... --ais523 12:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I deliberately haven't as I'm not certain that is the mistake - it may be that he went on to be the coach - and he's (to say the least) not of enough interest to me for me to go rooting through looking for evidence. It's strongly possible that this was an elaborate joke and "there is a lie on this page" was the lie. –

iridescent (talk to me!)

13:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Isn't the award counter to everything that Wikipedia stands for? I've put it up for deletion. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

What about all the rest under Category:Service award templates? —Wknight94 (talk) 12:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

If I could, I would. Welcome to the world of Esperanza. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:02, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Personally I don't have an issue with

WP:SERVICE and all related sub-pages if you are serious about a deletion discussion on this idea.--Isotope23 ^talk

13:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I will... unfortunately, I didn't actually realise at the time that this was part of a whole category of awards. It's worse than I thought. I don't want to be accused of

WP:POINT by listing the whole category while I've got one MFD up. - Ta bu shi da yu

13:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I said this on the MfD, but I'm going to repeat it here: Awards have a long tradition at WP. The main issue raised against this award is that it considers edit count and years of service, which many editors rightly say are not as important as an editor's contributions. However, this award isn't about an editor's contributions--there are already a number of awards which honor contributions. Nor is this award a request for admin discussion, where there are valid reasons why one shouldn't merely consider an editor's edit count or years of service. Instead, this is an award which carries no added powers or official credibility and is merely a way to honor those editors who stick around and contribute year after year. Seems silly to get bent out of shape over something like this award, which is merely a way of honoring hard-working editors.--Alabamaboy 16:59, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello, can anyone tell me what the correct template to use on Fair Use images that are lacking specific copyright information is (

(uploaded by me). Note: I am not looking for a solution for this image in particular, just using this as an general example, to see how it can be deleted, so I can use the same process for other users' images. I asked on the policy talk page, but nobody seemed to know which template I should use in particular, and twinkle does not appear to have one. If none exists can I create one, and a new sub-category in the images for deletion ? Jackaranga 15:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Could someone take a look at the actions of Lafarge Dodger (talk · contribs), please? According to this checkuser case he's likely a sock of Arthur Ellis (talk · contribs), but nothing has been done since then. He's posted to Jimbo's talk page regarding continued efforts to remove a name from archived checkuser cases. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Blocked. Circeus 17:59, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Please check out

17:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

How does this relate to administrative tasks? Leebo ^T/C 17:28, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, discussion skills are kind of important for admin work ;) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether this article is considered as an advert. Specifically the "Sales model" section which includes promotional-sounding text like Zappos has a stated goal to be "the online service leader", call center is never closed, improving the customer experience, etc. Also the "Company culture and core values" looks out of place in a Wikipedia article. I looked at the edit history and someone removed that section before, but it was re-added soon after. Coincidentally, an editor added an "advertisment" tag to the article, but it was removed today, so it appears there are some editors who want to keep the promotional sections. Could editors with a better idea of what is allowed check this article? 172.142.213.124 18:02, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Sure that's spammy. The article as a whole isn't spammy and doesn't read as an advertisement so make of it what you will. It's definitely a notable company so the article should stay. Why not just rewrite the offending sections? Wikidemo 02:26, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Can we get some attention on Wikipedia:Spoiler. There appears to be a rather strange edit war going on over whether it should be assumed that section headings accurately reflect their contents or if it should be assumed that they don't because section headings are exempt from Wikipedia:Verifiability. --Farix (Talk) 19:07, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Could someone please undelete Creighton process? It was deleted by PROD, as a suspected hoax without references, but I found a solid reference here. This should not require a formal deletion review or anything like that. I'll clean up the article once I see it. Thank you. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 19:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

 Done. And I also deleted it. What a coincidence. Maxim_{(talk) (contributions)} 19:40, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

