biting the newbies. (In this particular case, the user was User:人, and the only information they were given as to why was the rather cryptic "user..." as the blocking reason.) Thanks. -- AJR | Talk
23:23, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
If non-Latin-character usernames aren't allowed, shouldn't the software disallow creating them in the first place? --83.253.36.136 11:34, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I have been wondering about that bit for quite a long time. — Nearly Headless Nick{L} 11:04, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Nobody should EVER be using that 'user...' blocking reason - I'm curious as to why it's so common. Is it in some semi-automated tool, or standard talk among some antivandal people? Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 11:25, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
No it isn't. Standard message is more like "{{
usernameblocked}} please choose a name with latin characters". Something tha cryptic is rare. pschemp | talk
14:02, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Other Wikipedias do allow the creation of non-Latin usernames, so it's not a particularly sought-after feature, I guess. My concern is all the non-Latin usernames that will be created by people migrating via m:Single User Login when it's introduced - will they be blocked, forcing them to choose a name different from their cross-wiki login? - Tangotango 13:04, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Dunno. Will they even show up correctly on the English wikipedia? Some characters don't render here very well. Maybe we'll suddenly have a spate of usernames comprising ??????? pschemp | talk 14:02, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Allegation of Vandalism
Elalan had placed a warning template on my talk page for what he says is vandalism. I assume he was referring to my edits of the page Mahinda Rajapaksa. The whole thing started when Elalan had added a whole section with the introduction
As President of the Sri Lankan government and Defence minister, Mahinda Rajapakse has been held responsible for a significant deterioration of human rights in Sri Lanka.
Although the individual events had citations, the fact that Mahinda Rajapaksa had been held responsible was not cited, and I don't believe anyone has held him directly responsible. Therefore I moved the entire text to the talk page[1] and said
As per Wikipedia policy I'm moving them to the talk page until required sources are given. Do not reinstate them unless
Reliable Sources
are given.
Elalan readded the text without any discussion[2], and therefore I removed them again[3] with the edit summery
rv - discuss before readding text
Following this Elalan again readded the text (with no discussion) and placed the {{test2a}} warning on my talk page. At the same time he placed a civility warning on my page for I assume my previous discussion with DRK, which was a misunderstanding, following which I apologised to him for taking my edit summery the wrong way.[4]
I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask for help from an admin on this matter, but it's the best place I found, and I didn't want to remove the templates myself. So, can anyone help? --snowolfD4( talk / @ ) 02:44, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
To put it bluntly, admins can block people and delete pages. It doesn't sound like the situation is ready for that yet (hopefully, not ever). There are a variety of processes at
Thatcher131
03:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
I didn't mean block him. That's why I said I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask for help. I mean the warning templates. I don't believe I did anything wrong so I don't think they should be on my talk page. What can be done about them? --snowolfD4( talk / @ ) 03:20, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
I do want to note that it looks like Elalan has already been warned about NPOV earlier (archived) but hopefully will use the talk page from now on. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for going through the article Ricky81682, its a lot better now. But I can remove the warning templates, Right? Cos they wern't valid in the first place. --snowolfD4( talk / @ ) 15:32, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
There is dispute in the community about whether people should be allowed to remove warnings in general, but everyone seems to agree that 'invalid warnings' can be removed. Though whether something is 'valid' or not is often subjective. In any case, please go ahead... IMO if you don't want them on your talk page you shouldn't have to keep them there. Your talk page exists for people to communicate with you, not to permanently house embarassing / annoying accusations that any user feels like making. --CBD 10:57, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
OK Thanks CBD I'm removing the tags. But the fact is they were posted by Elalan cos he didn't want me to remove his uncited/POV edits. So I'm pretty sure anyone who goes through that incident will agree the tags were unsubstantiated. But anyway, Thanks. --snowolfD4( talk / @ ) 18:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
It took over a day for an anon to revert a page blanking. Given the number of admins and tools at our disposal I find that pretty disappointing. - RoyBoy800 16:57, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Why is it the responsibility of admins to revert vandalism? Any editor can do it. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:24, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Per nomination, I think this is criteria for a speedy delete? Not completely sure, if not could someone please explain on my talk page? Thanks! Stubbleboy 19:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
I'd say it is, both per its earlier AFD (G4) and per the expanded A7. >Radiant< 16:12, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Template guru needed
Hi - if anyone knows the template magic to create a link to the Talk page of the editor substing a template (so as to create a working "my talk" link which can be used in talk page templates) can they please let me know. This has been suggested as an enhancement to the {{nn-userfy}} template, and I'd hope to add it to some other bite-minimising templates. Guy 09:18, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Can't be done unfortunately. There is no 'magic word' or 'wiki markup' for <CURRENT USER>. I doubt they'd add one because it could have page caching implications and would definitely allow situations where pages displayed different content depending on the person viewing them. The closest currently available is the standard sig markup, '~~~'... which usually contains a link to the user and/or talk page. Having the sig markup inside 'includeonly' tags (i.e. <includeonly>~~~</includeonly>) would then cause it to 'autosign' when substituted, but generally isn't done because people would likely type, '{{subst:templatename}} --~~~~', and wind up with two signatures. --CBD 11:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
For completeness - You could create a talk link if you included a parameter for the username, (i.e. {{subst:templatename|user=CBDunkerson}}), but the person subst'ing the template would have to type in their username each time. Presumably not what you were looking for. --CBD 11:41, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
It would be possible to implement something like this in MediaWiki:monobook.js, but these would only work for Monobook users and so wouldn't be suitable for use in templates, unless they were coded to just not link if the 'magic word' didn't replace (which is possible, but might leave residual code behind); it's probably just not worth it. --ais523 13:55, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
There is a rather simple workaround for this: just link to Special:Mytalk, which automatically redirects to the appropriate page. There is also as Special:Mypage, and both can have subpages appended to them. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 22:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Er, okay, but if he adds that into a template, then you click on it, you end up on your talkpage, not the talkpage of the editor who substed the template, which is what (I think) he wanted? ~Kylu (u|t) 03:54, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Is this like bugzilla:6553?. It's proposed, but I have the feeling it will not be implemented any time soon. Tizio, Caio, Sempronio 12:19, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Simple solution is to have a "username" parameter. A more whizzbang solution probably isn't available right now alas. --kingboyk 13:08, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Will the block (even on his Talk Page!) on Sussexman remain now that the contentious article (Gregory Lauder-Frost) has been deleted? It seems most unfair as he has worked on quite a number of good articles, not all of them political. Having looked at the reasons for his block it states that he personally sent a solicitor's letter to someone else on Wikipedia. Is that actually true? Is there positive proof that he was even involved? Is this an unfair witch-hunt? This is one of many issues from what I can see which are not being dealt with in a decent manner. 86.129.82.48 14:13, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Let me see now: legal threats, tendentious editing, trolling, personal attacks. Not looking too good at this point. Can you show evidence that Sussexman is capable of working productively with people who hold strongly different opinions on something that matters to him? Guy 15:01, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
The above IP is verypassionateindeed about this block of an extremely tendentious editor, and repeats the same tired old defence of legal threats while claiming that Sussexman didn't make any. However, my opinion is that unless there is some very strong indication that he's somehow changed enough to make a remotely positive contribution to this project, no. Copy and paste that to the other three venues if you like. Also to the dartboard at the Monday Club if it makes them feel better, this is all under GFDL after all (please remember that proper attribution must be attached to the bullseye and a link to the GFDL at the treble 17). --Sam Blanning(talk) 17:49, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
As a related issue, I've recently been hassled by an anonymous editor (I would guess either Sussexman or someone related to the Lauder-Frost circle) regarding things posted by other people outside of Wikipedia (see [5]). I gave him short shrift, naturally [6]. It seems there is an ongoing off-Wiki feud involving Sussexman, GLF and a number of other people - I would suggest keep them all blocked and well away from here. -- ChrisO 18:21, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
User:Chelsea Tory is probably the a sock of both the anon that posted this and Sussexman. Could someone more familiar with this check that out? pschemp | talk 22:52, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, as a life-long Tory and now ardent supporter of
U-kipper. From a technical standpoint though, I would suggest requests for checkuser. The contribution pattern is telling but not sufficient, IMO. --Sam Blanning(talk)
01:53, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Freestylefrappe
Freestylefrappe has been caught using sockpuppets again in violation of his arbitration case
Thatcher131
18:51, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Again? As for the indef blocks, I think FSF/Y6 was already community-banned, though of course, any single admin can unblock him to cancel the community ban. I, for one, will not. --Deathphoenixʕ 19:15, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
As far as I am concerned Ya ya ya ya has been banned by the community. Don't you find it slightly weird to suggest unbanning one of his accounts in response to massive sockpuppetry? The ArbCom can help us deal with problem users. But we are free to deal with them on our own, too, and if their remedies aren't strict enough and the person keeps on misbehaving, we are free to impose tougher penalties without having to go back to the ArbCom again. And given this character's consistent problems over months now, I don't think there's anyone who can sanely argue that this community ban is unjust. --Cyde Weys 21:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
I proposed the community ban last time, if I remember correctly; I still support it. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:41, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
He was already community banned; there is a noticeboard thread about it somewhere too. There is no reason to unban any of his accounts, I had enough trouble dealing with his IPs revert warring and harassing editors. —Centrx→talk • 22:03, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
What was missing from the Arb case is a log of blocks and bans (which I have since added) so I had no way to immediately determine why Ya ya was blocked right after apparently being chosen as his "official" account, and the block summary did not reference a community ban. I see that Centrx has posted the archive link and reblocked indef per the archived discussion; I support this. Thanks for the input.
I'm not sure how notable or encyclopedic the King Tractor Press is, but I've had it on my watchlist for a while because it contained an outgoing link to nn-webcomic freehost
n
00:57, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Not any more it isn't. --kingboyk 19:01, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
If there's anybody here who knows about comics, would they please check this for notability? User:Tvoice is the self-confessed owner of King Tractor Press (Granger, presumably), and it looks rather like a walled garden to me. That's not to say there isn't notability; I know nothing of this genre. --kingboyk 19:09, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
It's not a walled garden, because there are links to these pages from highly visible articles such as
n
19:25, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Requesting deletion of a user page related to googlebombing activity
Hello. I am a user from the Greek Wikipedia. I noticed that when typing "Βικιπαίδεια" (the name of the Greek version of Wikipedia) in Google, the following result appears on top: User:Βικιπαίδεια είναι κομουνισμός (Greek for User:Wikipedia is communism). I am requesting the immediate or in-a-short-time deletion of this page and its talk page (4th result in Google). It is obvious that this high ranking is a result of Googlebombing. This way Wikipedia is connected with a certain POV, which is against its basic policy. And also prevents certain groups of users to contribute to the project. I think also that this user page should have been deleted a long time ago (the user who created it was blocked on 14 October 2005, and the standard period for retainment of the temporary user pages is 1 month). --Dead3y3Talk page 01:28, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
I've deleted it. We don't need year-old userpages for blocked sockpuppets anyway. --Mr. Lefty (talk) 01:46, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Deletion review of Arch Coal...
I've requested a deletion review of Arch Coal. Thought it would be a good idea to post a note here... oh, this is one of MyWikiBiz's articles deleted by Jimbo. Outside opinions would be appreciated. ---J.S (t|c) 05:32, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Interesting (not meant ironically) discussion happening there, with important implications for our future growth. I seconf J.S's encouragement for outside voices.
Button_array.png. Is it just me or is that universal? coz it is causing delays in loading the page and it makes the page look little odd. --WinHunter(talk) 17:55, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
If that's the make table button it wasn't visible in AWB (IE) for me earlier, so I turned image display off. Is visible in Firefox for me now. That particular URL you provided isn't loading at the moment... --kingboyk 18:55, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Nvm, I can see that the problem was fixed in this edit. --WinHunter(talk) 00:23, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Fair use stamps: revisitied ...
About 2 months ago, I raised the issue of a huge number of stamps being used in biography articles, where there is no mentioned of the stamp, or only a small sentence saying that "this govt has issued a stamp on the subject" or something equally brief.
An example can be found here, for the article Bhagat_Puran_Singh. Here, the article mentions only mentions "Indian Government issued postal stamp in honor of Bhagat Puran Singh in 2004.", and this sentence is being used to justify the "Fair use" of the stamp image.
According to
Stamp
}},
stamp images in this category should not be used solely as a cheap way to illustrate articles. In addition to the problem that images are often altered for artistic reasons and thus may not be factually accurate representations of their subject, Wikipedia:Fair use criteria does not allow for it.
In some cases, the issuance of a stamp is itself notable, and the stamp may be allowable in the article (for instance, if the issuance of the stamp was an overtly political act, with the design chosen for political purposes). For these images, the image description page must describe this as part of its fair use rationale, and the article(s) using the stamp must do so also.
So, my question is, is providing a single sentence like "the govt of x issued a stamp on Y on year z" sufficient justification of including a fair use stamp image in a biography article? This type of usage has again become prevalent since the last cleanup 2 or 3 months ago. I'm waiting for some more comments from other admins to go on and remove these again. The last time I raised the question here at ANB, most of the people opined that there needs to be more coverage of the stamp rather these "one sentence description"s to justify inclusion of the stamp under fair use. Thanks. --Ragib 20:19, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
You understand things correctly. Stamps are not good portraits, and should only be used when there is commentary on the stamp itself. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:26, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
However, if the image is indeed in the public domain, as one editor of that article has asserted, the image page needs to be retagged and you can use the image for whatever you like, as long as it benefits the article. Using free images for decoration, as long as it's in encyclopedic style, is fine. Cat has a dozen images, since free images of cats are readily available. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:30, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Actually, the assertion made by that editor that Indian postage stamps are in PD, is incorrect. In fact, the copyright for such material lasts 60 years, so anything post-1946, as all of these Indian stamps are, still are under copyright. This is not the case with some other countries, in which case PD tag applies easily. Thanks. --Ragib 21:43, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
To be more precise, I've checked out the conditions for reproduction of Indian postage stamps [7], which state:
Re-production of stamps is allowed for illustration purposes in Philatelic Publication or in an article relating wholly on postage stamps which may appear in any magazine, newspaper or publication of a general character. Such reproduction should however, be only in black. If stamps are to be produced in colour for publicity purposes, prior permission of the Director General of Posts must be obtained. To avoid similarity with the postage , such reproduction must be distinctively in smaller or larger sizes than the actual stamp and must be without perforation on the edges. Further, across bar will also be placed on one- corner of the stamp, obliterating the denomination. It must be noted that reproduction of the stamp in colour of the actual size of the stamp with perforation of the edges may be deemed to be taken as production of the actual stamp
So, this strict requirement disallows all Indian stamps unless it is not used in a philatelic article, even in that case, it should be converted to black and white. --Ragib 21:53, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
This talks of disallowing it in a "publication". It does not cover "online" as wikipedia is not a "publication". An owner of a stamp collection is not barred from displaying his stamps or it's photo's either. And if the same effort could be put in to find out how to get an image onto the article I think it would benefit wikipedia much more. Haphar 08:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
It's the above sort of innocent but maddening misunderstanding about the nature of 'publication' that makes copyright problems so difficult to resolve on Wikipedia. For the record, putting something on a publicly accessible website – including ours – is most definitely publication. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:37, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Indeed. Ragib's interpretation above seems to be the correct one. Good luck converting all those images. -- RuneWelsh | ταλκ 13:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Conversely, I'd like to point out that often (though not always) the issuance of a stamp is a significant event. For example, it may be possible to incorporate (sourced) commentary on which of several possible aspects of a person a stamp chose to focus on, etc. When possible, this simultaneously enhances the article and justifies fair use of the stamp. - Jmabel | Talk 00:22, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
that deletion seems quite right. no need to undo it. Hwang Seong Gyeong 20:53, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Already undeleted by
ЯEDVERS
20:56, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
I restored it, had a look... Done a bit of sniffing around and then speedy deleted it under
WP:WEB
for starters. What little there is there can be userfied if you want?
I've not problem if another admin disagrees but i think it's fairly cleancut. Thanks/wangi 20:57, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
A bit process-bound and making-a-pointy to undelete a PROD in order to speedy delete, if you don't mind me saying so :o) Although looking at it in the 50 seconds or so it was undeleted, it seemed to fail {{
ЯEDVERS
21:03, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Restoring and then speedy deleting does mean the article has to be reviewed before being undeleted again, rather than just being restored immediately on request as articles deleted via PROD are. To me it seems closer to, after accidentally pressing 'enter' and leaving an empty deletion log entry, undeleting and redeleting an article in order to leave a better summary (which I've done a few times), than going through two processes for their own sake. --Sam Blanning(talk) 00:27, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Yeah ;) I did undelete it in good faith... but then when it was so un-notable... Next time round I'll preview the deleted page first! It's the normal case of something that's in the beta stage, and certainly if it does stick around, is successful and meets
WP:WEB then there's no reason we shouldn't have an article in the future. Thanks/wangi
21:11, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, if the original objector is still objecting, the way forward now is
WP:DRV. It's probably just a delay rather than a win, though. I hope that the objector will remember that the presence of an article doesn't make something good, and the absence of an article doesn't make it bad. Geogre
01:43, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Ok, everyone's raised valid points. This was, until recently, in the Alexa top 10k and Technorati has recorded 4231 mentions of BlogMad [8], which IMO isn't non-notable (but maybe not certain notability). However, I do not believe it is A7. Nevermind. Computerjoe's talk 17:10, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
This, originally, did not need to go to DRV as I was asking a PROD deleted article to be restored, which can be done with no discussion. Computerjoe's talk 07:47, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Nuklon and Hyperion (comics) recent edits. Then check my talk page, Netkinetic's and CrystalB4's. You'll see I I've done nothing wrong and I've got nothing to hide. Unfortunately this user has a personal grudge against me. Sorry for the headache. Regards. —Lesfer(t/c/@)
04:09, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Greetings Redux. As to the articles in question, there is a semantic difference in how Lesfer and myself view the categories as they are assigned to specific individuals with two aliases. It is not myself but Lesfer who appears to have "a personal grudge against me" (please see the aforementioned personal attacks and incivility), however unlike my esteemed fellow editor I wish to
WP:AGF on his behalf and hope you can instruct him that such terms as "kid" here in North America are viewed in a condescending manner. Thank you for your time. NetK
04:17, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
<end quote>
I am willing to provide any opinion that may be helpful in resolving the situation, but I cannot, given my history with both users, render a decision on it. Thank you, Redux 00:53, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Without getting into much of the detail, I would suggest that all editors avoid, by all means, reflecting on each others' persons, especially when it is not the person that is irritating. Remember: all we are is words. If one editor's edits bother you, talk about the edits, not the editor. Similarly, if someone says something about you, instead of your edits, remember that he or she doesn't know you, has never met you, can't judge you. You cannot be hurt by someone whose sum knowledge of you is a few words on a single website somewhere. Both "you're an idiot" and "you should be banned for calling me an idiot" are leading you toward greater conflict and less happiness. You both have goals here. State your goals. Read the other person's goals. Don't refute, don't point out the error: state the positive, the hope, the desire.