This looks like an attack page, but it has some useful cited information about a Usenet death penalty against UUNet. What should be done about this page? Jesse Viviano 19:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I've proposed a merge with UUNET. That should probably go into a 'critisism' section, but it certainly does not warrant it's own page.  – Edokter • Talk • 19:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I have already mentioned this on the recently created users' noticeboard, but, as that is a new noticeboard, nobody would see it if I didn't mention it elsewhere. A.Z. 21:24, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Since someone just deleted the users' noticeboard, I'll post the link here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pedophilia Article Watch#Missing sections. A.Z. 21:28, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Never mind. They had just deleted the users' noticeboard that I had accidentaly created on the mainspace. A.Z. 21:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

What you said there, A.Z is "It looks as if a diff is missing. See

21:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I seek an answer to future use, not for any past misdeeds. I have no intention to drag anything out from the past. As such, those who comment should refrain from searching edit histories, make snide comments, etc.

In business and life, there is often some form of compensation scheme. If you hit a parked car, you have to pay for the damage or have your insurance company pay. If you buy something from the store and it is defective, returns are accepted. In Wikipedia, if an administrator acts improperly, there is no recourse. ArbCom hears only a few cases and refuses to hear quite a few cases.

Are there any administrator who will take responsibility for their actions? If so, list your name. This list would be a good reference to have if I ever want to consult with an administrator For example, if one makes an improper block, will they be blocked themselves for an equivalent period? I presume that the majority of administrators will not commit themselves to giving compensation or receiving penalties themselves for incorrect actions.

Note that this is a serious discussion. Any form of reverting, deleting, or placing a block with the excuse of "trolling" is just proof that the offending administrator is acting improperly. If the answer is "I, as an administrator, try my best but if I make a mistake or act improperly, tough luck because I am the boss and ArbCom will discipline me only in the worst cases" is certainly a plausible answer and is a better alternative than just blocking to prove that you know how to act improperly. AS 001 22:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Most, though not all, administrators here are prepared to acknowledge when they make a mistake. I certainly have from time to time. Moreover, even if a given admin does not agree or acknowledge that a particular action was a mistake, any admin's judgment on a given issue is subject to review. That is why we have the unblock template and the unblock mailing list (for reviewing blocks), deletion review (for reviewing deletions), this noticeboard (for, among other things, reviewing other disputed administrator actions), and the like. Plus, as you mentioned, the Arbitration Committee for the most serious cases (although I think you will find general agreement that ArbCom cases should move faster). However, a policy such that if an administrator makes a good-faith but incorrect block, the admin should be blocked himself or herself, would in my opinion serve no useful purpose. Newyorkbrad 22:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I think this is a great idea. I look forward for the responses. A.Z. 22:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

(Replying to Brad above) Yep. We go with what improves the encyclopedia. "An eye for an eye" hardly accomplishes anything useful. Grudges are not welcome. Friday (talk) 22:51, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

You have to be pretty brave to be an admin especially a controversial one and I suspect making being one more difficult would make for a worse encyclopedia,

SqueakBox

22:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that people who have difficulty acknowledging that they made mistakes simply can't be good administrators. A.Z. 22:58, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Grudges are certainly not welcomed which is why I want this to be a discussion about the future, not any past deeds.

The honest mistake is not what I am talking about. What if some administrator removed this discussion and then blocked me. I would consider that improper. I presume that there are at least a few honest administrators who would agree. Is that a reason to block that administrator for some period short of going to ArbCom and are there any administrators who would be willing to do that (Note: I am not seeking have anyone blocked for any action done in the past)? AS 001 23:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

You may be interested in the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia:Requests for adminship relating (in part) to admin accountability to the community. As for your suggestion that an admin incorrectly applying a block should be blocked in turn for an equal period, I would refer you to your point regarding being involved in a car accident; you (or your insurance) pays compensation, you are not required to have your vehicle damaged to an equal degree. LessHeard vanU 23:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

True, but there is compensation. In Wikipedia, there is no form of compensation. I did see a discussion about adminstrators. 2 were named as controversial, one of the starting with R and some Japanese name (though the person isn't Japanese). I've seen a few of this person's actions and they are very aggressive. AS 001 23:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

The compensation presently at Wikipedia is apology and retraction - the block remains in the log, but there is a history of "Sorry, I goofed" to refer to. There may in the future be something between that and ArbCom sanction that could be create, which is why I made the link. I would also comment that you commenced this discussion stating that you were only concerned with the future; the last comment seems to be a reference to past events. LessHeard vanU 23:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Administrator Friday, contrary to the above comment, makes a comment found in a link above. Here it is: We need a reasonably easy way to remove adminship from those who demonstrate poor usage of the tools. There's an unfortunately large amount of cultural inertia behind "adminship is forever" and "only arbcom can remove it, and only in extreme cases." This attitude is harmful. .....I agree. If this can come to fruition, I think the problem to this entire discussion is solved! AS 001 23:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

As stated above, a good majority would be willing to accept blame and criticism for serious mistakes (myself included). But applying a block after such mistakes negates

23:23, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

At work there is plenty of WP discussion. I have heard (not seen, so can't provide proof) of an administrator being the object of an ArbCom complaint then removing the complaint and blocking the complainer. I've also heard of an administrator not liking some vote (not sure if RFA, AFD, etc) so they blocked the person. So it seems that there are some administrators who refuse to accept any responsibility. AS 001 23:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

The bigger problem is Arbcom hearing certain things in secret, leaving no record of its deliberations or the evidence presented, and then deleting all record of the dispute, and blocking anyone likely to mention the matter with no justification given. If the Arbcom process were a bit more transparent, and Arbcom members accountable to the community, it would fix both the Arbcom problem and the misguided admin problem. Enrico Dirac 00:38, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

You know, I'm more than willing to take responsibility for my mistakes, which anyone who's taken even a cursory glance at my talk page will be able to attest to. But, there are a number of issues with the proposal - ie, what's a "bad block"? How is it proven? What if it's just a judgment call? I've made some judgment calls that I've later reversed on good faith - I stand by them, but I was willing to give the contributor a chance to prove me wrong. The proposal is far to nebulous for any agreement of that type. For what it's worth, I'm happy to say "I'm sorry" when I've made a difficult call - but to be blocked for a good faith effort? No. Not for me. - Philippe | Talk 00:50, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Halloween (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) It is currently on semi-protection, but and edit war is ramping up. I asked in the page protection page for full protection but have not been answered. 216.93.229.62 00:29, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Going on 7 days open now. Someone please close. Getting ridiculous over there. – ALLSTAR ECHO 02:21, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

 Done – madman bum and angel 05:53, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Time for close of this IfD. Anyone? Link is above in title, discussion

06:25, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

PROTECTING MAIN PAGE IMAGES

Dear administrators,

When you put an image on the main page that is hosted on commons, you must upload it locally to ensure the image will be protected.

If you don't, some vandal may modify the image on commons as this chap did... see this image, which was on the main page, and the vandalized version.

Sincerely,

--Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:18, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok this is sort or ironic, there is a huge drive towards moving free images to commons completely, actually I have seen someone suggest moving them to commons in a FPC so my assuption is that there are FACs and FLCs out there that are also receiving this kind of suggestion wich leads me to believe that not much can be done unless a guideline or policy is established saying otherwise.- Caribbean~H.Q. 07:30, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Lets keep the discussion in one place, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Main Page image incident. To be fair this is nothing against images being on Commons - this was my mistake and I'm a Commons admin so could have protected it there anyway.... WjBscribe 07:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I routinely check the main page for image protection problems. Since August, I myself have caught about 22 images on the main page that were neither uploaded here nor protected at commons, and I've seen probably about a dozen or so more that were caught by other admins. Most of these images are on DYK, while a few have been on the other sections. The incident tonight was different than most in that an administrator just forgot to upload and/or protect it. Most of the incidents seem to be coming from people just not understanding the limits of cascading protection and the fact that vandalism on commons can affect images here. Obviously we're not doing something right, as I don't recall unprotected images being almost a daily problem in the past. --- RockMFR 07:42, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Quiet! The trolls are watching. :-) I'd redact that number you quote and turn the guidelines for such things into flashing gizmos so people doing the process don't forget. Carcharoth 08:07, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