If it's too difficult to let the insults pass, then we have the mediation cabal who will try to help out. Geogre 01:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Geogre, your words speak to the heart of the matter. Alas instead of focusing on edits, Lesfer persists in using derrogatory terminology directed specifically towards myself. How would
WP:CIV apply, or should they not be considered at this point? Lesfer communicates to various editors (not solely myself) in such a condescending tone which completely undermines the entire process we are attempting to achieve here at Wikipedia. I would suggest that since he fails to act in a civilized manner that he simply avoid directing comments towards myself and I will do the same. If not, then yes a mediation cabal may be the only alternative towards reigning this editor's persistent violations of the above cardinal guidelines of Wikipedia which have been established as essential guiding principals. NetK
12:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Let's begin the part where we don't comment on other people from now, okay? HidingTalk 13:48, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Requesting a close on this week-old AFD with a clear consensus to delete. NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 01:39, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Closed.
Naconkantari
03:09, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
In need of assistance
I am in need of assistance with a problem I seem to be having with the user User:MONGO, an administrator. I attempted to engage him in a dialog about his protection of his talk page, an act I believe to be irresponsible consider he has been blocking anonymous IP's, leaving them no way to contact him. He is of course entitled to disagree with him, and were he to argue his point to me, he might even sway me to his opinion.
This does not however entitle him to insult me, break
Urek
06:03, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
My email is always on. The only IP's I block are those that are vandalizing. Blocked IP's can always email any admin to request they be unblocked. You have less than 50 edits(
Urek (talk·contribs)), and then show up on my talk page after not editing for a week to question why I have it semi-protected? Nice try.--MONGO
06:10, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
I showed up on your talk page in relation to some NPOV edits I saw go up, and your actions in banning a user (who I agree deserved banning). The fact that I have not edited recently does not excuse you to be rude, uncivil, and violate policy by threatening other users. Your actions are uncalled for. I've not edited for a week because I am still learning the system. I feel it is important for me to read the edits of others and to learn the craft before I begin editing myself. So far my edits have been related to clean up, as I don't feel qualified for much else.
I am qualified however to discuss with you what I think is an ethical conundrum as a matter of academic interest. If you did not wish to speak with me on the subject, the correct response would have been "I'm sorry but I disagree", not to violate
WP:AFG
, and to attack me. That sort of behavior is never appropriate.
Perhaps if you spent some time reading Wikipedia policy, as I have this past week, you would realize this. As an administrator I would think you would be open to discussion from other users. Part of your job is to be a steward of the community, a job you cannot fulfill through rudeness and incivility.
Urek
06:14, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
I ask that these two ignore each other for a while. No one wants a widening gyre of insults. Go do something else, it will be looked into. I'll take your mutual silence to be consent. - brenneman{L} 06:26, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for looking into this, I would request as a courtesy a follow up discussion. I would also appreciate mediation between MONGO and myself.
Urek
06:29, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Games: You have not even 50 edits. You went a week and made no edits. You suddenly appear on my talk page and question why my talk page is semi-protected? You then start questioning why an IP has their talk page protected after I blocked them for 31 hours...(the IP talk page was protected by a different admin.) [9] and the IP was adding NPOV tags all over the place, like to this noticeboard [10], [11], yet you I was abusing a newbie[12]? "Newbies" don't go around slapping NPOV tags on articles and noticeboards. Thanks for wasting our time. G'night.--MONGO 06:29, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
You two take hints like my cat. Stop talking, both of you! regardless of who is correct and to what degree, nothing you can either now say will make a difference. It's on this noticeboard to get wider input so be quiet and let that happen. - brenneman{L} 06:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
There is no wider imput needed...learn when you're being trolled if you are to be expected to become an effective admin. Don't ever tell me on this or any other board to stop talking again.--MONGO 06:38, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Alright, Mongo has forced me to this with his repeated breach of
Urek
06:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Wow! So few edits, yet you link to those pages like a champ...wow!--MONGO 06:43, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, as I have said, I've spent the last week diligently reading Wikipedia policy and editing guidelines. I believe it is something expected of all new users. One week later and I have barely scratched the surface. I don't plan on truly beginning to edit until I am done perusing the entire policy database.
Urek
06:45, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Cool...I mean, your account was barely 30 minutes old and on only your sixth edit, you linked to WP:Weasel Words [13]...impressive.--MONGO 06:55, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Alright, I will respect your suggestion and retire to my reading.
Urek
06:36, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Regardless of the merits of this particular case, protecting user talk pages, especially those of admins, should be the last resort. You (and other people) can always revert vandalism, but nobody but an admin can leave you a message without revealing their email address if the page is protected. Zocky | picture popups 12:48, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Ah, yes, there has been lots of trolling on my talk page...hence the protection and it was a last resort. It was even re-semiprotected from Urek by Tom Harrison last evening.--MONGO 13:33, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
The only one acting like a troll here is you MONGO, with your continued rudeness and insults. Your page was not protected from me, I left it alone as soon as I came here and have not been back.
Urek
14:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Troll blocked, as usual. Nothing to see here, move along now. Guy 15:36, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Zocky,
User:NSLE used to frequently protect his user talk page. Anomo
18:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
NSLE was desysopped. Nice guy, but maybe you should find a better example? ~Kylu (u|t) 00:14, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
NSLE's desysopping was unrelated to his protecting his talk page. —Quarl(talk) 2006-10-08 10:37Z
Urek blocked an unblocked
I've unblocked this user. Urek did not comment on MONGO's talk once asked, and had been quite specifically told that while it wasn't a good idea to comment here, he could. Urek was using my talk page in a positive manner, and made only one edit to this page following that. That comment was ill-advised, and he was blocked. As this user was perhaps not aware of MONGO's recent history, the phrase MONGO used, "lots of trolling," could have been seen as an escalation of hostilities. - brenneman{L} 04:16, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
and there are a number of AFD discussions in the log that have not been closed. Did the bot get confused and delete the link by accident? In any event, we need one or more admins to close the September 30 AFD's that are still open. Thanx.
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/old is not, and needs to be edited manually. --Deathphoenixʕ
17:19, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
HQCentral
WP:NPOV. And he has the annoying habit of simply removing tags when people call him on it. As for that article (House Made of Dawn (analysis), I think it belongs published somewhere, but I don't think it fits the criteria for Wikipedia. I tangled with him sufficiently over this sort of thing at Collier's Encyclopedia
that, frankly, I'm not wading in there again. But if someone wants to try to work with him and make some constructive suggestions as to where this part of his work would be more welcome, I suspect that both he and we would benefit.
Please handle with care if you are pursuing this; he writes some great stuff, and the last thing we would want to do is to actually drive him away. - Jmabel | Talk 00:19, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
article masquarading as an image description
The image description for Image:Codrin.jpg appears to be attempting to be an article, presumably about the person it depicts. Its not easy to read, but I suspect that if it were posted as an article it would be prodable if not speediable, so I am reluctant to copy and paste it to the main namespace. This isn't a case for IfD as the image (if a source is provided) is fine - any suggestions? MfD? Thryduulf 02:25, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Presumably autobiographical: suggest userfy. And if that's not acceptable... well, image descriptions are just as subject to editing as any other content. - Jmabel | Talk 02:58, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Proven proxies have been literally waiting for over a month to be blocked.
There are open proxies that have been listed as proven open proxies by non-administrators at Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies#Waiting, but these have yet to be blocked. Please block them. Jesse Viviano 05:43, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
It's not protected. This didn't really require admin intervention, but it's fixed now. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 07:08, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Name change
Fys, formerly Dbiv who signed as David, wishes to announce his change of username. Fys. Tafysaym. 10:00, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Congratulations. What's a Fys by the way? The Land 10:10, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
If you go to my user page, all will be explained. My mother's family was Manx. It's pronounced "fiss", incidentally. Fys. Tafysaym. 10:23, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
User pushing original research into articles
Hi, can anyone help with this problem:Talk page problems regarding original research and the entropy page. Thanks: --Sadi Carnot 14:25, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't see an issue at the page you link to, or with entropy talk page it refers to. There it appears you're locked in a simple content dispute, and as it says above, " these pages are not the place to bring disputes over content..." FeloniousMonk 14:51, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Probation
I have replaced the incomplete list of users on probation with a complete one. Would appreciate a check that no-one has been omitted. Fys. Tafysaym. 16:47, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
An IP has broken article's history for Canzo (official Italian name), by creating a new page Canz (local name in lombard dialect).
The same thing was done on French Wikipedia, with fr:Canzo (see history) and fr:Canz (see history and [14]). This was changed by reverting the changes, deleting page Canz (against GFDL license, cause of copy-paste without any explanation), then creating a redirect in Canz and protecting it.
Could any sysop do something to restore and protect article's history for Canzo? Thanks. Hégésippe | ±Θ± 23:31, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Reverted Canzo to pre-redirect state, changed Canz to a redirect to Canzo (The article states that the Canzo is the italian, and therefore more common, name). Thanks. ~Kylu (u|t) 01:40, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
What spam would that be? We usually recieve 10 or so new accouts/minute.
Naconkantari
02:32, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
22:20, October 7, 2006 Xxbutterflyxxkissesxx (Talk | contribs) (New user account)
22:34, October 7, 2006 Ninjå (Talk | contribs) (New user account)
22:28, October 7, 2006 Walrus.ispaul (Talk | contribs) (New user account) etc. Just to name a few. FredilYupigoWhat has Wikipedia become? 02:36, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't see anything wrong with those... Sasquatcht|c 02:44, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Unless my understanding of
WP:USERNAME is grossly off, there's nothing wrong with those names... Alphachimp
02:50, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Except for this one. Regards, Ben Aveling 02:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Blocked... hours ago. Check the block log. Alphachimp 02:52, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, should have checked. Regards, Ben Aveling 02:53, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
WP:CUTPASTE move to revert a vandal. Could an admin kindly restore the deleted article Hindu's Caste System to which the vandal moved the article, and merge the histories? Thank you.--thunderboltz(Deepu)
There is vandalisim on the janet Jackson site in the form of defamatory content.
Diffs? Nothing much going on there today, for sure. Guy
20:42, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
A user writes...
Usman Farooq (talk·contribs) was indef-blocked by Samir due to a personal attack made by another account and signed "Usman"; this is, apparently, a common name. Usman Farooq emailed me as follows:
... I don't think that anyone can justify his action of a permanent block on such weak evidance and on the basis of one comment. I was recently active on "1965 indo pak war" presenting Pakistani views. In a very civil way, I might add. And *bam* out of no where comes a permanent block. I am very conscious of the fact that the admin who permanetly blocked me has Hindi(Indian) characters in his name.
The user has been patient and civil, and will not take this to RfC; as far as I'm concerned it's a simple and honest mistake but I thought it might be prudent to let some others think about it as well. Samir is content with my unblocking the account based on the thread on my Talk [15] (see User:Usman Farooq at the bottom). I have no reason to suspect this is
rouge admin abuse still less rogue admin abuse, I just want to be fair to an editor who has reacted with surprising calm and patience to a situation where lesser souls might have gone nuclear. Guy
It worked when I took it out of the other categorys and then put it back. Probably some sort of "bug". —Centrx→talk • 21:17, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Something to do with the category being transcluded and it would need at least a null-edit to make it visible. But there is some new mechanism in place which should achieve that automatically. Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) would be the place to get the excact answer. Agathoclea 21:27, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Request for a look at a non-admin closing controversial AfDs
I fully support you examining these AfDs. But I would like to say, I stand by my actions. There is serious need for AfD reform. Common sense goes right out the window on these things sometimes. They need to be closed sooner, and articles shouldn't be open for AfD nomination more than once every six months. PT(s-s-s-s) 23:49, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
I support Ziggurat's call for a review of these afds. Please also see my exchanges with Parsssseltongue on the talk pages. I believe Parsssseltongue is abusing
WP:POINT and is disrupting the afd process in order to impose his/her own ideas about policy. I feel that he/she also let me believe he/she was an admin, when he/she isn't.Bwithh
23:52, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Another user has persuaded me that I may well be mistaken about the last point, and I retract it. I stand by the others. Bwithh 01:05, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
His actions on the
Aaron
23:57, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
My understanding of AfDs is that it's entirely possible for the first AfD to be closed otherwise (see my comments on PT's talk page), but I'd still appreciate an admin look at the issue. I'm not so concerned with the second example. Ziggurat 00:04, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
What does it mean to "have
WP:IAR and close these afds as delete with the explanation that my actions are for the greater good of wikipedia and that future afd nominations would have eventually voted for delete anyway? Bwithh
01:15, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
The P-p-p-powerbook afd is controversial, and not at all necessarily a no consensus close. It's not a vote, and the admin is supposed to judiciously weight the arguments according to policy and guidelines. I've seen against-the-grain admin closures in favour of keep or delete in the past that have survived deletion review. It's not that rare. But that kind of judgement responsibility for controversial should be left to admins, who are public servants and representatives of Wikipedia. Bwithh 01:00, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Oh, I'll have no quarrel with however any admin decides to handle the
Aaron
00:43, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Reopen the first, leave the second. If necessary, get an admin to speedy close the second. --
tjstrf
23:54, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Just to clear up a few things. As a non-admin, I close non-ambigious keeps on a regualr basis. This is what is spelled out in the above policy. Non-admins are not allowed to close any controversial AFD's (therefore including no consensus), but only unambiguous keep/redirect/merges.Parsssseltongue(
Bryant
00:33, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
You said I (need) to stop closing AFD's... immediately. Or what? Risk being bored by more pointless AfDs? I don't need to do anything except help make Wikipedia a better place.PT(s-s-s-s) 00:51, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Well of course vigilantism is more exciting than due process. It's also destabilizing and less fair Bwithh 01:02, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
In all honesty, I've been seriously considering opening some sort of policy discussion regarding the possibility of increasing the amount of latitude given to nonadmins closing discussions when the consensus is something other than delete (where there's no point in a nonadmin closing the AfD since they can't carry out the deletion). There's just too many things up for deletion at any given time, not enough admins, and not enough editors willing to go through the often unnecessarily unpleasant RfA process. (Any such proposal would be rational, of course, with non-admins needing to show a certain amount of experience in the Wikipedia namespace and AfD in particular, no block log a mile long, etc. Like I said, it's just something I've been mulling over in my head.) --
Aaron
00:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Whether the status quo is maintained or not, I believe non-admins need to spell out that they are not administrators in closing afds, and refrain from making opinionated statements during closures. Bwithh 01:00, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Two different threads here: the closes themselves and who did them. Close: I've reviewed the close of "powerbook" and deleted the article. Articles must have sources, reliable sources. This did not. Closer: I feel parsssseltongue was fine to close the discussion except he had taken part in it. I'd give non-admin a wide mandate in closing and a "no consensus" here was not a huge mistake, and many new admins would have made the same error. I can't say the same for the second: I'd suggest he not be closing anything early, as this was wrong all around. - brenneman{L} 01:18, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Nitpick: I think it would have been more appropriate for you to have just killed P-P-P-Whatever and made a note as to why in the deletion log (and here), instead of adding content to the closed deletion discussion. Once closed, I think most people consider them truly closed, and you risk confusion by stuffing comments in there later on. --
Aaron
01:23, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Comment that is much more than a nitpick: I hadn't noticed that Parsssseltongue was a participant in the P-Ppppfhgfgt AfD. Given that, he probably shouldn't have closed it; even admins aren't supposed to do that. In some cases that fact alone would have given anyone more than enough reason to reopen it without blinking an eye. --
Aaron
01:28, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Indeed. I was working on creating a Deletion Review submission based on that fact alone, yet now it is not needed. That's taboo for everyone, to close an AFD you were involved in. The deletion procedure states that "non-admins in good standing with the community can close non-ambiguous keep/close/redirects". We need to make two decisions here: a) is a "no concensus" close ambiguous and b) do certain editors fall into this category.
That was an honest mistake, something got fouled up between that AfD and the one for Cork. Again, I stand by everything I did, but appreciate the new, civil input by other editors and admins acting in good faith (but not you, Bryant). PT(s-s-s-s) 01:45, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Referring to someone by their last name only is derogatory, and uncivil. A couple of your AfD closes are going to WP:DRV sometime today. Interesting to see what the community makes of them.
Bryant
01:48, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Lighten up. I thought Bryant was your username. Don't hold a wiki-grudge. PT(s-s-s-s) 19:46, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
I see an arbcom case on this one in the not-too-distant future. Oooh, the wikidrama. --
I, for one, won't be taking it there. I'm sure the collective at WP:DRV will see the light.
Bryant
03:32, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
I think the rule about non-admins only closing uncontroversial AfDs should be followed - and this is partly why. The only possible objection to that rule is "if a non-admin obviously has the judgement necessary to close a controversial AfD, why shouldn't he?" - and the answer to that is "if he has that judgement, then he should
WP:IAR
is not sufficient here - our processes are not infallible but they do have good reasons behind them, and to ignore them requires much better reasons.
I also have to object to Aaron's claim that "there was no way [the Powerbook AfD] was ever going to be closed as anything other than "no consensus" - "no consensus" means "AfD failed", and in my opinion, that's what we should all say in closing AfDs instead, as people seem to think of "no consensus" as the equivalent of a 5-4 victory on penalties in football, whereas in reality it's closer to match abandonment due to not enough players turning up (in the case of AfDs, not enough convincing arguments or participants to call it a keep or a delete). "AfD failed" would make the meaning clearer, and discourage admins from using it as a cop-out. This one clearly isn't an obvious "no consensus" except as a cop-out, as Brenneman's closing shows - it remains to be seen whether deletion review will endorse it, but even if it doesn't it won't be unanimous and it won't be 'obvious'. (Someone please translate my metaphor into an American sport so the majority of editors can understand it. A field goal in the 9th inning when the Knicks are 110-109 up, or something.)--Sam Blanning(talk) 11:05, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
You got it just right, Sam!
Thatcher131
17:14, 4 October 2006 (UTC)And deciding a nil-nil game on PKs is one reason footy just doesn't translate well here.
"...if he has that judgement, then he should request adminship, because he will get it". Really? If I self-nominated myself at RfA right now and said, honestly, "I want the admin bit so I can be a more useful participant in AfDs," I'd pass? I think that I'd have my butt handed to me with a result somewhere along the lines of 4/96/12. Also, your sports analogy is crazy; there's no way the Knicks would ever be ahead in any given game! --
Aaron
21:18, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Is it just me or does Parsssseltongue look awfully like our old friend User:Monicasdude? Check the contribs and dates of activity: Monicasdude (talk·contribs), Parsssseltongue (talk·contribs). Definitely looks a bit suspicious to me. For one editor known (and banned, per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Monicasdude) for controversial edits to AfDs to vanish and another to appear at the same time does rather invite suspicion, doesn't it? Guy 12:07, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Just noting, too old to checkuser.
Thatcher131
13:51, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
They appear to have rather different musical tastes; I see Monicasdude working on older artists, like Bob Dylan, et al, while PT has a thing for more recent stuff, spending a lot of AFD time that I've seen debating the merits of independent artists with regards to
Thank you. I have been accused of being a lot of different people... users, article subjects, etc. But I remain, simply PT. ;) PT(s-s-s-s) 00:25, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
My opinion: Parsssseltongue is doing helpful work. I would encourage him to stay away from controversial closings: don't close anything as "no consensus" because those are the types of debates that need careful reading of policy and might go either way. Especially don't close any debates you participate in, that's a no-no for everyone. Also, it's okay to close as speedy keep if it's obvious and uncontroversial, but you shouldn't be the first to propose that idea (that is, there should actually be some speedy keep votes in the list). Take your closing for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stress (band). Sure, the nominator was new and didn't say much along the lines of policy... and the article might well be kept. But that article has serious problems if you look at it -- it's unsourced and has big-time POV issues, and should have had a debate (but I don't personally care enough to renominate it).