You can always get an adminbot to protect them...

cool stuff

) 08:30, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Well it is interesting to note that unlike its fallible human operator,

talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) seems to have performed without error in its 50 deletion test run today... WjBscribe

08:38, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... so we just need to replace some of your neurons with silicon?

cool stuff

) 08:43, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Ooh. Big shiny shut-off button. I'm pressing it but nothing is happening... :-( Carcharoth 10:30, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Woo doing our work for us! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Viridae (talk • contribs) 10:50, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

The article Atul Chitnis is continously being negatively edited by the people who are not on good terms with the subject of the article in real life. In the past, several single-purpose accounts (Tazo Zaatar TracerBullet2 etc) were created to make sure the article doesn't survive. However, every time, it has been unanimously kept.

Last week, User:Zamkudi again filed a deletion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Atul Chitnis (3rd nomination)). He completely gutted the article to deceive the people participating in the delete debate. However, everybody (except Zamkudi) who participated in the discussion voted to keep the article and questioned Zamkudi's good faith because he gutted the article:

Version of the article before Zamkudi's edits
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Atul_Chitnis&oldid=160477395

Article after Zamkudi's edits
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Atul_Chitnis&oldid=164205429

Since the article has been unanimously kept, Zamkudi is obviously frustrated and continously undoes constructive edits of registered as well as unregistered users. He keeps gutting the article.

Actually, there are sources, but Zamkudi keeps removing them saying that they are not reliable. As an example, he removed a reference saying that BBS: The Documentary is not an "exceptional and reliable" source
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Atul_Chitnis&diff=163058916&oldid=163058408

In the delete debate it was pointed out that there are several articles (non-trivial) on Atul Chitnis in The Times of India, The Hindu and other major publications. However, Zamkudi only keeps removing references instead of adding new ones.

I signed up to do something about this problem, but I don't know how to solve this problem. Normally, I see people adding ^{{{citation needed})} if they are not sure about truthfulness of some content, but Zamkudi is completely removing all the content and even the sources calling them unreliable. He also removed an image from the article
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Atul_Chitnis_and_Jimmy_Wales.jpg

And if other users undo his edits, he again undoes their edits:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Atul_Chitnis&diff=163387018&oldid=163206394
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Atul_Chitnis&diff=164205429&oldid=163974056
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Atul_Chitnis&diff=163761058&oldid=163607446

What's the use of closing a delete debate with "Keep" when the nominator can remove the content even after everybody voted to Keep the article? Please do something about this. NikhilFromHyderbad 09:21, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I have protected the article in its current form because of this edit dispute. Please work out all differences on this article's talk page. And while I am not supporting any particular edit or version of the article, I would like to hear Zamkudi's reasons for repeatedly deleting the vast majority of this article. It does seem strange to have referenced info removed without a comment. I should add, though, that Zamkudi does not appear to have gutted the article prior to the AfD and likewise, both you and Zamkudi appear to be operating in good faith. So let's keep everything civil.--Alabamaboy 12:07, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I came across

10:18, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Here is a direct copy of World66's copyright policy:

All the material (articles and images, otherwise specified) are published under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 1.0 Licence. This licence foresees that you are free to copy, distribute, display, and perform the work; to make derivative works; to make commercial use of the work, only with attribution (you must give the original author credit). If you get permission from the author, you may use it free of these conditions.

— World66 Copyright Policy, link

I don't know an exact answer as to whether it should stay or go. Any further opinions? –

talk_bots

11:22, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:AFD. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) (review)

12:20, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Material with a copyright that requires less than a second copyright can be re-copyrighted under that second copyright so long as the first copyright does not expressly disallow it. So public domain stuff can be modified and put under a proprietary licence and software under BSD can be put under GNU and material under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 1.0 Licence can be put under GFDL. WAS 4.250 12:30, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I've attributed the article. It still needs some heavy cleanup, which requires more time than I have now - the subject is clearly notable. Thanks. (I know about