Mangojuicetalk 13:49, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
It may be a good idea to advise a one or two day waiting period before a non-admin closes even a non-controversial AfD assuming
Good point. And while we're at it: there's an educational value to keeping the debate open long enough so that the nominator sees that the community doesn't agree with them. Clear bad-faith noms aside, that is. Mangojuicetalk 17:36, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Why don't we say that non-admins can only close AfD debates under
Bryant
00:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Just to let you know, I'm taking this page off my watchlist since there are other issues being discussed on here now, so if anyone would like to come shake their finger in my face more, you have my talk page to vent on. But it doesn't change the fact that I'm glad this all happened, now maybe AfDs will start being run more efficiently. PT(s-s-s-s) 18:10, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Why don't we just wrap Wikipedia up in so many Rules To Prevent That Stupid Thing Joe Did Three Years Ago that nobody can get anything done? --Carnildo 18:48, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Four days would be too long when the lag time for articles is five days. I've proposed the change on the
Well, why not wait? How much different did you expect the debate to go after just a couple of days? - Lex 03:20, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Clear falsification of a source
MIÉP) voters to change their mind and give their votes to the Fidesz. I better check other sources of him also. I don't know what to think. I hope this is a single case, wich comes from a simple dislike of Fidesz. --195.56.242.11
00:02, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
The article states that Fidesz "emerged as the core of integrated right conservative nationalist forces"; "the FIDESZ partly incorporated the Antall cult of inter-war nostalgia and what the HDF stood for in their time and reawakened Hungarian nationalism in a somewhat extreme form which eventually backfired in 2002", "The FIDESZ-CP also drifted progressively to more radical nationalist policies rebuilding past images and symbolism, tapping successfully the nationalist feelings". I have recently added two other sources. So, there are now three articles published in the leading English-speaking academic journals. Anyone can check them. The are all very explicit: Fidesz is a nationalist party and it is not an insult. It is just a correct description by political scientists. Tankred 00:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
One source is clearly falsificated. I'm checking the other two, I'll come back tomorrow with the results. On the other hand: in Hungary no one considers them nationalists. Not even the political opponents if it. That is
MIÉP. Qite nice to have someone knowing Hungarian parties better than Hungarians. It is... well you know the word for rhese kind of guys :) --195.56.242.11
01:15, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I still do not understand what you mean by "One source is clearly falsificated". Have you seen the quotations from that article? They are very explicit. Anyone can verify that they are part of the article. Just read it. To sum up, there are references to three articles written by three different scholars (two of them being Hungarians) and published in two refereed academic journals. I do not understand 195.56.242.11's accusation. Tankred 02:20, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
This discussion at AfD has been open for 11 days and needs someone to close it. I would do it myself if I wasn't involved. Andrew Levine 15:48, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
It's just been closed by another admin, I was about to close it as well (with same result).
Petros471
16:08, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Now that is an article whose deletion unquestionably improves the project. Guy 21:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
www33.brinkster.com links
User 69.118.97.26 is contributing (spamming?) relevant links to various pages. I've looked at the links and they seem appropriate, but perhaps it might qualify as OR? - RoyBoy800 15:45, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
The links look helpful and relevant, going to have to
The entire site is called "Black Invention Myths" From [17]: "Perhaps you've heard the claims: Were it not for the genius and energy of African-American inventors, we might find ourselves in a world without traffic lights, peanut butter, blood banks, light bulb filaments, and a vast number of other things we now take for granted but could hardly imagine life without.". This doesn't feel right at all. -- Netsnipe ► 18:21, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
I had (have) some concerns about this as well, but the Calendar of Inventive Contributors to the Development of Refrigeration, 1748-1885 looked useful enough that I added it to Refrigeration. The point of the site seems to be, 'You may have heard that an African-American invented X; In fact X was invented by white person Y." Objectively, that should be no different than saying it the other way, "White person Y is typically credited with inventing X, but the real basis for X was this invention by an African-American..." Most of us probably would not object to linking to a site promoting the second point of view, unless we suspected the claims were agenda-driven. At the same time, many of us might be uncomfortable linking to this site for the same reason. And does it matter? Either "Daniel Livingston Holden of the United States took out U.S. Patent No. 95,347," or he did not. I'm open to argument. Tom HarrisonTalk 20:15, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, it depends on the reputation the site has. If it is known to be "problematic" (like spong.com, theinquirer.net, etc) we can remove it. However, if its reputation is fairly neutral, we can keep it. There are less than 200 links for *.brinkster.com, so I can review them all later and clean the ones that are not useful. I finished with the forums.cjb.net and are currently cleaning up *.invisionfree.com (679 out of 850 when I began), so the review may take a while. -- ReyBrujo 20:26, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
I posted those links because I wanted to debunk falsehoods associated with the invention of certain things. There are many people who believe in those falsehoods, and know of nothing else that disproves it. That site has everything necessary to debunk those falsehoods. Some of you may worry about the motives, or the intent, of the webmaster, but, judging from the evidence presented at that site, the actual diagrams of the inventions, the references from other web sites, actual US patents, and books, and so on, everything from that site checks out, and is therefore credible. And yes, it was frustrating having to repair the links that were removed just recently. 69.118.97.26 22:55, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Deathrocker - User under arbitration who keeps on using ad hominem arguments
In the
Deathrocker, who' still under arbitration http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Deathrocker and was just blocked for not following his parole, keeps on using ad hominem attacks against the other users. To him, those who don't agree with him are just kids, and he's there in order to counterbalance the opinion of poor kids who don't know anything about the subject. Just ctrl+f for "kid" in the article's talk page, archive and in user Ours18's talk page, and you'll see his attacks. Thanks.Evenfiel
How exactly this has anything to do with the ad hominem arguments that you have been using since the beginning of the discussion, almost three weeks ago?
As for my edits, I have only reverted the article to an edit which you had already agreed on.Evenfiel 15:16, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Deathrocker seems to be in a personal crusade against me, repeatedly calling me a vandal and a kid. According to the following link, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Talk_pages "Most users treat their user talk pages like regular talk pages, and archive the contents periodically to a personal subpage — either when the page gets too large, on a regular schedule, or when they take a wikivacation. Others delete comments after they have responded to them.". He has already reverted my own talk page a few times.Evenfiel 15:29, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
You have vandalised articles by
Deathrocker
15:42, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm not on my main computer so this will be brief. If necessary I will return later. First, I don't really care if someone removes warnings without archiving them. There is a conflict between user talk page policy and the vandalism policy about this, which itself resulted in a recent edit war. My comment is in this history, and the edit summary is blocked which is hard to miss. Any other admin dealing with user complaints should check the history and block log, where the block is documented. (Archiving is nice and preferred by the commmunity, but I see little point in forcing such issues in most cases.) So Deathrocker should knock off the talk page fetishism. On ad hominem, I see your point but I don't think its actionable at the moment. Deathrocker should definitely explain his edits with reference to sources, not to his age and personal experience or other editors' youth and inexperience. So knock it off, ok? Finally, if he violates his revert parole again (1 per day, 2 per week), post it to
Thatcher131
15:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
(After edit conflict) to save Deathrocker posting the inevitable "I was reverting vandalism" defense, if a 1RR complaint is made at Arb enforcement, I will give you chance to offer an explanation, and I will check with other admins if things are unclear.
I try to make sure, not to violate any revert policies, and outside of it only remove edits which fall under
Deathrocker
16:08, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm not entirely sure that what he's doing can be considered "blanking." There are some questions about the relevance of the information under debate to the article itself, from the looks of the discussion. As Evenfiel points out, it *does* give quite a bit of the article over to what's essentially a debate over whether Led Zeppelin is a heavy metal band. Having said that, can I suggest an article
RFC to get some additional eyes on the material? Tony Fox(arf!)
17:11, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Attention moderators and adminstrators: I request you email address so I can email you more proof of lying, dishonest editing, ad hominem editing and personal attacks from deathrocker. He has now made it his mission to remove any proof I have against him from this article, and thus I must send you the evidence clandestinely. He can remove what I posted below now and I won't care, I'll just send it to you, but just a notice: I WILL NOT ALLOW HIM TO REMOVE THIS ENTRY I AM MAKING that pertains to email addresses. It is necessary for the encyclopedic nature of this website that I email you his editing policy and comments, and thus it is necessary that this stay here. I encourage anyone that sees deathrocker vandalize this entry to correct it.Ours18 21:52, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
I now have definitive proof that deathrocker is interested purely in ad hominems and personal attacks, as well as dishonest editing http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=78938048 As you can see here, everything I posted is honest accusations against him, and had every right to be on this very talk page. However, deathrocker reverted it, claiming I was spamming and that it was not relevant to the page. This is a LIE. I repeat----A LIE. It had every right to be there. He is now clearly not interested in honesty at all. This is not a personal attack, it is a sourced accusation. I am putting it back up here. If he removes it again without a valid reason, I am going to email an admin about it to prevent him suppressing any proof that makes him look bad. I would like to have
user:deathrocker
banned.
See the Encyclopaedia Metallum talkpage for more details.Deathrocker is so incredibly biased against anything having to do with extreme metal that it compromises all his edits and talk page commentary, and he also dislikes Encyclopaedia Metallum, thus making it unfair that he should be able to edit the page. Whenever someone tries to propose that he be banned (in order to let other users new to the article know he is trolling/biased/editing in bad faith), he deletes and claims it is a personal attack, like he did here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Encyclopaedia_Metallum&diff=prev&oldid=78931646
“Encyclopaedia Metallum exclude the band entirely from their database because they are uneducated on the history of heavy metal music...”, “of cookie monster music fans...”, “apposed to the aims of certain extreme metal kids that seem to be drawn to the website of the article's subject and editing this article itself... who can't be bothered to educate themselves, by taking the time to read about what the subject in question; right here--->
lolz
, anyway...”, “When people new to metal such as extreme metal kids...”, “Vs. an underground extreme metal site, ran by two kids who...” , “Most of the new extreme metal kids do not view the original heavy metal bands as "metal", because they have been brought up with a watered down more hardcore punk related version and they were not born when the original movement was around. (people).... , “As it is mostly extreme metal kids who have the misfortune...”
Here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Encyclopaedia_Metallum&diff=prev&oldid=77289284 he claims his decision was validated by general consensus, which if you read the talk page back then http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Encyclopaedia_Metallum&oldid=77296804 you can tell is a blatant lie: two/three (him, a lone anon ip and vegataman) vs evenfiel, dace, Reaper, Danteinferno, inhumer, Noktorn, and at least one anon IP address; I didn’t give IP’s much attention for simplicity’s sake. That’s six-to-seven against two-to-three. Casebook example of dishonesty to promote your own agenda; given that the content he changed dealt with whether or not the band included all forms of metal, I can either say one of two things: he either really, really hates the site and wishes to slander its creators in any way possible, or he is so incredibly biased against extreme metal and it's fans (who he constantly, constantly, constantly refers to as "kids" as if there aren't adults who listen to extreme metal, or as if he is above all extreme metal fans in existence) that he simply won't let any article show neutrality towards them.
I can't make this any clearer to the administrators of Wikipedia: STOP HIM FROM FURTHER EDITING ARTICLES. If you want more instances of dishonest editing on his part, I can quote them, I have a few more (and he gives me more material to work with everyday, thanks man :) ); if you want direct links, I can search them out sometime later this week (I have a lot more important things to do at the moment than try to get a dishonest idiot banned from a website). But if these instances, combined with past transgressions are not enough to have him removed....Christ, would you look at all of that? Editing in bad faith, personal attacks, biased assumptions....if that isn't enough to get him banned, you have no idea how bad it is going to make your website look. The metal community at large already has a distaste for Wikipedia because of biased editing and misinformed editing. I beg you: don't make it any worse.Ours18 20:58, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Now, if there is a better place to put this, I would like the administrator present to go to my talk page and ask for my email address. I will then give it to you, and you can email me where I should put it: DO NOT SAY IT IN ANY PUBLIC DOMAIN. I have every reason to believe that if you do so, deathrocker will watch that page and edit out any accusations against him. He MUST NOT be allowed to have his way on here any longer. This is an emergency now, he WILL remove any incriminating evidence against him.Ours18 21:46, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
All of user:Ours18's claims are unfounded. Feel free to visit my edits, and talkpage here.[25]
The quotes which Ours18 is pulling up out of nowhere from discussion pages are entirely out of context, and twisted to suit the grudge against me that he has, because he added uncited bias to the
which I then removed stating "unsourced info was added".
Non of the quotes fall under "
user:Thatcher131
has already viewed the articles talkpage which in question... where the user Ours18 is pulling out of context comments to twist into a personal attack against me from.
This user has frequently leveled personal attacks at me claiming that I am "trolling",(for evidence of this attack, see his message on this very board) when I have been editing the site for around a year and my edits to articles have no trace of "trolling".
He has also spammed article talkpages with this personal attack message, and doesn't understand that talkpages are for discussing the article only. I have sent Ours18 a message regarding this. [27] he proceded to level another personal attack at me branding myself a "liar" without evidence.
I have also removed another of Ours18's edits where he attacked a musical movement in an article, dismissing at as the derogatory insult "
mallcore". I assume this is an another motive for dragging up cases which have already been looked at by an admin. [28] He also had a history of editing with bad faith, attacking users in the edit summary.. calling them "vandals"", as he did to me in the edit provided, despite the fact that there was no "vandalism" in my edit only putting th earticle to a NPOV.[29]
- 22:02, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
As I explained, mallcore is not an entirely derogatory term, which is why I used it (I never use it as an insult). In the future, I will remember not to use it anywhere except it's own article. Furthermore, if you want to accuse me of including unsourced information on the mallcore page, then fine. However, the entire article is unsourced, and my claim is correct. I see the term mallcore used as a genuine term FAR more than an insulting term for numetal and metalcore, so you can just shut up with the nonsense about me being dishonest, okay?
I stopped accusing you of vandalism once I read the article and realized how this site defines it; I haven't done it since and won't do it unless you actually are doing it.
None of the quotes are out of context: they all pertain to your reasons for editing the article: Encyclopaedia Metallum or a related musical article, and they all show why you should not be editing said articles: because you are incredibly biased against extreme metal and EM. This is not an accusation---this is proven. Or at least it was proven, until you removed it from this page with little to no justification for doing so.
Similarly, I did not twist any of the quotes---they are direct quotations. If you don't like it, vow not to say them again, as YOU were the one that said them. As I said, I will provide the links to the admins if they agive me their/his/her emails address(es)---you have proven yourself untrustworthy with regards to keeping proof on a talk page SPECIFICALLY DEDICATED to this very subject. Therefore, I will no longer post proof here, as you will just edit it out anyway, like you did earlier.
And as I already said, it is NOT a personal attack, it is a well-founded and sourced accusation. That does not qualify as a personal attack. My accusations of trolling are also sourced, as I cannot believe you edited those articles with any other intention than to incite a reaction.
You are the only user on this site I have come even close to attacking, and the only time I have definitely posted with the intention of insulting was on my very own talk page where you did the exact same thing. I'm fucking tired of your condescending attitude you use towards me EVERYWHERE, including my talk page. I am not a KID. I am not an EXTREME METAL KID either, regardless of how much you want to believe that. Such terminology is clearly intended to insult, as is the condescending attitude. If you don't want me acting like I'm better than you, than fucking stop doing it on my talk page. Okay?
Any further accusations will not be posted here, as I already explained. I will email them when I recieve email addresses, and they will be sourced. I apologize if that caused a problem earlier, but I thought the other sourced evidence (as well as his past trangressions) would be enough to show that he is not acting in any good faith whatsoever.
And about that as it pertains to me....well, I am acting in good faith. You have had a grudge against me the whole time you've noticed me, so don't pull that crap with me. I edited the article on mallcore from the standpoint of myself and most others I have met, both online and in the real world, bot extreme metal fans and fans of the traditional metal bands. The term is NOT always meant to insult. Since the entire article has no sources and is already fairly accurate, I figured one more piece of entirely accurate information without a source wouldn't matter. Unfortunately, deathrocker had to insert his own POV "all extreme metal fans are idiots who just hate numetal" (note: not an actual quote), which he did by omitting a perfectly true claim. His revert is obviously aimed to make the whole article simply one big "EXTREME METAL FANS ARE TEH GAY!!!," which is currently what the article actually is: there's nothing to counter the (totally unsourced) claim that it is a derogatory term used solely by extreme metal fans. That was why I added it; it made it much more NPOV than it was and currently is.
Using the term mallcore in another article was a slip-up on my part, as I forgot that this site incorrectly views it as an insult. It won't happen again and hasn't happened since.
Again, I'm going to ask deathrocker this, and I'm sorry if it is blunt (I'm done doing anything in a formal manner with you until you apologize): stop attacking everyone who disagress with you, stop acting like you are above us, and specifically, stop acting like I'm a god damn kid, because for the last time, I'm NOT. That is insulting, especially when you don't even bother trying to back it up and just do it from the viewpoint that everyone who thinks Led Zep is not metal must be a kid or everyone who uses EM for any reason is a misinformed cretin. Ours18 00:58, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
So now, you've gone from pulling quotes from an issue which has already been looked at... out of context that don't fall under attacks anyway, and twisting them. To absolutely fabricating lies and putting them in quotation marks in an attempt to
slander
.. which you freely admit?...
I don’t know what your issues are, but you need to sort it out before wasting my time with nonsense you admit is “not actual quotes”, it comes across as extreme desperation.. desperately attempting to condemn me because of your grudge (which I sourced above)..you can’t actually find anything I’ve said that falls under attack.. so you’re openly creating sentences I’ve never actually said now?.. don’t put words in my mouth... in fact your behaviour is rather worrying, I’d appreciate you not addressing me at all. - 14:19, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Has anybody sockchecked these many people complaining about DeathRocker? I'd be very surprised if some of them didn't turn out to be the banned editor, Leyasu. --Tony Sidaway 18:05, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
I filed it just now. Evenfiel and Ours18 were reasonably protesting some actual violations of Deathrocker's parole, for which I warned and blocked him. I didn't realize it had escalated here. I think there is some element of forum-shopping since I didn't give them what they wanted at
Thatcher131
19:30, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Tony, I can assure you that nobody here is that banned guy. We only found out that Deathrocker was under parole after the user Tony Fox said so.
Thatcher, you gave him what I wanted. After your posts, Deathrocker decided to hold his war against the Encyclopaedia Metallum article. Evenfiel 04:07, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
If you people are still interested in coming to some sort of agreement or semi-agreement, I'd be willing to mediate this if you want to file a request to the
Mediation Cabal. Or perhaps someone else can mediate. But if you people are just interested in a binding decision/enforcement, I can't help. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs
We are conducting a study of people's motivations for writing and editing in Wikipedia.
We would be extremely grateful if you could help us by filling out the questionnaire at http://faculty.poly.edu/~onov/wiki1 - it
should take no longer than 10 minutes. The questionnaire is anonymous and your responses will be used for research purposes only.
We would be happy to share our findings with you, which will be made available online once we complete the data collection and
analysis.
I have made a complaint on the users talk page.--Andeh 15:54, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
I got the same thing myself, but I bleieve this was authorized by someone a month ago. User:Zscout370(Return Fire) 18:24, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Got it, but as it's the second such request this year, I'd rather avoid encouraging others to ask for such input when I could be mediating, editing, or reverting. :) (Kylu@Work) 207.145.133.34 19:18, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
*sniff* I feel discriminated, I did not get one :'( -- ReyBrujo 19:26, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
I got it. I haven't followed the link as I couldn't tell if it was legit or not. --
Aaron
02:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Issues that don't belong here
The admin noticeboard (as well as /incidents) are rather impractically long despite the frequent archivings. However, part of the cause seems to be people posting stuff here that doesn't really belong here. Do people think it's a good idea if, whenever we see something that belongs on another page, we remove it on sight and place it where it belongs? E.g.
Sounds good, but inappropriate usernames are usually dealt with by blocking. Unless it's a fairly controversial case, I would recommend we remove the notice from the noticeboard, block the offending username, and inform the person who reported it on their talk page. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 16:15, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
No, inappropriate usernames go on AIV. — Werdnatalkcriticism 17:10, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Agree. Moving posts appropriately is a good idea -- Samir धर्म 17:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
(edit conflict) ... And user disputes go to talkpages first. Also, to have a section speedily archived on this page, put werdnabot-archive in comments (I'm not expanding it out here as it'll make this section be archived). — Werdnatalkcriticism 17:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I suggest that you've raised a small part of a bigger problem, exemplified in the Diane Farrell incident above. When process is circumvented, guidelines and community consensus are disregarded, and Wiki business is increasingly conducted on IRC outside of community view, editors may believe the only way to accomplish anything is to post here about the incidents. That's the bigger point I was trying to raise above with the Diane Farrell incident. Wiki has prcoesses which are ignored when Wiki business is conducted on AN and IRC. Maybe I'm wrong about the nature of the problem, but it seems like a slippery slope is increasingly engaged. The Farrell article shoulda/coulda been handled in a way that didn't need to engage AN: there was/is a process in place, that wasn't used. None of those editors, who so desperately wanted her article, would just follow the process and write the election article; so I stayed up last night, learned more about either of those candidates I ever want to know, and wrote it myself. Since the people who wanted the article knew the issues, I don't understand why one of them couldn't just do what I did. There was/is a process, which was ignored in favor of an IRC shortcut. Sandy 17:26, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
hmmmm, that oughta confuse everyone. The Farrell incident is at AN/I, not AN. Sandy 17:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Moving debate to the right place is a good idea. IRC is unquestionably not the right place. WikiEN-l sometimes is, since at least that can be read in digest form. As a member of the
rouge admin cabal I dislike cabals nd cliques (other than the rouge admin cabal) and IRC has that appearance. Guy
21:33, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't really like the "IRC cabal" talk. I'm generally on IRC, and there is no way I would possibly consider joining a cabal. Yes, the people who hang out on IRC are my (gasp) friends, but that is where the "cabalism" ends. — Werdnatalkcriticism 02:14, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm starting a Rouge Editor Cabal, however I'm the only person worthy enough to be in it, so don't ask. --
Aaron
02:22, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
A streamlining of the instructions on top of AN and AN/I wouldn't hurt; they're rather slipshod and extremely confusing to newbie editors. --
Aaron
02:22, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Help needed in the middle of a page move
I am bogged down in the middle of couple of moves and need Admin assistance.
A user gutted the Waldo article and created Waldo (short story). This loses the edit history, though the motivation is good (to avoid unwanted attention by the Where's Waldo crowd). So I undertook to move the pages, but have run into a problem where there is now a redirect that needs to be clobbered (the material has been incorporated).
I think I can pick it up from there, because we obviously want to have the proper redirects and disambiguation pages, and leave the Waldo name open for the Where's Waldo crowd to use. I have transferred and saved all the recent edits by Djdedalus (from the other page) to the Waldo page, so the page history is intact and complete and it is ready to move.
I tried to revert the vanadalism on this page and got a warning for it. I don't know if this bot is malfunctioning or what...
Stubbleboy 14:11, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Bots reverted, warnings removed, etc, etc. --
Steel
14:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Blocking question
Please check the page I deleted here. It is obviously vandalism and an attack/threat page. My question is what is the appropriate sanction against the user that created it, considering the nature of the threat and the fact that some information that might be able to used to identify the target was revealed? It looks like childish vandalism, but I wasn't sure. Thanks for your feedback,
Irongargoyle
15:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
issue was dealt with and the question was answered nicely on my talk page, but if anyone has different/suplimentary input, let me know.
Irongargoyle
15:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Sphinx says "Carlos is gay"
Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
The Great Sphinx of Giza, with the Pyramid of Khafre in the backgroundFor other uses, see Sphinx (disambiguation).
Sphinx is an iconic image of a recumbent lion with the head of a ram, of a falcon or of a person, invented by the Egyptians of the Old Kingdom, but a cultural import in Greek mythology. Carlos is gay
I dont' think it belongs there. being civic thanks.
Myid4wiki 17:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC)herewikiwiki
Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a
New contributors are always welcome. Someone has already fixed that piece of vandalism, but thanks for bringing it up! Mangojuicetalk
17:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
204.184.18.230 Vandal - Slang - Hinduism
This IP is vandalising Hinduism with slang. Check today's 1st edit. Is the "morenet" warning genuine? The IP should be blocked.Swadhyayee 16:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
This user has made 3 edits in that article: in 2, he changed persons to person; in one, he removed a section. I gave him a test2a template, if he starts again, please drop me a message. NCursework 17:24, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
copy+paste of three articles
Is this the right place to report cases of copy+paste? User:Rarelibra copied and pasted the content on three different articles in short series of time, [30] and here [31] and [32]. AFAIK copy+paste are an absolute taboo since they de-link the history of an article, what is the correct procedure now in this case with dealing with this user? Any help is welcome, cheers. Gryffindor 15:10, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm not an admin, but thanks for pointing out this case of copy-paste moving of text. You are absolutely correct that this should not have happened. My instinct would be to simply revert all these edits back to a version where the edit history of a piece of text is in the edit history of the article where the text resides (rather than in the edit history of a different article). You might need to look closely though to make sure nothing gets lost. And then, if there is an issue of renaming or page moving, find an admin to help merge/move page histories if needed. Carcharoth 17:08, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
The tricky thing is finding out where the text was copied from! Your best bet might be to ask the editor that did this cut-and-paste job. They will also need to be told why they shouldn't have done this. Carcharoth 17:10, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
I think Carcharoth, that you should have a discussion also with myself and Rarelibra. He is trying to set these names straight. If you go back in the archives, this user Gryffindor actually moved a lot of these pages in the past, without any discussions. He did this on Trentino-Alto Adige on 25, October 2005. I would even go as far as accusing this user of abusing the WP system. I'm just warning, be careful who you are supporting in this. The names he has put in place are extremely German POV, definitely to anyone familiar with this region of Italy. my best regards. Taalo 21:06, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Taalo, this is simply not the way to do things. This is what
Dear Asterion, part of the problem is that the user Gryffindor actually moved the pages by his own accord on 25, Oct. 2005. Since then the pages have been cemented into this new name by a few people with a German POV. He often uses the rules (after the fact) of wikipedia to try and maintain his POV. Isn't this abuse?? This has gone as far as switching all the names from Italian-German to German-Italian. Having the Province of Bolzano/Bozen page stuck as South Tyrol. The Province is Bolzano (Bozen). There is no Province of South Tyrol in Italy. I would dearly like to assume good faith, but the thing though, is through this past year, this user (and now an admin!) has done what he has done. From someone who is actually from this region, it has been utterly discusting to see this process. For the life of me, I can't see why a few people are doing this.. and why we can't just come up with names that SHARE this region, as is actually done in the region. Thanks for getting involved though, I really do appreciate that. Taalo 21:37, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
To reply to Taalo, and to clarify the reference to
WP:MOVE. But please note that this only applies to moving whole pages. Moving sections of a page is, to say the least, more complicated. Carcharoth
23:37, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't look like the history is busted. She copied out of
Thatcher131
00:58, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Hm, I wouldn't agree that no harm has been done. Check this out: Talk:Province of Bolzano (Bozen), Talk:South Tyrol. This two talk pages share an article :-) You seem to be uninvolved admin. I propose that we gather 2 more uninvolved admins (I found out about this mess yesterday when Asterion asked me for help) and then set up a task force which will fix the mess with duplicate talk pages and whichever other mess we find, and then we protect the pages from moving until the dispute is solved. Then we start a mediation process, listen to all sides and propose a decision as uninvolved, (hopefuly) unbiased and (hopefuly) respected users. --Dijxtra 15:09, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Sounds like a perfect idea. The first thing to do (as you well said in your talk page) is to sort the mess out, merging histories and talk pages. This does not mean we are choosing any name once and for all at this stage, but consolidating things before trying mediation. Thanks and regards, Asteriontalk 19:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
In my own defense - it seems that we are ignoring the past, which Taalo has been able to point out. This page was moved indiscriminantly by an admin who just so happens to have a lot of connection with some of the articles. Even after all of the evidence has been shown as to a number of sources and references showing the title to be "Trentino-Alto Adige" (for the region) and "Bolzano (Bozen)" (for the province), we still run into flack. The page move has been requested and this is a case of disregarding the so-called 'consensus' to correct the name that is listed with the United Nations and with the Italian government. To allow this naming convention to continue is not only a biased POV but it is not in keeping with the 'fair and just' policies of Wikipedia. Because if I'm not mistaken, care is to be taken as to the proper translation and respect for multilingual areas such as this one - and "South Tyrol" is only a derived English version of the "Sudtirol" German portion - for a province that exists in Italy. The name "Bolzano" is the Italian province name, with "Bozen" being the German version, thus the title "Bolzano (Bozen)" would suffice in keeping with the respect of the rules. Same with the region - "Trentino-Alto Adige" is given the alternate of "Sudtirol" (not "Trentino-South Tyrol"). Thus, I may have been incorrect in the approach, but the overall goal was just and correct. This has been completely ignored in the midst of all of this. I think this is so obvious, yet to ignore it is to ignore the very spirit of why wiki is here.
Also in my defense, as I was doing such moves/changes I did go back and make sure all of the links were corrected and redirected. I have taken quite the personal abuse from various users (admin or not) which I don't appreciate - especially when we were all supposed to have assumed good faith. In making such changes, the good faith was to correct a wrong. Instead, well, here I am on the defensive. Think or judge what you wish, but the situation remains unresolved. We have even had users who live in the province state the correct name ("Bolzano") or the region name ("Trentino-Alto Adige"). Pity. Rarelibra 16:50, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Your defense holds little weight when several people, including myself, nicely asked you to stop doing cut and paste moves - and even explained why - but you went continued with them anyway. And then became quite uncivil when you were called out on it. Along with deleting messages from your talk page, you've managed to violate at least three basic Wikipedia guidelines just in the space of the last 24 hours - and still you cling to this claim of innocence and pity. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:27, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Your input holds little weight, wknight94. Because after you asked, there were not edits - you came in at the tail end issuing out to many threats. There was a lot of action beforehand - and my civility reflects nothing more than the same on your own part. Also, I don't believe I am claiming "innocence and pity" at all - or please point out where I do (in your own biased way). So your use of such words is attacking and offensive as well. Please refrain from using such judgmental words and, instead, approach more cautiously. I would definitely appreciate it. Rarelibra 17:06, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Revisionist history. Here's the real chronolgy:
My personal first warning at 10/2 20:38. At that time, your talk page looked like this, with 5 or more entire sections of various people instructing you not to do copy/paste moves including one who reported you at
WP:AIV
(which is how I became involved in the first place).
After my warning (not to mention the rest of the warnings), you changed two more redirects into entire articles, i.e. performed copy/paste moves: this edit at 10/2 21:54 and this edit at 10/2 21:57.
Your response was then this mini-tirade at 10/2 22:38 and this bit of sarcasm at 10/3 00:11 when I offer to assist another editor in a proper attempt to accomplish the move that you wanted to do!
You can dispute who is being civil and who is not if you insist but at least get the facts straight, please. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Facts are easy to see - and the debate wasn't about actions and talk pages. The debate - the biggest problem I had - was your approach and choice of words. You should be more careful in choosing to use harsh words, especially when you are going to choose to lecture someone yourself. Otherwise it takes away from the effect by loosing any and all applicable respect to what you have to say. You can be stern about rules and, at the same time, be completely nice about things as well. As far as edits after warnings, well - sometimes you don't always get to see a talk page if you have two or three browsers open and are trying to make correctional edits to biased POV articles. Give some credit where credit is due. I'm sure you've made your share of mistakes. Rarelibra 01:22, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
As I said above, my choice of words were because your talk page was littered with various people rightfully asking you to stop doing cut-and-paste moves - all of whom you ignored. Asking nicely was not making any progress. Diverting you away from doing things incorrectly resulted in Taalo doing things correctly and got one of your articles renamed as you wanted so far. You're welcome. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:55, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Wow - are you trying to take the credit for that? Or are you asking for me to thank you for any of this? Because if you are asking for a personal "thank you", you'll be severely disappointed. It almost sounds like you are justifying being noncordial and rude by saying "asking nicely was not making any progress" - is this correct? I am trying to understand your words. Rarelibra 05:50, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
You keep throwing around "noncordial and rude". What exactly is noncordial and rude about this edit? It has a nice "please" on it and a "Let me know if you have any questions". That was after you had ignored four or five requests to stop, causing one person to get so desperate as to list you at
WP:AIV! With 5 non-consensus regular moves and even more non-consensus cut and paste moves, all in a 13-hour span on October 2 alone, now I'm thinking I should have just blocked you as extremely disruptive instead of simply warning. Read the above messages in this section and read your own talk page - and esp. notice how many different users are involved in both places - and then try to tell me that you weren't being disruptive. —Wknight94 (talk
) 15:35, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Again, just to get facts straight, and now to ease my confusion, here is a list of all of the users who left warnings - or at least notified you that what you were doing was wrong - on your talk page:
Asterion (who was far more forceful here than I was)
Actually he wasn't 'forceful' at all - rather termed, he was simply stating such without actually being rude. If you look at his talk page, you will see that I communicated an apology to him. So there was no dispute here. Rarelibra 19:52, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Again, I don't see any disrespect or rudeness to her approach here, as opposed to your own wording. If anything she was stern as well as supportive. Rarelibra 19:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
While making this list, now I'm confused as to why you chose me to get so angry with. Mine was one of the last warnings you received - meaning I had the most reason to be stern - and mine was actually one of the more cordial ones. Along with Thatcher131, Carcharoth and Dijxtra here and Taalo as well, you singlehandedly stirred up a bees' nest of 13 people... most in a single calendar day. Now please don't tell me you didn't cause a disruption and don't feign horror at how I chose to address you. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:38, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
No, bottom line is you don't have the right, in either case, to be rude, inconsiderate, insulting, brash, etc. Whether I did or did not is not the debate here. It seems to be the case that you think it was justified, in which case, it wasn't. As you try to educate me, so do I try with you - making statements of "I should have just blocked you..." and the borderline "you're welcome" statement above - when taken in the wrong context - smack with quite an amount of attitude. Since tone and inclination cannot be deciphered from text, we are all supposed to assume good faith that they are positive (which I don't think has been the case on many sides of this ongoing debate/discussion). The good thing is that progress has been made already on one page - and a neutral party is aiding in the mediation process. But the disappointing thing - and I must say I have a right to state this - is the lack of awareness and one-sided judgment that took place on both Taalo and myself. The neutral party brought in could see that all parties were guilty of one thing or another (admin or otherwise). In that sense, certain individuals should have all been removed from the discussion - and not singling out one or two. You see, I am comfortable being in this position, especially if the end result brings about a change. It's called being the 'sacrificial lamb' or sometimes 'the martyr'. And after 19+ years in the US military, it runs off like water on a ducks back. I'm not even concerned with wether or not you agree with me or realize your own errors (in a sense). So if there isn't anything else, let's both move on to what we were doing best before this whole thing. Rarelibra 20:10, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
These have been blocked indefinitely, and after inappropriate use of their talk pages those were protected. I restarted T-Man's block at this point, but he subsequently made attacks on his talk page, so I increased the block to indefinite and protected the user pages there too. T-Man has most recently created the following socks:
I've indef blocked all of these too, although I am unsure of the protocol of that with regards the ip addresses. Appreciate thoughts on the matter. We're quite good at spotting T-Man socks over at
WP:COMIC, there's a few cues the user uses that make it fairly obvious. Cheers. HidingTalk
18:40, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
IMO, block the IPs for 2 weeks only. If you look at their contribution history, you'll see the contributions all fit within a short timeframe (4-5 days). Also, use the anon-only block option. Based on the time period of the edits, these may be dynamic IPs, so indef-blocking them might be a bad idea. 2 weeks should be sufficient when they crop up. Mangojuicetalk 18:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I've done as you suggest. I'm not the world's greatest vandal fighter so I'm not up to speed on the nuances. I knew there were issues with IP blocks so that's why I mentioned it. HidingTalk 19:17, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
can someone please link to our policy against linkspamming
We have a new user user:brouhardr whose sole contributions are multiple links to his about.com pages. I would like to politely explain before I block him that these are inappropriate. Where is our policy against linkspam? alteripse 21:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
tjstrf
21:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, exactly what I needed. alteripse 21:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
He's spamming articles he wrote himself for about.com. See his user page. -
n
01:10, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Categories for dicussion/deletion
Hmm.. I found an interesting problem on the Categories for discussion (formerly "Categories for deletion") page. I noticed that The main page is listed as "discussion", but new subsections of the page are still listed as "deletion" (ie. Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 October 11. Does anybosy else think that these subpages should be moved to match the current name? — Moe 00:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
There are technical issues involved in making this change. Please see
Wikipedia talk:Categories for deletion/Archive 6#Further implementation issues. --After Midnight0001
This user seems to have a penchant for adding blatantly false information to articles, as well as commiting random acts of more obvious vandalism. I'm not sure how to pursue this. Many of the user's edits do not seem suspect at all, while others are completely nonverifiable and strange. Anyone? -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 02:24, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Some vandals make some good edits to try and deter admins from blocking them as they look like good users. Someone should review their edits and block if needed. → Corey Bryant (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log). --Andeh 13:15, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
User:MK013
Evv
23:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
He got a warning. Next time he'll be blocked. NCursework 05:45, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Encyclopaedia Dramatica which was protected from remake. It's frustrating that this user won't listen to requests on his talk page as well as repeated edits to keep those tags on. I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask, but I would appreciate if someone could delete and protect those pages, or whatever the right procedure is? Thank you! —Keakealani
05:01, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Err, sorry, it looks like someone else caught him with another malicious editor, so never mind. Sorry, that must have happened while I was writing this. Very, very sorry, again, for wasting your time. —Keakealani 05:03, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for reporting this. -- Samir धर्म 05:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Mediation Situation
Currently, the
the Mediation Committee
seems to have been dead for several months now.