WP:MCQ, but that page is designed for images). MER-C

13:21, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

CC-BY-SA-1.0 cannot be integrated into a GFDL-licensed work. CC-BY-SA-1.0 requires that you distribute the original work and derivative works only under CC-BY-SA-1.0. GFDL requires that you distribute the original work and derivative works only under GFDL. They don't work together. --Iamunknown 16:00, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Not according to http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/1.0/ . According to that material under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 1.0 Licence can be put under GFDL. WAS 4.250 16:30, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't see where it says that on the page you linked. If you read the full legal details, they state that adding extra licence conditions isn't allowed, and the GFDL has extra conditions on top of what CC-by-sa-1.0 states. --ais523 16:34, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

This human-readable summary indicates that "this License" in this Legal Code (the full license) should be interpreted to mean "the same or similar license to this one". Courts take intent into account in ways that software programmers don't. Every indication is that GFDL counts as a "similar licence" and thus counts within the meaning of "this License", as "this License" refers to a legal construct (an idea) and not a specific series of bits or a specific physical object. On the one hand I'm not a lawyer, but on the other hand a lawyer would simply say that until it is ruled on in a court, no one can say for sure. WAS 4.250 16:48, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

"You may not offer or impose any terms on the Work that alter or restrict the terms of this License or the recipients' exercise of the rights granted hereunder", and the GFDL does impose such terms. --ais523 16:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

<<<What in your opinion does GFDL impose that is substantively different from what I read at this Legal Code (the full license). I don't see a difference that makes a difference. WAS 4.250 16:55, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:GFDL most importantly has a requirement to keep history (section 4I), which CC-by-sa doesn't (it only requires that the original author is kept). The requirement for a 'Transparent' copy (which I mentally think of as 'machine readable') when making at least 100 copies also doesn't exist in CC-by-sa. --ais523 17:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, you cannot distribute a GFDL-licensed work in a medium with DRM-style restrictions. There is no such restriction on CC-BY-SA-1.0. The two are not compatible. --Iamunknown 17:09, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

"If you get permission from the author, you may use it free of these conditions." - Why not make this all moot and just get the author's permission to license under GFDL? ---

WRE

) 18:08, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

TREYWiki has requested that the arbitration committee unban him. We have decided to do so, with the caveat that he's now under strict parole. Any arbitrator can re-ban him if he is misbehaving. Raul654 17:00, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Is any arbitrator... supposed to read any administrator...? Joe 18:00, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Thats usually the case on parole. ---

WRE

) 18:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Whoops - yes, administrator. Raul654 20:01, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

The aforementioned arbitration case is closed. Artaxerex is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year. The parties are reminded of the need to adhere closely to the neutral point of view policy. For the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (t) 20:36, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

AfDs, MfDs and some others are a part of our robots.txt file, but due to the file not being correctly formatted, no one noticed and they were still indexed by google. It's been fixed recently, and many of us have our "WTF" faces on. The original request is seen at [62]. No discussion? Because of this, a major tool in finding past discussions has been lost to us. How do we fix this? – Ned Scott 07:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