Your fellow Wikipedians need your assistance. Please remember to review guidance on dealing with mediation cases, as they are voluntary attempts at seeking amicable solutions, and not cases that require you to use your admin capabilities.
WP:MC is not inactive. Any future concerns of this nature should probably be brought to the attention of the Mediators in a forum where they will be likely to notice them, rather than here on the noticeboard where they will likely go unnoticed by the relevant people. --Dante Alighieri | Talk
22:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm asking here because Medcom has a 38 case backup and the chairman hasn't been seen in three months. I'm both an admin and one of the coordinators for Mediation Cabal, and the reason I chose this venue for my question is because typically admins watch this noticeboard, and as such they typically are trusted by the community and well versed in dispute resolution and Wikipedia policies. I appreciate the input, however. ~Kylu (u|t) 00:24, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Medcom has indeed been dead for the past few months - it looks like Guanaco is making an attempt to revitalize it starting today, however, which is of course a Good Thing (insert silly trademark here). It may be good to determine who is still active there and who can take over its organization, as the Mediation Cabal is indeed struggling with a surge of cases not tended to by the Mediation Committee.
From what I understand (using both on- and off-wiki resources),
RFAr talk, Radiant!'s talk. I imagine MedCom may well start looking for more mediators, but that's just my guess. Thanks to Dante Alighieri for being nice about the whole thing. ~Kylu (u|t
) 17:07, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately, mediation backlogs have grown, and we have been inactive for the past few months. We'll do our best to get started again, and I apologize for the delays. However, if you have an interest in mediation, please consider applying
here or joining the Mediation Cabal. All extra help would be appreciated. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?
) 00:32, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Medcab is sucking up much of my time lately, but thanks. :D ~Kylu (u|t) 03:37, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
User:Flash_kz insulted me in Talk:RealPlayer#Wrong_Critisms. He wrote that I post "spam". Before this, he wrote that I perform "vandalism" and "spread lies". Besides, he erases critical information from the RealPlayer article, in particular, he [33] erases the sentence
In 2006, PCWorld named it the second worst tech product of all time [34].
which is important, relevant, and NPOV. It also agrees with the principle that wikipedia is the source of secondary information.
Real Alternative. This violates NPOV and is offensive to all those who love Real Alternative more than RealPlayer
.
Please do something to stop all this. --Urod 03:27, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
First, it's his user page,
WP:NPOV doesn't apply there. Stating likes/dislikes it tolerated on user pages to a degree. He cannot order you to stop editing; only the ArbCom can do that, and it's only for very extreme circumstances. The PC World bit is backed by a reliable source; revert such removals on sight. Hbdragon88
04:14, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
He doesn't state likes/dislikes, he writes that Real Alternative is illegal! And he calls me names - spamer, vandal, etc! --62.0.75.89 16:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
What he wrote doesn't violate any policy, if you don't like what he wrote don't go to his user page, Derktar 01:11, 11 October 2006 (UTC).
Is
ownership issues with the RealPlayer article. I added some citation needed templates in there and s/he reverted my edits with no explanation or sources given. Metros232
19:47, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Unprotect User talk please
As I'm unblocked, could I talk a kindly admin into reversing the damage Cyde did to my user talk (the indef blocked
template and protection of my talk) so that I can edit my user talk again?
(Note: I really am unblocked or I wouldn't ask)
Thanks to whomever does this for me. Enkil 16:42, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
(Note: You really are unblocked, or you couldn't have asked.) I've unprotected the talk page in question. Mangojuicetalk 17:03, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Whoa. How did a sock of a banned user get unblocked? The unblock was denied by two admins before this editors talk page was blocked to prevent further attempts to get unblocked (and it was Centrex, not Cyde btw). Is it just me or are other people seeing a lot of crazy unblocks from people working the unblock-en list? Shellbabelfish 02:09, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Konquest article. Am I alone in finding that a bit off? Not to question Adam's sincerity, I'm sure he does feel that the php version will allow people to see the game and try it without installing KDE, but I would not normally encourage links to non-canonical versions of a game anyway and he may not be the best person to judge its appropriateness. Guy
13:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Getting a domain like funpic.org onto the whitelist for a single site does seem wrong. Like all times people add their own sites I would remove on sight, quote
WP:EL and see if the editors of the article think the link is worthwhile. Although I'm wondering how an online games adds to an encyclopedic article about the game... Thanks/wangi
20:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Nevermind a site which spews out heaps of PHP errors... For sure not a useful link to add. Thanks/wangi 20:54, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
I've removed the site from the whitelist pending resolution.
I hope I am putting this in the right section, sorry if I am not. The article here: Falling Sand Game was almost completely deleted and replaced with a few words. Sorry, I dont know whether to edit it myself, or let an administrator do it. Joh777nny 20:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Appears to be taken care of already, but feel free to fix it yourself if you'd like next time. See Help:Reverting for more info. Thanks! ~Kylu (u|t) 21:32, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the link. Joh777nny 00:37, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
removal of personal information
I'd like my user page deleted please. It had some personal information that I'd prefer not be on wikipedia any more. (just getting paranoid, no real reason). I'll recreate the page after it's removed. Thanks, ---J.S (t|c) 04:49, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Template:Canvass}}), no matter how it's weasel-worded. Any thoughts? --Calton | Talk
05:42, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
If there's canvassing, the template isn't the problem; the canvasser is. People easily canvass using the paste button. —Quarl(talk) 2006-10-12 07:07Z
It's not so much the canvassing but the semi-official ass-covering provided by the template ("I'm not vote-stacking, no I'm not"). --Calton | Talk 07:16, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
It depends on how it's used - if someone messages all editors of a particular article, that's useful notification. If someone messages all users likely to "vote" a certain way, for example, self-identified inclusionists, that's hurtful canvassing. Does the fact that it's a template really make any difference? (BTW I've made some changes to it.) —Quarl(talk) 2006-10-12 08:06Z
Contacting all the editors who've worked on an article seem good - they all got an interest, some knowledge, and a stake. OTOH they will also normally be pre-disposed to keep the article. If they are really interested in the article, wouldn't they have watchlisted it, anyway? Although the thinking behind the template is good, it does smack me as green-lighting a practice that tends to be unhelpful.--
Doc
08:57, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Its a tough call; if I had contributed to an article in some meaningful way, I would probably want to be notified if it were being considered for deletion. Watchlists are no real guarantee, I routinely dump mine now whenever it goes over 10,000 (after realizing MediaWiki just doesn't want me editing a list spanning 45,000 watched pages). ;-) Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:16, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Did you have something to contribute, or did you just fail to resist the opportunity to show off. ;-) On a more serious note, AfD is not a vote, so vote stacking isn't really an issue. Regards, Ben Aveling 09:30, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above.
Ed Poor is placed on Probation. He may be banned from any article or set of articles by an uninvolved administrator for disruptive editing, such as edit warring, original research, and POV forking. All bans are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ed Poor 2#Log of blocks and bans.
For the Arbitration Committee. Arbitration Committee Clerk, FloNight 14:02, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Corporate vanity
An interesting noted from Brad on WikiEN-l:
The volume of corporate vanity/vandalism which is showing up on Wikipedia is overwhelming. At the office, we are receiving dozens of phone calls *per week* about company, organization, and marketing edits which are reverted, causing the non-notable, but self-aggrandizing authors, to scream bloody murder. This is as it should be. However, I am issuing a call to arms to the community to act in a much more draconian fashion in response to corporate self-editing and vanity page creation. This is simply out of hand, and we need your help.
We are the #14 website in the world. We are a big target. If we are to remain true to our encyclopedic mission, this kind of nonsense cannot be tolerated. This means the administrators and new page patrol need to be clear when they see new usernames and page creation which are blatantly commercial - shoot on sight. There should be no question that someone who claims to have a "famous movie studio" and has exactly 2 Google hits - both their Myspace page - they get nuked. Ban users who promulgate such garbage for a significant period of time. They need to be encouraged to avoid the temptation to recreate their article, thereby raising the level of damage and wasted time they incur.
Some of you might think regular policy and VfD is the way to go. I am here to tell you it is not enough. We are losing the battle for encyclopedic content in favor of people intent on hijacking Wikipedia for their own memes. This scourge is a serious waste of time and energy. We must put a stop to this now.
So, are we ready for db-spam yet? And should we be protecting articles subject to vanity edits? Guy 08:53, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
I definitely support db-spam. It's quite frustrating to take the articles through AfD and get bashed by a hoard of socks, anon IPs all extolling the "greatness" of the company. Waiting 5 days to clean up the garbage is really very frustrating. Also, there is hardly a difference between the bio vanity and these types of corp-vanity. --Ragib 08:59, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Support. We need this, and most users think we already have it.
ЯEDVERS
09:01, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
I've modified
WP:CSD accordingly; please copyedit as necessary. >Radiant<
11:17, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
(Uninvolved) I like the new CSD criterion, but I'm not too sure about protecting pages that get SPAMed unless they take it to a level where it would get protected otherwise.
68.39.174.238
00:31, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
*pumps fist* Did I just read this correctly - that Brad is saying shoot first and ask questions later? Hbdragon88 06:23, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
I would like such a criterion. But the way it is phrased know leaves interpretation open to the person tagging the article. We need specific cases.
If the article is a copy of promotional material,but permission for use has been given, or when said material is a free-to-use press release.
When it's obvious the creator of the article is promoting themselves or their company based on their username.
When the creator shows no interest in editing other articles (with the exception of linking to his new creation)
I probably forgot more indicators. =- Mgm|(talk) 10:32, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Let's see if an example helps me understand this a bit better - could I therefore CSD this as vanity spam or not? --
Charlesknight
10:45, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
In my opinion, yes. >Radiant< 15:41, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
I would speedy that, either as spam or under the new expanded A7. --
Words of Wisdom: Not everything needs to be codified in a strict policy involving a 5 day voting procedure. One thing to remember is that deletions can be undone. Deleting an article is really no big deal. -- Drini
OK, trolling through the block log I ran across "User:National Service Center" and their aborted attempt to use their userpage as a webhost. They uploaded this image:
to go along with it. I tagged it with SPAM after someone else hit it with NSD. Is this legit? Should it be? Is it only for articels, or articels and ONLY images in articels, or any image that's used (and usable) for SPAM and not any legit purpose? Thanx.
68.39.174.238
02:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Orphan images from deleted articles can be tagged for deletion for such reason. Teke (talk) 05:03, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
True, although not (currently) speedy deletion. Stifle (talk) 18:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Yea, but it was used on their userpage, hence my wondering since those are usually dealt with a little differently. Anyway thanx to whoever axed it.
We need help discussing the purpose and direction of Wikipedia:Contents and the pages that it lists.
We're 3 non-admins suddenly/apparently running, what looks to the public like top-level pages, but are only newly so, and pages that will be even more visible when the
WP:CENT
, or something?)
Transhumanist, Rfrisbie and I have redesigned and partially overhauled the reference pages, but are now talking ourselves in circles about how they could/should evolve. (and... what they should each contain and how they're related, whether things could be merged or renamed, and so on. (ie there's a lot of content duplication and/or misplacement, and we can't agree on size, purpose/contents, or structure for many of these pages, and indecision over the contents of Template:Contents pages (header bar), and a few other tangents (!))
Some of these are turning into simmering disputes, but we're trying to hash them out somewhat civilly still. Please, please, come overwhelm our bickering and indecision with insight and direction. thanks :) --Quiddity 22:08, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Interesting perspective. I thought that's what Wikipedia called "editing by consensus." The more the merrier.
talk
02:23, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
I was trying hard to write a civil and neutral synopsis. You're welcome to add/correct anything. I could've mentioned the specific issues I and others have argued with Transhumanist/Go for it! about (WP:Own, WP:Discuss) and the RfC/UC he ignored in April, but I was trying to keep it somewhat short and impersonal. --Quiddity 03:17, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
That's fine. I would just add that not all discussions have been contentious, and the pages are coming around, even without the help of any admins lately, IMHO. At this point, I agree it would be nice to have some more editors participate in the discussions.
talk
16:25, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Talk:Paparazzo#Plural entry
Understanding that this is not an administrative issue per se, I nevertheless need feedback before I consider reverting a page move (and, a
Paparazzo cited convention toward the singular, with exceptions; my argument is, this is one of those exceptions. Since, however, we two are the only ones who've discussed this, I'd like more input before deciding whether a further move is appropriate. Thanks. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c
) 14:46, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Definitely not an administrative issue; however, this non-administrator thinks that your reading of the situation is correct. This is the English Wikipedia, not Italian, and in English the Italian word "paparazzo" is almost never used, even though its plural is very common in media discussions. Moreover, the convention toward using the singular has a bit less force (though it is still a good idea) for nonstandard (or foreign) plurals where the difference may be more than one letter S. I think it definitely falls under the category of necessary exceptions. Gavia immer (u|t|c) 18:48, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Disputed status of Gibraltar
There seems to be some edit war going on in this article[40][41][42]. Both parties are providing equally verifiable references but I believe they seem to be confusing verifiability with truth. I am reticent to get involved myself but would appreciate some third party informal mediation before the situation escalates. Regards, Asteriontalk 10:21, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
I think that someone (not me, I am being also personally attacked by these same guys) should do something with these remarks made against Pedro J. Ramírez[43], [44] by users User:Igor21 and User:Burgas00.
The guy who made the second assertion is the same guy cited in the "Gibraltar" sction above. This second libel is 3 months old, but I did not know about the Wikipedia policy about living persons back then. I suggest the complete erasure of Burgas00 remarks and of my response. Randroide 17:01, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Unless Pedro J. Ramírez has a Wikipedia account, how are there personal attacks against him? — Moe 01:57, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Libel is against the law regardless of the person having an account on wikipedia. :) ---J.S (t|c) 04:44, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
AFAIK Pedro J. Ramírez is NOT a Wikipedia user. He is the director and CEO of the second spanish newspaper and he is a very busy person.
You are right, Moe Epsilon, I did not use the expression Personal attacks correctly. The case is that those remarks are neither in the "biography of a living person" category, so I did not know really how to classify them. The word "libel" came to my mind, but I was reluctant to use it.
I do not even know if those remarks and foul language deserve the attention of an Administrators, I only know that I do not like that kind of language and assertions in my computer screen. Randroide 07:39, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Randroide, I've deleted the material in the second link you gave above. The first link seemed to be about the newspaper, not the person, so I left that one. Please let me know if there's anything else that needs to be deleted. SlimVirgin(talk) 08:02, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Then, my case is closed. I delete my "shout" to avoid further (unneeded) attention. Thank you, SlimVirgin. Randroide 08:19, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Userproject:Conservatives
I would like to bring to general attention
WP:NPOV but it would be very easy for this project to turn into something undesirable. Fys. Tafysaym
. 10:53, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
No, we have to hold a hard line here. Any project of any nature which requires any qualification other that being a Wikipedian signed up to NPOV is unacceptable. If we make any exceptions here, we are in trouble. Being a Wikipedian must be the first and only qualification. A Wikiproject conservatives is fine, as long as even Joseph Stalin would not be excluded from membership. (OK, I'll allow 'being alive' as a qualifictaion too.--
Doc
11:07, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree there's cause for concern, but concern only. I think the line "Wikipedians first, Tories second" isn't meant to say that you must be a Tory, rather that the project comes before partisan concerns. I'm not sure I like the precedent, but I see nothing truly objectionable yet. Mackensen(talk) 11:12, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
As it stands, the project deters (to put it mildly) those who are non-Conservatives. I happen to have written Reginald Maudling, one of the three featured articles on Conservative politicians. As a Wikipedian first and only, and a Tory not at all, I couldn't really join. If it was a project to improve Conservative Party articles for all users, I would have no problem. Fys. Tafysaym. 11:16, 12 October 2006 (UTC) (And I'm especially not going to join a project which has as its aim helping Conservatives to win elections! Fys. Tafysaym. 11:20, 12 October 2006 (UTC))
The Doc's very reasonable objection (above) aside for a moment, the page seems anodyne enough until the very end, where it suggests that people may be recruited via a message such as Hello, I noticed you edited {article} and from your edits you appear to be a Conservative, so I'd like to invite you etc etc (my emphasis). Despite the commendable insistence on avoiding expression of a PoV, this message is not incompatible with a suspicion that the userproject is intent on recruiting those who have exhibited a PoV. Could the insistence on avoiding a PoV be mere lipservice? ¶ I wonder about naming. A huge percentage of WP editors are from the US, and "conservative" in a US context I think means "paleoconservative" or "retrogressive" in a British one. Interesting misunderstandings might arise. -- Hoary 11:18, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
That'll teach me to comment first thing in the morning. Even if the commitment to NPOV is genuine, having a group of editors of one POV assembled is bound to cause problems. I think you're also right about the naming issue. Mackensen(talk) 11:22, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Totally and utterly unacceptable. Delete it. --kingboyk 11:23, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Kingboyk. Nothing on Wikipedia should be done with the aim of helping or hindering anyone or any group in winning or losing elections - it is completely incompatible with NPOV. Thryduulf 11:32, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Definitely a job for deletion. Dev920 has made a commendable effort to promote neutrality, but the idea is fundamentally unsound as stated above. Suggest instead that she start a Wikiproject for British politics and ancourage all participants to work for balance and neutrality across all British political subjects. We have far roo much nonsense from extremists (e.g. Association of British Counties) - although at least some of that is likely to be viewed as good by members of the Monster Raving Tory Party. Whatever, explicitly partisan projects are always bad. Guy 14:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
I would appreciate it if you would allow someone to make a defence rather than assuming bad faith and condemning someone out of hand.
As I outlined on the Userproject, the aim is produce Conservative party-related articles to a high and NPOV FA standard; any article submitted for GA or FA would immediately have any POV stomped on: and I welcome this! Hoary accuses me of lipservice to NPOV, but if you look at my contributions, I have consistently added NPOV information, usually with references, and have an FA standard article to my name, Jake Gyllenhaal. I don't want to create a Wikiproject politics because I only want to edit Conservative articles. I tried very, very hard to convey that message on the page. Yes, I am Conservative, yes, I want the Conservatives to win the next election, does this mean I will do that by skewing the facts? No! I'm an ideological conservative: I believe that if two ideologies were placed side by side, the Conservative one would seem obviously better to any impartial observer. Writing Conservative FA articles would show those ideas to a much greater audience. I have no desire to introduce POV to Wikipedia. Note that I wrote that I was working on the assumption that Labour articles would one day be at exactly the same standard - "we're just getting there first". You are concerned because I have admitted this POV upfront: how many would do that before simply editing articles to suit their beliefs? Please stop pillorying me because US Republicans are amoral spinners.
Obviously, I am aware there is a potential for people to push their own POV on Wikipedia. I am opposed to this (look at my edits to Islam): that's why I emphasised NPOV so strongly on my page. This is why I invited Fys to act as a NPOV checker, as a security against POV, even inadvertent POV. Instead, he reported me here. How can you judge a project that has not even begun work? How can you argue a page that exists in the user namespace should be deleted, when I have demonstrated absolutely no abuse of Wikipedia policy, and in fact, quite strongly uphold it? Hoary claims my invitation message indicates an intention to promote POV: why? A project to encourage Conservatives to join has to find them, does it not? Have I not made it absolutely crystal clear I would not, if this project took off, tolerate any vandalism of articles (because that's what it is)?
I have set up this project in my user namespace specifically because it was POV(though it's work would not be). I am a dedicated Wikipedian with a track record in writing neutral articles, and have no intention of changing this. Please do not condemn a project that has committed no break with policy, that exists for editors to admit their POV, which would lead to even greater scrunity of any articles written (which I would hardly do if I wanted to skew articles to my POV). If you want a project that writes POV into articles, delete
The Muslim Guild, which does put POV into their articles, and which I have consistently tried to correct. But please don't assume bad faith. That happens too much on Wikipedia. Dev920 (Tory?
) 15:21, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Please do compare it to
The Muslim Guild. That explicitly says "Although the Muslim Guild carries the word "Muslim" in its name, we encourage members of any faith to participate as long as they are knowledgeable about Islam as a religion and are willing to present an unbiased and balanced view of Islam." It does not say "... and assist Islam in winning converts" - if it did, I suspect it would be treated the way this project is being treated. Just remove the part about explicit Tory support, and I suspect your project will get along fine. Writing articles about Conservatives will tend to attract a lot of Conservatives anyway, but you can't make a particular political point of view a requirement. You will attract a few liberals (and Liberals), and you can't discourage them. AnonEMouse(squeak)
16:09, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Per
WP:BOLD, I'm going to take one shot at making it something that won't get deleted. It's not in the public space, it's someone else's, so feel free to revert; if it's just reverted by the owner, I won't touch it again. However, then I'm afraid it will have to go entirely for the reasons so many have stated. AnonEMouse(squeak)
16:26, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
There's no assumption of bad faith. It's there in black and white: "assist the Tories in winning elections". NPOV is non-negotiable, and that breaches it by some margin. --kingboyk 16:13, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Precisely. And speaking as one who remembers the last Tory Government, especially the
Scott Inquiry, it's a POV I think we could well do without. Guy
17:35, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
We don't have userprojects, we have wikiprojects. I would suggest the page is moved to become a WikiProject. Perhaps it could be broadened out to cover all aspects of UK politics too. It's clearly inappropriate for user space. HidingTalk 19:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
I have already explicitly outlined why I set up this project in my userspace; I'm not going to move it into a Wikiproject.
Moving onto the threat to delete my project because it is clearly POV: having a POV project page isn't actually contravening
WP:NPOV
. I don't know if you've actually read the policy, but let me quote the relevant parts (emphasis added): "All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing significant views fairly and without bias. This includes all content, including illustrations, maps, reader-facing templates, categories, and portals. ... Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in the main namespace."
If you delete my Userproject, you are overstepping your bounds as admins. I am a conscientious Wikipedian, and I have done my utmost to work within the rules. I have not contravened any policies, and you cannot delete my project on the basis that you think one day I might. If you continue to follow your interpretation of these policies, you may as well delete every userpage as
People have offered solutions to the pitfalls this presents. We have a WikiProject structure, and your reasons for not following it aren't valid, as shown above. Hope that helps. HidingTalk 19:55, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
My reasons were perfectly valid: I wasn't prepared to lie about my POV reasons for writing NPOV articles. All I can say is that you are fools to force someone to abide by your perverted understanding of policy rather than what it actually says. Dev920 (Tory?) 20:23, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Please avoid calling fellow editors "fools" as it is
Neither does deleting parts of good faith editors' userpages against their wishes.
check out this proposal
) 20:30, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm a Socialst and have always declared it on my user page to avoid any conflicts of interest (I edit neutrally, not as a Socialist). I'd like to ensure that the UK never gets a Conservative government ever again. Can I join your "userproject" and edit on that basis? If so, thanks!.. but how would that fit with existing Wikipedia policies? If not, why not?.. and how would that fit with existing Wikipedia policies? I'm sure you can see where I'm going here, but if you can answer both of these questions, I'd be pleased. And fascinated how you did it. But mainly pleased.
ЯEDVERS
21:18, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
It's somewhat beyond the point now, but:
No, you couldn't have joined. Because you didn't agree with the aims of the project. Would you join a Wikiproject whose remit you were not interested in? No. That fits with existing Wikipedia policy because there are no guidelines which specifically cover Userprojects (because they get deleted on sight by jaded admins) and so the rules governing Wikiprojects would apply: only sign up if you're interested. As you are a socialist, there would be little point in you joining an explicitly Conservative project. Instead, I would have encouraged you to set up Userproject:Socialists and suggested a friendly competition to see who could reachg matching FAs first. This would obviously have fitted with Wikipedia policies as much as Userproject:Conservatives does i.e. completely. This is of course, however, now completely irrelevant because admins would rather assume bad faith than even allow a project they don't agree with get off the ground. (And btw, you might want to emigrate before the 2009 election: Labour are going doooooown...)
check out this proposal
) 21:40, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
So you are confirming that your goal is to organise a political faction, excluding any editors whose politics you disagree with, and then argue that this is an appropriate use of Wikimedia resources because it is in userspace instead of projectspace? Those people above who are telling you that this is inappropriate and does not match the goals of Wikipedia as a project are not "assuming bad faith", they are correcting a misunderstanding on your part about what we want to host here. Jkelly 21:47, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
He could have added himself to the membership list, but what would have been the point? He wouldn't have wanted to participate in any of the activities. It would have exactly the same as any Wikiproject - you aren't sympathetic, you don't join.
Frankly, what I put in my userspace, as long as it is Wikipedia related and not obscene or defamatory, is none of your business. The goal of Wikipedia is to produce the world's most comprehensive free encyclopedia - an aim I utterly agree with. I wouldn't have started a project that existed to contribute to that goal if I did not believe in it. You are simply failing to understand what I wanted to achieve because you think you know what I was planning - but you evidently don't or it wouldn't have been deleted. I was seeking a group of like-minded editors to produce NPOV articles on a specific subject. Our reason for doing it is entirely irrelevant to the Wikipedian community, because the results of our work would have been exactly the same as any editor's. You keep saying it was inappropriate, but there was no policy it contravened or you would have quoted it at me by now.
check out this proposal
) 21:55, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
If you really want me to go over to
Wikipedia:Userpage and add "Don't use your userspace as an attempt to avoid the mandatory welcoming and non-partisan nature of Wikipedia projects", I can do that. I'd rather not, because that is precisely the way that policy pages get bloated and confusing. We can't cover every bad idea on a policy page. Anyway, your confusion isn't about that, it is about this idea that "what [you] put in [your] userspace, as long as it is Wikipedia related and not obscene or defamatory, is none of your business" is wrong. We're not here to provide no-holds-barred webhosting for you. Your userspace is content that Wikimedia is publishing, and is subject to more or less the same rules and guidelines as the rest of our content. As a courtesy we generally give editors a lot of leeway in what they do with their userspace, but it is not a sacrosanct loophole to evade community standards for the project. Jkelly
22:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
"We're not here to provide no-holds-barred webhosting for you." Did I say that? Did I say I wanted to use the userproject as a tubthumping call to Conservatism? No. Was I not at pains to emphasise the role of the project was to write NPOV articles on Conservative party related issues? Yes I was. Did I want webhosting, or was I trying to run a collaborative project to ultimately improve Wikipedia, though in select areas? The only difference between my Userproject and any Wikiproject was that it was coming from an admitted POV viewpoint: a point that had no bearing on the articles written, as any FA article is NPOV. I fail to see how any project that exists to write FA articles for Wikipedia can ever be considered against the goal of Wikipedia.
check out this proposal
) 22:13, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Jkeely, it's already on
WP:USER, Jimbo is quoted as saying "using userpages to attack people or campaign for or against anything or anyone is a bad idea" My emphasis. The userproject was an attempt to campaign for the tory party, and as such falls foul of the guidance. HidingTalk
11:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Apply logic here guys. When Jimbo said that, do you think he had in mind writing NPOV articles or promotional spam?
check out this proposal
) 20:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
He had in mind not using user space as a campaigning forum. HTH. HidingTalk 12:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Weird move-page incident
I know I'm not an admin, but I got a weird move-page confirm dialog with delete and revert links.
BIG backlog. Up to 176 pages as of a minute ago. --Calton | Talk 01:02, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections 12-06: Anyone Paying Attention?
Is anyone even aware of the ArbCom Elections in December? It's been almost two weeks since candidate signup started yet there has not been a single edit to the statements page (other than a move by Ral315) since then. What the heck is going on here?
I was looking for the elections the other day; there's no link on the Arbcom page, for example. I hope this means its not ready to go live yet. I expect there would be lots of crossposted invitations, Signpost, etc. when its actually ready to begin.
Thatcher131
03:24, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Arbcom deliberating the process for months? Oh the irony! :-) Guy 09:18, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
You are very bad Guy. Rather amusing though :) --kingboyk 09:22, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Jab about speed taken in good humor, but lest anyone become confused, I would point out that the sitting arbcom doesn't really have the responsibility of devising an election process, and hasn't done so previously.
t
18:16, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Seriously, I'd rather have an ArbCom that sits and thinks than one which gets caught up in the culture of immediacy which it is, after all, there largely in order to balance. Guy 15:09, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
arbcom don't have much of a role in running the elections.Geni 21:10, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Has it even been decided yet to hold them in December? Because the last elections were in January. >Radiant< 15:08, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Only because some foolish people noticed that holding them over Christmas season was a questionable idea, given how many people are travelling or otherwise making Wikipedia less than their primary interest during that time of year. Perhaps the same foolish people (oh, right, me) might make the same suggestion this year. Anything attempted in December has a high chance of failure. Like Fridays, Decembers are not made for embarking on new endeavors. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:13, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Last year's elections were scheduled for early December, but then Jimbo decided to throw a monkey wrench in the works, and it took a while to sort out an election procedure that both he and the community were happy with. --Carnildo 17:56, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Arbcom are on their last legs. Running the elections in the first half of december should not be a problem. That is the scedule I have been working to.Geni 21:10, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Came across the following two groups on Facebook (there may be more) that are designed to coordinate vandalism: GLOBAL Wikipedia Vandals (44 members) and I Vandalize Wikipedia (37 members). (Note: you have to be a member of Facebook to access these links; but anyone can now join). Mikker(...) 03:23, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
I've reported the groups to facebook under "Attacks Individual or Group" in that they encourage illegal activity (although I'm sure there would be debate about that) against Wikipedia. I'd encourage you all to report the groups (or just watch them). Alphachimp 03:27, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Wow... very fast response Alphachimp.:) I was about to write that I just reported these groups too (also under "Attacks Individual or Group"). Mikker(...) 03:30, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
I suspect they will not delete the groups, unless we can show clearly that they violate the Facebook TOS. Alphachimp 03:32, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
May I suggest that someone with a facebook account join the groups? Both seem to be talking about coordinating vandalism and it might be good if we could get a heads up (especially because both seem to be in favor of the subtle form). JoshuaZ 03:53, 13 October 2006 (UTC)`
Anyone can join facebook now, so we can all join. Alphachimp 03:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
I created an account there tonight just to see what was happening, besides a link back to some vandalism that was performed on
Rx StrangeLove
05:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
So-called "vandalism" to Wikipedia is not illegal, dumbass. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arrrg (talk • contribs) 19:04, October 13, 2006
Maybe not illegal per se, but if Facebook's ToS are reviewed in enough detail, grounds might be found on which to take action in some way. For my reporting of the group, I cited Facebook ToS, under the "Member Conduct" section, subpoints 1, 3, and 4. "Vandalism to Wikipedia is often obscene or harmful, advertising, and certainly limits the functionality thereof. By creating a group for the express purpose of vandalizing Wikipedia sites, Facebook.com is being used to coordinate malicious acts that are in violation of the Terms of Service." Ouraiтс 01:07, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Aside from that, the group is using the logo without permission, and that certainly is a violation of Facebook's TOS. Christopher Parham(talk) 05:12, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
I noticed those groups about a week ago and wonder if the effort is precisely worth it to stop these groups, if Ourai's measures fail... They're largely inactive. Assuming the attempts fail, perhaps we should just watch carefully, just as some admins watch WikiTruth and Wikipedia Review. I just don't think it's worth any extraordinary effort. Double thumbs up to Ourai and Mikker, though! :) Srose(talk) 16:25, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
John_Pelan
A recently banned user, Chadbryant has created a hate page: John_Pelan. I tagged the article for speedy deletion but, using a sockpuppet, Chad keeps removing the tag AND in his edit summary he refers to me by what he claims is my REAL NAME. Can someone please remove the 'information' from the edit summary and delete the John_Pelan page? TruthCrusader 08:48, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
I was trying to write an article on Ludger who is a prominent musician in the Montreal music community. He is a first prize winner of the 2001 Polliwog Contest which is the premier annual new music contest in Quebec. And someone, whoever you are started deleting me before I was halfway started!!!! What is this place? Who are and what are you doing? When one clicks on "Ludger" in the list of Montreal musicians in the corresponding wikipedia article they get a "Saint Ludger", not the musican Ludger who should by rights be included here as member of Montreal's music scene. You say "Be Bold" all over the place and you don't even let someone get started! —The preceding
Since it's not at Ludger, where are you writing it? Guy 11:44, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
It looks like his additions to
List of Montreal musicians were removed as he was linking to the article on the saint. I'm guessing he was adding the links before creating the article. -- JLaTondre
12:26, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Create your article at
WP:CITE before creating the article. If your article doesn't meet those pages, it runs a good chance of being deleted. -- JLaTondre
This edit summary by User:Lawrence King alerted me to the page Timothy Michael Powell. As Lawrence King correctly notes, that page has only been edited by User:Powelltimothy (click for contributions), most probably Mr Powell himself (122 unique Ghits). The only contributions so far have been to paste his biography and to add an edit that was reverted as self-promotion (see link above). The article is also unwikified, not categorised, and is orphaned (not linked from any other articles), and is not a recreation.
Can anyone remind me what is the best course of action in a case like this? I know one solution is to move the page to the user page with a "no thanks" message explaining why this is not acceptable practice on Wikipedia (creating your own bio), but I can't find the templates for that. The userfying is acceptable due to the username being used here. I think I would be right in thinking that "assume good faith" would avoid speedy deletion or PROD in the case of such a recent creation, as that kind of "first encounter" might end up discouraging future contributions from someone who might have misunderstood Wikipedia's practices (this scenario is supported by the lack of categories, lack of incoming links and lack of wiki-links).
The only other thing I am worried about is whether such a course of action should be preceded by a welcome message, to, well, be more welcoming. So I think: (1) Welcome the new user; (2) Move article to userspace and say "thanks, but no thanks", and give standard explanation; (3) Some unspecified time later, speedy delete user page if no further contributions or discussions appear to be forthcoming.
I'd be grateful if someone could point me to where this probably very frequent process is documented, with links to the relevant templates (if the process is not documented, it should be - though the process does depend on whether the editor conveniently self-identifies, as here, and how soon the article is discovered - if the article had been discovered a year later, and the editor had made no further contributions, the good faith goes out of the window and the 'self-promotion' case is all-but-proved - discovery immediately, as here, means
I userfied the article by moving it to User:Powelltimothy, and if you want, you can go ahead and welcome the user and state the reason why the article was userfied. Nishkid64 00:53, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Unless it's an obvious (or at least highly ambiguous) case of accidentally creating a user page in the wrong place, I think userfying vanity articles is a bad practice. I've occasionally gone back and checked, and in the vast majority of cases:
The user makes few edits (as in, 6 or fewer).
The user makes no edits after the initial article creation.
The user makes few -- if any -- edits outside user space.
I did a survey in August where I examined 100 userfied pages, all at least six months old, summarized here. (The data is no longer accessible, because I've been reverting the page moves for most of them and slapping speedy tags on the result.)
More recently, I've been recording these userfications with the aim of nominating them for deletion if the editor doesn't actually edit after some period (my first batch can be found at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Mikevensel). User:TruthbringerToronto's contribution list has certainly been a fertile source for these, given his knee-jerk userfications.
What can be done to discourage Wikipedia from being mistaken for MySpace Light or PRWire? I don't know, but this shouldn't be encouraged -- at the very least, if you're going to userfy a page, use the {{Userfied}} tag on the user's talk page. --Calton | Talk 01:10, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
That's an impressive bit of analysis. I agree that where a new account is obviously persistently adding vanity stuff about themselves, they should be warned and then have their pages deleted and their edits reverted. My concern is that newcomers can genuinely think what they are doing is OK. We should allow a brief period of grace, plus a warning, and then, if they show no signs of learning from their mistakes and/or doing any more editing, they can be classed as a drive-by vanity spammer, and the appropriate action taken. It is easy to fall into the trap of, after speedying hundreds of vanity articles, to think that all of them are drive-by vanity stuff. Some won't be. Anyway, in this case, I have a note to check after a month, and then nominate the user page for deletion (at MfD, I think). I didn't know about {{Userfied}}. I had already said something similar at User talk:Powelltimothy, but that template makes some other points that I missed. I'll add it now. Thanks. The final point to make is that in this case only two edits were made. Looking at the bio, it is entirely possible that if that person is made to feel welcome, they could contribute useful stuff about music. Which is why I think in this case userfying, and then later deleting if nothing else is forthcoming, is best. Carcharoth 13:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
I hope this is the right place for this but I am having a problem with 2 users teaming up to vandalzie any edits, links etc I try to contribute to the project. NON stop deletion, bans, etc it's simply out of hand. I'd like a higher up admin to please contact me via my talk page so that I may explain the truth behind these attacks thank you. --Edited By a Professor of Life 01:04, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Just as a warning, here's a discussion on AN/I about the above user's previous behavior, including spamming a variety of links on a number of articles. NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 02:05, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm somewhat busy these days and I perhaps lack the time needed for doing this properly... Following from an OTRS complaint, I deleted
King's College Junior School because the histories of these articles contained content that was libellious and/or infringing on the privacy of some people, including minors. What is needed now is selective undeletion. Can somebody patient do it? David.Monniaux
12:12, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
I'll take a look at it now, but can you provide the ticket number so I can understand the background of the complaint? (Feel free to email me; otherwise, I'll take some time and search for it. Thanks!) Flcelloguy (A note?) 15:30, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Never mind; I've found the ticket and will take a look at it now. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 15:51, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
I've gone through the histories of each of the articles and chose to restore only the very early part of the histories. Most of the latter parts was riddled with vandalism, unsourced claims, personal information, and even copyvios. I've also restored the semi-protection that David.Monniaux had placed before, but this should go on admins' watchlists to ensure that no further damage is done, and that it adheres strictly to our policies. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:15, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
talk: Chatham Borough, New Jersey
during edits to an article on Chatham, New Jersey and Chatham Township, New Jersey I encountered an editor who chose to vandalize a chart to make his argument seem true... I have tried discussing it on TALK with this result... what recourse do I have?
This Wikipedia image that lists the communities in Morris County and shows them on a map, directory to Morris County communities was altered just a few minutes ago by you to read as you wish it to... that is vandalism and I will report it if you do not correct it -- your behavior is pathetic and unprofessional.
O rly? I'd call it professional, actually. I find errors and I fix them. The Census bureau does not know of a town by the name of Chatham, NJ. So you're just making something up. Go ahead and report it. —lensovet–talk – 20:27, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
I said, go ahead and report me —lensovet–talk – 20:34, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
now lensovet has deleted the discussion in TALK related to the issues and made multiple reversions to the edits -- do you have an award for this type of behavior? I see that he has started a web page on this topic, isn't it self-serving for him to control what is on Wikipedia so that it agrees with his viewpoint alone?