If you put "Wikipedia:" in front of a search query, it searches only in the Wikipedia namespace. For example a search for "Wikipedia:deletion haiku" delivers the correct AfD debate. Graham87 07:21, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Which works if you just want to do a title search, but nothing else. – Ned Scott 07:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it should be taken out of the robots.txt - the stated reason for it being in there can be satisfied with courtesy blanking, without destroying the ability to search AFDs it does not apply to. —Random832 13:32, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly. We have tons of non-controversial situations that have no reason to be hidden. – Ned Scott 07:40, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Blanked or not, no AFD discussion should ever be visible in the first couple of Google result pages for any search. Fixing this in robots.txt was a good move. You can still use Wikipedia's own search engine to search through AFDs if you need to. We'd need to courtesy blank a lot more if this is not in robots.txt, and that would bring a lot of other problems (Whatlinkshere would become a lot less meaningful in these contexts etc.) Kusma (talk) 13:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Given that they were still searchable somewhat recently, I'm not convinced it was ever a problem. – Ned Scott 07:41, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion this was a very good move. We have enough of a problem with abusive vandalistic edits showing up in the search engines without the vitriol that AfD can frequently be showing up as well. In my opinion the following should also be excluded if they are not: All user pages, User talk pages and article talk pages. I see little point in the first two being indexed, the first frequently associates "banned" templates with peoples real names or names that are traceable to them - and it is not our job to forever label them as someone that has been banned from wikipedia, no matter how disruptive they have been. The User talk pages frequently have the same problem as the user pages, with the added bonus of displaying every little dispute the person happens to be in at the time of the indexing. Finally the article talk pages, while somewhat more relevant to the encyclopaedia, frequently are the site of disputes that would be better left unindexed - disputes of notability of people for instance, or whether to include criticism of someone or something. None of those pages have encyclopedic value, so as unencyclopedic, potentially harmful meta pages I think they too should be excluded. Minor usability issues such as this shouldn't come ahead of potential harm to real people. Viridae^Talk 13:55, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Beware of unintended consequences. Our internal search feature isn't nearly as good as Google. If we exclude our pages from indexing, that makes it very hard to find things when we need to look them up. Who has that editor I asked about "red lederhosen"? Dagnabbit, the talk are no longer indexed by Google; I can't find that conversation. Am I making sense? If a user page is causing somebody problems, they can request deletion. - Jehochman ^Talk 13:59, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

(ec) I agree. For practical purposes, we need a good internal search engine for our contributors which should include talk pages and project pages and the like, but outward search engines like google should ideally only see our encyclopedic content. It's not good to have our dirty laundry indexed externally. Of course, it's a shame we don't currently have a good enough internal search and we've had to rely on google instead, but the answer to that is we should try to get our own facilities improved. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:01, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe the foundation can persuade Google to donate a box of our own?  – Edokter • Talk • 14:43, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

That would be heavenly :D – Ned Scott 07:42, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, thinking more about this, I probably should have posted this to a VP page instead of here. If I understand correctly, a developer would have to make this change. – Ned Scott 05:59, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but I have to question the point of doing so. After all, if my memory serves correctly, Wikimedia developers added AFD to robots.txt on our request. They didn't do it just for lolz.

cool stuff

) 06:18, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Here's a quick 2 cents... I concur with the suggestion of adding User Pages, User Talk Pages, and Article Talk pages to robots.txt to remove them from Google searches - for all the reasons stated above. I've had no trouble finding pages using the internal search engine and have not had to resort to Google for that. Lots of users have templates on their User pages stating that they are not encyclopedia pages, so it's clear that there is at least a concern about this in general. Also, in searching for non-Wiki topics on Google, I've randomly run across a variety of user and talk pages, and seen some pretty funny stuff, right there in the top Google rankings, complete with excerpts of people arguing about all sorts of things. Anything Wikipedia comes up on the first Google page, so it seems to me this should be considered seriously. Thanks. --Parsifal _Hello 19:25, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Thought OTRS we've gotten a lot of complaints about non-articles being in Google's cache. This will help a lot...hopefully. An AFD !vote viewed out of context looks bad to someone who dosn't know anything about how wikipedia works. ---

WRE

) 00:22, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I concur. Leaving it blocked from indexing does more good than anything. I would also support adding all of Wikipedia/User pages (and talks). ^

^{[omg plz]}

 18:34, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, only the main namespace and portal should be indexed. Everything else is utility/internal, and is not monitored for compliance with article content policies. Either we apply our content policies to all public-facing pages, or we hide those pages from the search engines. I favor the latter course. If the mediawiki search engine is junk then that's an argument for fixing the search engine. Mackensen (talk) 13:40, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

In looking over the robots file, I noticed that only some of the deletion discussion pages are listed. Is there a reason that it's limited to just a few, or should all of the discussions listed on

00:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I think only deletion subpages, as used on AfD for example, are listed in robots.txt, since those will linger on long after the debate is concluded. The pages listing current nominations are, and should be, indexable. Since old versions of pages are never indexable anyway, this means that no additional robots.txt entries are required for those deletion debates where old discussions are only archived in page histories. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 16:15, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm still not sure if I've reported this in the right place - Wikipedia is so labyrinthine. Here goes. From the latest b3ta newsletter:

>> Quopedia vandalism << "Hello b3ta Towers," blurps danbull45, "We would like to divulge to you the following very sinister secret. Using a variety of aliases and cunning page edits, we have now subtly shopped Status Quo into nearly 200 different photos on Wikipedia. Our aim is for every image in Wikipedia to have Teh Quo hidden somewhere within it. We'd like to show you the fruits of our labour, but for obvious reasons can't reveal the location of each image - so here is a taster of our handiwork. Perhaps your newsletter's readers could aid us in our glorious mission?"

There is a weblink in the original newsletter to a photo: the same photo is in the

(photo of the crowd) and is vandalised. At the left side of the pic, at about 4 o'clock beneath the 'Kebabs Fish and Chips' sign, there's Francis Rossi and the other one (the pretty one who lost his looks) - very small, infront of a blue ?curtain/screen. They're very small - you'll need eagle eyes. In the original newsletter there's a link to the image which you can enlarge so that they're easily visible, but I couldn't link to as it's a banned site.

To see the original newsletter, go to http://b3ta.com/ then click ' read newsletter 298' just below where it says 'Cadburies take them and cover them in chocolate'. Go down the page a little bit and at the end of the section I've quoted above there's a blue link to the pic. 86.134.10.119 15:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this is the right place. Image has been deleted & Statusquorn (talk · contribs) has been blocked, though given that message I suspect much more has been done with throwaway accounts.--Isotope23 ^talk 16:00, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Do you think Checkusers will accept to look into it? Circeus 18:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

We'll see. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 16:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

(Rick Parfitt. LessHeard vanU 23:06, 12 October 2007 (UTC))

I need to check on userpage rules. Is it okay to put political statements on your user page, including userboxes, saying things like "I hate such-and-such politician"? My understanding is that things that incite violence, reveal personal info, etc can't be on userpages but I'm not sure of this situation. Rlevse 14:49, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

See

WP:USER#What may I not have on my user page?. EdJohnston

16:09, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Dramatica

FYI, there is a discussion underway on meta regarding the proposed removal of this domain from the Wikimedia blacklist:

• meta:Talk:Spam blacklist#Encyclopedia Dramatica

--A. B. ^(talk) 16:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't really affect us much; as Melsaran says there, it'll just get added to our blacklist if it's removed from meta. -Amarkov moo! 16:35, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Just letting people know that as nobody knows which deletion template I should use on Fair Use Images that do not specify the specific copyright holder, I will start using the IfD process on them. Please say if there is an easier way, similar to {{Di-no source}} for example. Jackaranga 21:16, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. Would {{No copyright holder}} do the trick? Happy editing, ( arky ) 21:26, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I think I will use {{

WP:NFC#Enforcement only says to notify the uploader, it doesn't say tagging the image is necessary, so I guess the user message is the most important. Jackaranga

21:29, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

• I don't think we should be aggressively deleting images per NFCC#10a. For some images the source and copyright holder are quite obvious. A logo is sourced to and the property of the corporation (or the parent corporation); a film poster is the property of the movie congolmerate (e.g. Universal Studios), and the source is rather irrelevant (because a scan or a digital image on filmposters.com isn't copyrighted by them); etc. While this is certainly at odds with what our non-free content policy says exactly, it seems sensible to me. --Iamunknown 22:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Could an available CheckUserer please clear the backlog at

22:35, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Username issue

I came upon

96

12:01, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

list at

WP:RFCN. Rlevse

14:50, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I would have done so, but seeing as it's up for deletion ...

96

15:21, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Seeing as it's already blocked, don't list it. Mangojuice^talk 15:07, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it is promoting a controversial point of view, but the reason "promoting drugs" is not a good one.

1 != 2

15:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd have to say LSD is good for the brain would be a controversial point of view. Luigi30 (Taλk) 12:53, 15 October 2007 (UTC)