That is an anti-Wikipedia threat, which confirms your intention to bully and vandalize in order to have your way in an issue regarding which you have demonstrated that you do not have a neutral point of view. You maintain a web page on the topic of a township in which you used to live and it seems that you wish it were the town because it was featured in a magazine as one of the best places to live...
This site contains information, photo albums, and weather/maps about Chatham, New Jersey and the surrounding area.
Having trouble navigating? The quick-start guide to this web site is here to help you.
Are you a business owner in Chatham? Here's your chance to get free advertising! Submit your business for review and it might find its way to our Community page!
Show your support for the site by going to the new Donate page!
[ more about the webmaster ]
I was born in St. Petersburg, Russia on 4/22/87 and came to US at the end of 1996. I lived in Chatham from 1998 until the summer of 2005, during which time this site was born.
I am involved in numerous "computer" projects; I am the former webmaster of the Reeves-Reed Arboretum in Summit. Currently, I am a localizer for two Mac OS X applications, Fire.app and Camino.app, translating their interfaces into Russian, so that they are available to a wider audience. I occasionally do minor editing on Wikipedia, and lately I have been trying to lend the Russian translation team at LiveJournal a hand.
This information, provided to the world by you, has some significant differences from your bio in Wikipedia:
Personal biography
I was born in Leningrad, RSFSR, USSR (present-day St. Petersburg, Russia), where I lived until 1996. At the end of that year, I moved to Brighton Beach, Brooklyn, New York, where I spent roughly a year and a half before moving to Chatham Township, New Jersey. I graduated from CHS in 2005, and embarked on a cross-country road trip with my dad in the summer of that year. Currently, I live in Granada Hills, California when I'm not in college, and I attend the University of California, Berkeley during the academic year.
You also note on your User Page:
My name is Paul, I work on a number of open-source projects. I specialize in web design and localization.
My goals for Wikipedia are to correct errors or unclear phrasing, and to make more articles available/bring existing articles up-to-date into Russian. The Russian-related goals have taken a total back seat at this point, so I'm mostly rewording passages. Every so often I actually write my own material from scratch.
Writing one's own material from scratch is not following the principles of Wikipedia, regarding original material, but it seems to be your style. That is acceptable on your own web page, not as a Wikipedia editor. I have no intention to get into an edit war with what seems to be an immature bully who will rewrite established pages and charts to make them conform to his personal and distorted point of view. One could characterize that as an obsession. Only Wikipedia suffers from such wars.
I have participated with many editors on Wikipedia to work out differences in approach or data to include in many articles, under tolerant and ethical conditions in good faith. My success in those collaborative efforts has made working on those articles rewarding and enjoyable.
You have now altered several longstanding articles because of what seems to me to be a personal issue. They no longer fit the pattern of their peer articles. It could only be detrimental to Wikipedia for me to continue attempting to make edits to improve these articles that you have altered and intend to dominate. Your methods and attitude give me an insight into the tales of frustration seen among other editors who continue to try to work with what seem to be rogues and wind up only with rants as the final product. A couple of efforts to make a contribution are worth spending one's time... there are millions of articles in Wikipedia for one who truly wants to improve it.
I'm disturbed by the level of animosity in what to call the non-Township Chatham. I will say that the Census Bureau is a spectacularly poor source to use to determine the name of the municipality. Far more relevant would be references by the municipality to itself (though a web site will often use a formal name that isn't used venarcularly) and to how the locality is referenced by locals, say in the media. Using the Census Bureau proves absolutely nothing. Alansohn 01:09, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
This guy grabs at whatever (he thinks) will justify his actions... I am glad that others recognize the absurdity of using the census bureau as an authority. The community has been called Chatham, New Jersey for over a century -- he even used it on his web page for the town (for which he is seeking donations!). Thanks for speaking up. I see that you have provided significant contributions to many similar articles. ---- kb 2006.10.16
This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above.
Guy Montag is banned from articles which relate to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Guy Montag's Probation under the terms of Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Yuber#Guy Montag placed on probation is extended to include one year from the final date of this decision. KimvdLinde and other administrators are encouraged to effectively enforce Guy Montag's Probation in appropriate circumstances. Should Guy Montag violate any ban imposed by this decision he may be blocked for an appropriate period. All blocks are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Deir Yassin massacre#Log of blocks and bans.
For the Arbitration Committee. Arbitration Committee Clerk, FloNight 00:56, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Given that the probation only covers articles relating to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, and this decision now bans him from editing the topic anyway, the
probation in this case is moot however 'effectively enforced'. Fys. Tafysaym
. 09:59, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
No harm done from it being in place. And probably wise to have probation detailed in case sometime down the road the ban is lifted in favor of probation. FloNight 10:56, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Comments: My Page for both Kevlarlounge and Short Bus Racers have been removed by this vandal. There was not discussion thread made, the page was just removed. This person continued to edit the page and I would like them to stop without discussion. Thank You
Harold Pinter
According to "Newsweek Magazine," Harold Pinter (listed in "Living Persons" section) died recently.
Huh, I don't see anything in google news. And Nobel Prize winners usually get obituaries in major news sources. Usually. Mak(talk) 04:08, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
This article has become little more than a battle ground for a dispute between a cofounder/first employee of a company and the other (co)founder over the history of the company and which of the two men made what contributions. The son, Christopher Gray, is editing anonymously from dynamic IPs while the cofounder/employee has registered under his own name (User:Geoffrey Wickham/Geoffrey Wickham). The Gray takes the view that his father did everything and that Wickham was just along for the ride. Gray cites a compilation of his father's notes that he (Christopher Gray) put together to verify most of his edits. The two of them have been jockeying around with wildly different versions of events, removing citations, removing sources and citations from the References section, and generally having a slow moving edit war that has lasted for months. They are two of maybe a half dozen people who miight be able to provide some sort of expert opinion on the subject, one because he was there and one because he has all his father's writing and grew up while it was happening. The article was protected to try to start meaningful discussion; it didn't work. I tried an RfC and got nowhere. The talk page/talk page history is filled with legal threats, personal attacks, incivility, and general immaturity. Any suggestions? Any admin in Australia want a project? The company is quite notable and should be included in Wikipedia, but it isn't possible to verify much of it from overseas.—WAvegetarian•(talk) 16:46, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
When I try to remove the remarks he tries to bate me into an edit war, this behavior must stop please help--Caligvla 20:31, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Whatever it is, edits such as this and this are violations of
Tekleni
20:50, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Similarly, slander, libel, and defamation of character are not tolerated on Wikipedia.
WP:NLT article clearly states User:Eupator's behavior is not tolerated, so I am trying my best to comply with each and every rule and reported it, what else can I do?--Caligvla
21:16, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, in my humble opinion, he does make a valid point. You have been exhausting over the past few days. Especially that bit with the repeated uploading of those (of questionable copyright status) photographs even though administrators kept deleting them, and the policy violations (edit warring and 3RR).--
Tekleni
21:19, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Keep in mind I am a new user and have been doing my best to keep up with all the rules as I have been made aware of them, what is Eupator's excuse? I am trying to go about this in the proper way --Caligvla 21:22, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
I've asked Eupator to avoid making personal remarks [46], and he has agreed. [47] -Will Beback 21:23, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
The inflamitory remarks are still on the page, can you please remove them?--Caligvla 21:48, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
He did change them like he promised though.--
Tekleni
21:55, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
He claims I "been vandalizing, spamming various pages with anti-Armenian and racist trash"
This is a personal attack which is completely unfounded.--Caligvla 22:03, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
This edits are old and out of context with no racist intent. I have proceeded with an RfC and will wait for the matter to be settled there. In the meantime I hope the Administrators' will take action on your vicious personal attacks--Caligvla 00:28, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Those edits occurred within the last week, hardly "old", and some clearly have prejudicial intent. A quick look at your edits (as both Caligvla and Calgvla) shows plenty more prejudicial anti-Armenian edits. For instance, your claim that
Blocked for 24 hours. NCursework 05:35, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Speedy backlog
I hate to bring it up, but it's now up to 140 pages and Lord-knows how many images at Category:Candidates for speedy deletion, many of them several hours old. --Calton | Talk 04:46, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm going to work on it for half an hour. Let's see how many I can remove... :) NCursework 05:37, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Abuse of admin powers and dereliction of admin responsibilities
First, my apologies for having to put this bit of a screed here, but unfortunately it seems my only resolve, sans posting this on the admin notice board, which I'm not even sure is the proper route -- or if there even is a proper route for that matter(I will post it there as well). According to what I've read, only other administrators keep a proverbial "eye on each other", so to speak. As it is,
No one is going to read this. Make it about a quarter as long. —Centrx→talk • 05:53, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Such is life. And if other admins care so little about abuse of powers, this place isn't worth saving anyway.Ernham 07:23, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
I read it. Could you please provide diffs? --172.198.40.82 07:30, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I think it is somewhat concise. You couldn't cut it down without losing some of the situation. Why don't you read it instead of criticising Ernham's work, Centrx?
check out this proposal
) 07:39, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
(removed a big chunk of irrelevent comments that were taking up too much space anyway)
Back to the issue. Ernham, blocks here are mainly for preventative purposes, not punitive. They are not meant to be used as "punishment". Also, remember that even admins are volunteers here and have no "duties" - they are not required to block anyone at all, so withholding a block is not abuse of power. So then what we're talking about then is unbalanced treatment. Regarding the reverts, your edit summaries accusing Mark83 of vandalism were really good grounds for a block as well as revert warring, and while he probably did violate 3RR you will find that admins tend to side with those who don't yell and throw personal attacks at others. I would suggest that instead of writing long phrases here you just go to the disputed article and try to reach consensus on the talk page, without any revert wars - they never help anyway.--
Yeesh, make one comment about a squirrel and you're marked for life... Anyway, I explained to the user how to use diffs when making a complaint. He may very well be right about the abuse of power (I'm not saying he is, I don't even know the full story) and this will give him a chance to explain. --172.198.40.82 08:31, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
I think it's extremely unfair to claim it's ok to block someone even if they are in the right (as this Mark person did break 3RR and Ernham didn't) on the basis that they can't keep their temper. How is that in any way in keeping with the spirit of Wikipedia? If what is written above is the full story, Mark should have been blocked and Ernham warned about incivility, then blocked if he persisted. The admins shouldn't be "siding" with anyone: they should be doing what their role requires of them.
Yes, I did wonder if that was the full story or not. That does change the situation. I've checked his contribs edit summaries and he isn't very pleasant to people who think are wrong and/or vandalising. A block for personal attacks is fair. But Ernham was blocked for 24 hours for allegedly breaking 3RR when he didn't actually do so, which he explained on his talkpage (though I guess I am assuming good faith here, so correct me if I'm wrong). Which seems unfair.
check out this proposal
) 09:34, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
did you even bother to read/see what Mark83 did? You know, removing a cite for no reason and then demanding that the work is uncited and needs to have a cite?? i use caps for emphasis, so? Ernham 09:26, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, I can only guess he/she in fact did not bother to read such. If you would have done so, you would have already noticed that I went to the talk page; the would-be vandal did not. It was about as classic a case of simple vandalismas one could produce, so there is no debate over whether or not this was vandalism, warranting the usage of the word. I did not "caps lock a response". I used caps in half of a sentence to emphasize that particular portion of the sentence. Ernham 11:08, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
I have more exhaustive versions of these incidents in my talk page, under the headings of "why I'm not the most friendly editor", along with the diffs from the actual incidents. I'd advise not feeding my unofficial fan club of Mark83, Ramdrake, and whomever.Ernham 11:14, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Ernham has repeatedly called me a vandal for honest edits. After numerous requests to stop personal attacks and withdraw the vandal comments I opened a request for comment
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR and welcome any admin to review it again. I warned Ernham that another revert would be a violation, he reverted and I did not revert after that. Mark83
18:50, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Further to Mark's post to my talkpage, I would like to say that he has acted in an honourable fashion to Ernham's reverts, that he stayed within 3RR, and has been unreasonably attacked by Ernham, who accused him of vandalism for questioning a dodgy correlation on the Schumacher page. Mark appears to be an exemplary Wikipedian.
In the light of this, Ernham's block for 3RR now seems utterly justified, as he was given appropriate warnings. I still do not entirely agree with the block for incivility though.
check out this proposal
) 19:14, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Dev, please take a look again at this diff [54] and please let me know why you feel it isn't totally justified.--Ramdrake 20:16, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Because Ernham doesn't seem to realise how incivil he is being. I have tried to tell him he shouldn't be rude to other editors, but he thinks his incivility is justified. Until a user understands what they are doing is wrong, (i.e., saying that they don't care, or that they will say what they damn well like, or comments in that vein, which indicates that they know what they are saying is incivil but they don't care) there is no point in blocking them for incivility. It aggravates the situation by making them feel put upon. You can't punish someone who doesn't accept the crime.
check out this proposal
) 20:50, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Please stop calling me incivil. That's an overt personal attack. I'm reporting you. And I'm going to go to all my friends talk pages and tell them to do the same! More seriously, you are aware that repairing vandalism does not count as a revert, right? Ernham 02:40, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
You think pointing out that you're being incivil is a personal attack? Where are you going to report me, the
check out this proposal
) 07:18, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Wow, look at how you get when someone turns the whole "personal attack" tables on you. Not so fun, huh? Anyone that cannot see an overt vandalism attempt in those first few edits he made isn't really worth disussing much further with. For whatever reason, you have become highly biased. Ernham 07:55, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Wiki-vandalism is. . .defined as changing a wiki in a way that is intentionally disruptive or destructive. There are four generally acknowledged types of vandalism: deletion of legitimate information . . . revert 1/vandalism attempt1 by Mark83
It is not bias, it is judgement before the facts. Mark has already provided those diffs, and, as both I and Mark has explained to you, you cannot claim that Michael Schumacher is responsible for the other German F1 drivers without providing a cite that ACTUALLY SAYS THAT. Your reference says nothing of the kind.
check out this proposal
) 15:03, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Actually that had nothing to do with his vandalism. He deleted a cite that specifically substantiated parts of the paragraph, with no explanation for doing so. Then he claims that it was uncited and demands a cite the tiny fraction he left. The cite he demands is the very one he deleted. Not only did he cause disuption with his shenangin, but he delete valid information. He doubly vandalized. It's good to see that you are totally confused, though, thus explaining your comments regarding on these mattersErnham 17:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Dev, thanks for the reply, and the reasoning. From this viewpoint indeed, your previous comment indeed makes perfect sense. I guess I'm having difficulties switching referentials. :) --Ramdrake 20:54, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
You're welcome. I will comment on the RFC sometime soon on this issue. I can't right now because I've been editing Wikipedia for 14 hours, my brain is starting to melt, and I can't do it justice. :)
check out this proposal
) 21:39, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
There are many personal attacks and much edit warring in User:Ernham's history, and it is a largely single-purpose account. —Centrx→talk • 17:58, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
I have like 40+ wikis in my watch list. That's a pretty rude and condescending remark, and if i would have made it there would be half a dozen people here stating exactly that. Personal attack! i'm reporting you!Ernham 02:36, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Excuse me while I laugh - it's time to prune my watchlist again, since it's back over 10,000 pages. All your mainspage edits seem to be of a pattern and syle, and many of them seem to be tendentious in nature, hence your history of warnings and blocks. Your edit summaries in particular are aggressive and incivil, with LOTS OF SHOUTING, calls for other editors to be banned from Wikipedia and so on. Your best bet right now is to go quietly about your business and hope you drop off the radar, because right now you have a number of admins watching you and I know I'm not the only one who doesn't like what he sees. Guy 07:46, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
No, no, Guy, are you getting a little rusty here? (OMG personal attack.) Don't you see your "history of warnings and blocks" is a personal attack? (My accusation there is yet another personal attack, I apologize.) This whole thread is a self-referential joke, I like it. (Report me.) Bishonen | talk 08:42, 16 October 2006 (UTC).
Only one of my blocks was legitmate, and I was completely a newbie here, being attacked by a bunch of rabbid Formula one zealots. And my sarcastic use of "personal attack" is a joking demonstration in how equally ridiculous is to say it's a personal attack for me to call someone that vandalizes a website a vandal. That said, I find it interesting the rapist "she deserved it" logic that is rife with the here. Perhaps this is a sockpuppet show? Mabye "the blue line"? The reality is the mod in question has been completely biased in his use of admin powers and, quite frankly, should not have those powers if this is a common theme of his. It's clear by the fact he does not even understand the rules he enforces that he should --obviously-- not be enforcing those rules. Crazy.
You should take your own advice. Anyone that isn't a biased joke of a wikipedian is dying laughing at your nonsensical comments.Ernham 17:35, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
This article was deleted by A_Man_In_Black and I would like a copy of it so I may edit the article to fit Wikipedia standards before re-publishing it into a live environment. I would greatly appreciate this. Thanks. Phuzion 02:19, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
This is not an article but a user page. Why do you want to rewrite this? NCursework 05:36, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Aaron
15:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
The article was originally located at Bemanistyle. An administrator has sent me a copy of the page to my user page, and we are working on re-writing the article to make it Wikipedia compliant. Please close this request. Thanks. Phuzion 21:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
New user vandalizing
WP:AIV because he hasn't edited since the test1.) | Mr. Darcytalk
02:25, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
It's obvious that most are vandalism. It's not obvious to me that all are, perhaps because I have now knowledge whatever about most things he's writing about. My inclination is to ban him (I always think of vandals as male) permanently, but I've been so brainwashed by the mantra of AGF, etc., that I desist. (Anyway, he'd just come up with a new username, making whack-a-mole more laborious.) I've given him a three-hour vacation. Perhaps others better qualified than myself can go through his list of "contributions" during this period and work out what to do with him. -- Hoary 03:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Every single one is vandalism. I've indef blocked pure vandals with considerably fewer edits than his. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:20, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I went through the whole list and ended up reverting everything. The only ones I couldn't verify as vandalism were this one and this one, but once it was clear that all the rest were vandalism (this and its successor this are doozies), I figured it was probably the best idea to revert the rest. Just has me thinking ... I'm not an admin, but for those of you who are, an admin tool that allowed for automatic rollbacks of all of a specific user's edits where there were no subsequent edits might be useful for cleaning up after these one-day vandals. | Mr. Darcytalk 03:25, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Sure would. In cases like these, yeah, just revert 'em all; if the pure vandal happens to have sullied his purity by making a non-vandalistic edit, oh well. He's gone. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:48, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Agree with Jpgordon. In cases like this, after seeing the first vandalism, I usually check two or three others, then if they are all vandalism, just machine-gun them all. No point in picking through a pile of vandalism for the remote possibility of a non-vandalism edit. Antandrus (talk) 03:53, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
It is worth watching out for the possibility that, among that lot, you end up reverting the vandal's reverting of someone else's vandalism! If your edit summary says "reverting vandalism", it is possible no-one will check, and the 'reversion of reversion of vandalism' will go uncorrected. Extremely unlikely, but someone should, fairly soon, erase what I just wrote per
talk ·contribs) is probably a 14-year-old from Somerset, like his user page says he is; he's been making good, routine cleanup-type edits and I'd hate to discourage him; but his user name is that of a member of Motörhead, and is very unlikely to be his real name, and hence is almost certainly a violation of the rules for user names. Maybe encourage him to change it to "Lemmy Kilmister fan" or some such? I'm open to suggestions, and if someone else wants to follow up, feel free, but treat him nicely, please. - Jmabel | Talk
04:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Nobody's going to mistake him for the Motörhead plank-spanker, not least because he can string together a coherent sentence with no Anglo-Saxon in it :-) Guy 07:51, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
I've left a nice request on his talk page all the same :) Ral315 (talk) 07:58, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
A more general welcome template wouldn't go amiss either. Carcharoth 23:20, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
PS. Beware! He is a seventh son of a seventh son! :-) Carcharoth 23:20, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Erm, no, that's Bruce Dickinson. Also you should be aware that the real Lemmy is actually an extremely eloquent fellow and I'm quite certain he can string together a coherent sentence. --kingboyk 23:50, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
I guess I've never seen the reasoning in saying "welcome, here's a boilerplate template" when it's possible to write a personal note. Ral315 (talk) 03:26, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Good point. I never followed the advice on the welcome template I was given! :-) Carcharoth 11:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Kilmister is a fairly common name in Somerset and Cornwall. Scratch a Kilmister anywhere in the world, you'll find a West Country connection. --Jumbo 00:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
He does say that his username is based on the singer, for what it's worth. Ral315 (talk) 03:26, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Attribution
Wikipedia:Attribution is a short and to the point rewrite of both the Verifiability and No Original Research policies in order to replace both with something more usable and readable. Please check it out and help verify that it is in fact short, readable, usable and consistent with current best practice. Thank you for your help. WAS 4.250 19:10, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
It looks pretty good in general, but I do see a few confusing items. "Although everything in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable source, not all material must actually be attributed." looks very confusing to the average person. Is there any other way to reword it? Besides that, I think it looks good, in terms of readability, length. Nishkid64 21:33, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
I repeat my view stated earlier: I think this should replace
WP:V reduced to very short statements of firm policy. I think we should aim to reduce all canonical policies to a single paragraph where possible. Guy
22:37, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
While still keeping the detailed explanations as some people like those... But making the short versions the primary versions, and relegating the detailed explanations to a subpage. Carcharoth 23:17, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Nonetheless, this name matches that of a well-known deceased person, which is against Wikipedia's username policy.
Scobell302
20:50, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Definitely justified block, but like others said, Linus Pauling did 12 years ago. Nishkid64 21:21, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
I thought only the names of alive and recently dead people were disallowed. How far back must someone have died for the name to be acceptable as a username? └
talk
┐ 21:50, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
I'd say at least five hundred years. --Carnildo 22:47, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
To be fair, Caesar is a modern-day name, so that is understandable. Carcharoth 23:11, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Actually Napolean has a few edits too. Personally, I think the goal should be long enough that no one is likely to confuse the user with the notable dead person. Something like 50 years perhaps. Dragons flight 23:14, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, I warned you that I found this mildly interesting. I first thought of using a Wikipedia "list of famous people", but they've all been deleted. I then tried to come up with a few names myself, and stuck "User:" in front of them. The results are at User:Carcharoth#Test. Of the 24 names I could come up with, 11 have never been created, 4 are existing accounts (three inactive, one active User:Shakespeare - with one of the inactive ones being a redirect - User:Saddam Hussein, who stopped editing during the time the real Saddam Hussein was on the run...), 1 account is a suspected sockpuppet (User:George Washington), 3 are banned users (User:Hitler, User:Bonaparte and User:Attila the Hun), and 4 user pages have been deleted as old user pages of banned users (including User:God and User:Jesus). One of these pages has even been deleted twice, with User:Joseph Stalin being recreated around a year after it was deleted the first time (shouldn't there be a way to stop this?). The final one, bringing the total to 24, is User:Idi Amin, which has been cybersquatted by User:Geoffrey, presumably to prevent vandals using this name. Does this all mean anything? Maybe. Carcharoth 00:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
I think it also has to do something with permeating the public mind. In another username incident,
Charlesknight pointed out that there was a real Charles Knight (publisher) who has only been dead for about 130 years. But that publisher certainly isn't as well-known as Linus Pauling. Hbdragon88
01:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
I've sometimes felt that the username policy is enforced too strictly--I see nothing wrong with a tribute. My own username is taken from a real person who was from a town where I used to live.
Chick Bowen
02:10, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
National economy templates
I'm working on standardizing an infobox for national economy articles with
Template:Infobox Economy. So far, it's going well, but I not sure exactly what to do with legacy infoboxes. On most national economy pages that have an infobox, a separate template is used for the box. When I apply my template on an article that already has a table, I usually rewrite that template. But really, the infobox should be on the main article. So the template has to be deleted. I did this for Economy of the United States, working through TfD, but it would be cumbersome to do this for each box individually. Am I allowed to speedily delete these templates myself, skipping TfD and citing that first case as a precedent? [Also, if anyone wanted to help me work on applying the economy infobox to all economy articles, a huge task, that would be great.] LittleDantalk
22:52, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
People Powered block review
I received today a message in my talk page from an IP claiming he was
talk ·contribs), [55] stating that he could not login. The user was blocked by Freakofnurture as a probable Karmafist sockpuppet, but the block summary is as per IRC discussion[56] I thought blocks had to be discussed in Wikipedia where users could defend themselves. I am assuming good faith both in People Powered and in Freakofnurture behaviour, but I don't think the block is legal as only those who were at IRC know why People Powered was blocked. Could someone explain why he was blocked, which proofs were used, and who agreed to block him, so that I can point the IP to this discussion? Thanks. -- ReyBrujo
16:53, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Mackensen might be a good one to ask (about People Powered, not about IRC).
Thatcher131
22:40, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
If he's been blocked on checkuser evidence than the proof can't be revealed per Foundation policy. Given that it's a sockpuppet block that seems the most likely explanation. I didn't consult in the initial block, but I think the possibility occurred to me previously, and I'm taking a look now. Mackensen(talk) 22:46, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
There was a Checkuser related to this that took place a while ago that was never acted upon because he was not being especially disruptive. I am having trouble finding it again. —Centrx→talk • 05:33, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
I can't find it. It may not have been a Checkuser, but Mackensen was there and I don't think it was a dream. —Centrx→talk • 05:54, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't think there was ever a formal checkuser request filed through the RFCU page. If you look at Karmafist and Mackensen's talk pages from around August 17, you will see that around the time Karmafist was asking to come back, Mackensen pointed out that he has used several socks to participate in an RFA, and asked him to withdraw those comments as a show of good faith. Karmafist claimed innocence. Shortly after that the People Powered account was created. Interestingly, NoSeptember twigged to the possibility last month during my RFA, which I had forgotten about. Karmafist's last edits are right on the boundary of technical checking, but one of the checkusers may have records going back to August. I think there are enough possibilities here to at least wait for a fuller explanation from Freak or someone else with the correct information.
Thatcher131
07:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
As far as I know, Karmafist uses AOL for editing Wikipedia. A Checkuser will not be 100% conclusive. I hope we would not be discrimating against those who are from New Hampshire. — Nearly Headless Nick{L} 15:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I'm a MedCab mediator and recently we have received a case, which is probably more suited for admin intervention...
Duke53 has posted a message on his own user page that implies Dubc0724 is a racist because a website used as a citation for the University of New Jersey at Durham article turned out to be sourced from a hate group. Once the error was realised, Dubc0724 replaced this citation with a more appropriately sourced alternative. The article in question, University of New Jersey at Durham, has subsequently been deleted and is now merely a redirect.
Essentially the
Addhoc
14:10, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Hm. That is a pretty glaring error on Dubc's part, but it in no way (especially since he apologized) means that Duke53 can attack him on his userpage. I'll drop Duke a line and see what he says. ♠
This user likes to hold and keep long grudges. A previous war is also on his user page - he uploaded the same image four times before I warned him not to do it again (because WP is not a battleground). He insists on punishment and doesn't like to forgive, possibly violating the
I presume you're talking about Duke, Hbdragon? In any case, I did drop him a line, and he's rather disinterested in compliance. I'll ask him again, and see where it goes from there. ♠
I'm very concerned about this user, as he created an article claiming that an organization with a name identical to the username is involved in bioterrorism. Additionally, he has edited multiple terrorism-related articles. What should be done about this? It seems like it could be serious. N Shar 05:26, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
According to the user talk page and the block log it appears he's already been indefblocked for vandalism (hoax edits, specifically). In the interests of fairness, there appears to be no ghits for "Binyounus" at all, either. 207.145.133.34 17:40, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
I have just done a search on "Spanish". The page returned simply has the text "Spanish sucks" and nothing else. I assume the page is vandalised or misdirected.Trojan0852 23:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
now appears fixed already Trojan0852 23:44, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
They aren't orphaned - I think they are all in the log for the 9th. A few more people closing wouldn't go amiss though, there are 40-odd open ones in each of the logs for the 10th and 11th as well. Yomanganitalk 00:02, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Administrators obfuscation of username in signatures
I've noticed a couple administrators using nick names in their signatures that completely obfuscate their real username. I would think that this would generally be a bad idea; it affects perception of the administrator's accountability. Use of nick names makes it difficult for another user to verify admin status at the administrators list. Logs don't list usernames, so it makes it difficult to see if the person you were talking to actually performed the block/deletion/etc. And finally, use of nick names is discouraged at
Logs do list usernames, not signatures or nicknames. As long as the signature links to the user page or talk page, I personally don't find it very hard to find out that "Cyde Weys" is in fact
Doc glasgow. Is there any particular signature that you have problems with? Kusma(討論)
Just like to point out that Journalist is a he not a she. KOS | talk 14:21, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
WP:CHU to this name for Journalist would probably be refused anyway. Resolving possble problems this way probably causes less confusion than anything else. As for Nearly Headless Nick - sure, slight vanity, but many people will get it. (although his username should be "Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington" and his nickname "Nearly Headless Nick" to conform to Harry Potter). No big deal, let people have their little harmless vanity as long as they link to their userpage or talk page. Kusma(討論)
12:52, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
To expand on this, many things we have (most of fancy formatting on userpages) are not directly about building the encyclopedia. They are about feeling good while building the encyclopedia. Happy contributors build a better encyclopedia, so as long as their vanities are not disruptive (like a sig with a link to a different user would be) I see no reason to annoy good users about this. Kusma(討論) 12:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Your objections are a tad odd. While userspace can get a bit myspacey, sigs certainly do not tip that boundary. Conflicts with nick names and other users taking them are rare, all actions are tracebale through the username, and figuring out who is who is as easy as scrolling over a link. As one of the few admins to use and sign with their whole, real name, I still see no problem with nick names (no matter how utterly stupid, which is a lot sadly), sig nicks (ditto), and do not believe it is an issue. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 12:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
I can tell you from experience that it is confusing when users have a signature that does not correspond to their username. And I know I'm not the only one that feels this way. It is especially confusing to new users. For admins to be doing it causes additional problems. Deli nk 13:58, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree. Sigs should reflect the user name. It approves accountability and is especially important with admins. -- Funky Monkey (talk) 14:17, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't really have a problem with anyone using a nick that differs from their log-in name, as long as the signature links to the correct user page/user talk page. Now I may be missing something, but at
WP:SIG Customizing your signature it says "Signatures that obscure your account name to the casual reader may be seen as disruptive" can you show a legitimate example of where Journalist, or anyone's signature has caused disruption? Also, I agree with Jeffery O. Gustafson's comment above: "figuring out who is who is as easy as scrolling over a link." KOS | talk
Yes, that doesn't do any good sorry. Can you show where this has caused disruption? Can you provide a link that shows that *whomever's* signature, caused a ruckus? Seems to me that someone shouldn't have to change their sig just because one or two people got confused. The policy states that disruptive signatures are discouraged. A handful of people being confused is hardly disruption. Really it's not hard to figure out who is who. KOS | talk 14:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
From above: Logs don't list usernames, so it makes it difficult to see if the person you were talking to actually performed the block/deletion/etc. If you wanted to talk to someone who blocked/deleted/etc, and you were looking at the logs, wouldn't you click on the username to get to their userpage? Seems pretty easy to verify that's the person who blocked or deleted. --Kbdank71 14:50, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Here's a more demonstrative example: An admin with a sig in their nick participates in an AfD debate. The debate closes as delete when the result is ambiguous. Same admin closes the debate as delete and deletes the article. The logs won't be representative of the conflict of interest because of the obfuscated sig. There is a potential for abuse here that can be prevented by requiring admins to use their real username in sigs. A precedent is with e-mail; regular editors aren't required to register e-mail addresses; this was and established part of wiki-culture. Prospective admins are now required to do so as part of the RfA process for accountability reasons. —
When closing AfDs admins sign after recording the result at the top, so you can check if their signature appears at the top and in the body of the AfD. So there would only be a problem at first glance if the admin changed their signature between participating and closing. And even then, simply hovering over the link will disclose their username. Alternatively, you can compare the
talk
) 15:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
It's frowned upon for an admin to close out an AfD that s/he has voted on, or nominated in the first place, that scenario seems rather unlikely. KOS | talk 15:14, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
User:Morven (an arbitrator, no less!) uses "Matthew Brown" for his signature.
This is an established part of Wikipedia culture, it's pretty unlikely to change. As Jeffrey O. Gustafson points out, just hover your mouse over their signature, and you can see the underlying username in the link's URL. --
I have less of a problem with people using their real names in signatures than using a sig that has nothing to do with the real username. What does Orane have to do with Journalist? Would someone who isn't a Harry Potterphile know who Nearly Headless Nick was? —
A couple of other places where this behavior would be disruptive: requests for comment and requests for arbitration. Users listed here are listed by real username not the nick name. It would be extremely difficult for the casual reader to determine if comments on an RfC or RfArb were from the subject if they obfuscate their username. —
This sounds like it might be a FAQ question. Can somebody just write a blurb about this somewhere that we can link to whenever the question pops up? (yes, "FAQ question" is redundant) --
Interiot
16:28, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
You are just trying your best, arent you Malber? As the others repeated, just hover your cursor over the signature, and the name comes up. If a new user sees my username, he/she is more inclined to click on it (which would take him/her to my userpage Journalist). In the first sentence, it mentions that I'm Orane. No big deal. In AFDs or whatever, look in the history to find if the Admin who closed the debate voted in it. It's as simple as this. I've had this sig for a year now, and many time I've participated in discussion signing with Orane, and have people reply to me by saying "Journalist...". There is no confusion. I'm not gonna change my sig because of your epiphany about nicknames. And as you can see here, very few people have any problem with it. Only you and Funk Monkey, who had never liked me, do. Orane (talk • cont.) 16:59, 13 October 2006 (UTC) Just so there's no confusion, the preceeding sig links to User:Journalist! Wouldn't want you guys to get lost now.
Why do you think I don't like you? I don't know you. Once again you are reminded to
PS:What "extreme difficulty" is there in RFCs. You know what. Stop exaggerating and stop patronizing people. Wikipedians are not idiots. A nickname will not render them helpless. Orane (talk • cont.) 17:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Is this an actual problem, IE have you really been unable to figure out who someone is, or is this whole thing a big "what if" scenario? I understand the indef block of the user that was pointed out early on, but nobody actually came out and said that blocked user was confused. Can I suggest that until someone steps forward with an issue (not simply "this could be a problem"), that we all move on with the encyclopedia? --Kbdank71 18:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
I think using a sig different from your username is completely unacceptable. It means you actually have to hover over the link to find out the username. Guy 20:47, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Who are you, are you an admin? —My Name Is Earl 20:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
I think a major problem is that everyone here is an experienced Wikipedia user, so a very one-sided perspective is being produced. A new user will not immediately consider the possibility that one's signature may not correspond to one's username. For example, even though I've been around for awhile, I've seen Nearly Headless Nick on talk pages, and Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington in history pages, but never realized that they were the same person. If the need had ever arisen, I'm sure I could have figured they're the same person, but the point is that to the inexperienced Wikipedian, one user naturally appears to be two.Deli nk 21:05, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm going to put my main comments in the thread on the Village Pump, but I can confirm that this sort of practice can cause confusion. Not for long, if you are prepared to investigate a bit, or if you are alert, but I have been confused by this sort of thing in the past (it is a particular problem if, like me, you read very old discussions). Sometimes I have seen people morph their signatures in the same thread, and have had to do a double-take to make sure I knew who was saying what (the above example of this, although obvious, was a good example). Carcharoth 00:38, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
PS. I hope everyone here did spot the morphing above! :-) Carcharoth 00:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
I do like it when people on Wikipedia find a solution in need of a problem. The 'pedia does have a number of problems - nothing fatal, nothing insurmountable - that might attract someone looking to provide a solution. But, instead, we always collectively find something that doesn't cause problems and worry about it forever.
If people are finding anyone signing under a name that does not link to their user/user talk page, then there's a problem... with the individual who is mis-signing. However, if people are signing as Jim but are actually Paul, it doesn't matter, so long as Jim's user details are accessible by clicking Paul's sig.
Put it this way: the "misunderstood new users" we have "mistaken" for vandals (always their discription of themselves) will, invariably, find our correct user names even when we don't sign the {{
test
}} post. They will also find our email link. They will find someone to complain at. So they don't have a problem. So who does that leave suffering from the hell that is Jim signing as Paul? Er... nobody.
Of course, there will always be people who try to overplay the mark-up and write to others by writing to Wikipedia talk:Jim or Talk:Jim when they are aiming for Jim's talk page.
We'd all like to help that tiny minority, but we can't. There's no cure to being half smart, although I praise the people who try for making a good effort.
I note that this, as ever, is not a talk thread aimed at the million or so editors here, just the 1,000 elected administrators. The automatic, embittered assumption that anyone who has been elected an administrator by their peers is a crook continues.
We have the odd poor administrator. We also have 900 other human beings with sysop buttons, with all the terrible flaws that come from... being human. We can't allow for that, any more than we can allow for people getting embittered and writing timewasting threads, or getting community-minded and seeking to help us all out of a major issue. Or something in-between.
But we can say: Nothing to see here. Please disperse.
ЯEDVERS
22:54, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Congratulations. You have ignored half the arguments raised in this thread, repeated arguments already raised by others, and added a small amount of original hyperbole. You've also managed to take affront on behalf of 1000+ people by failing to assume good faith. Really, you should have taken your own advice and moved on. Nothing to see here? Several people have mentioned that confusion is possible. The 'problem' may be overblown, but you don't need to shout it down. You could have politely thanked Malber for raising this issue, and then, equally politely, have presented your reasoning, and then let the discussion reach its natural conclusion. Carcharoth 23:08, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Seeing all these "it doesn't really happen" implications, I should probably mention that I have personally become confused over "Cyde"/"Cyde Weys" before. It was a while ago, but I think I was looking up various admins' actions on some page.... I don't see any positive benefit for people obfuscating their user name (except if they're de-obfuscate their real identity, of course), but... *shrug*. (And even in the case of using one's real name, they might list their username also, in the style of the ArbCom's listing of arbitrators.) —AySz88\^-^ 23:07, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm... I've used 'CBD' because it is more concise than 'CBDunkerson' (or 'Conrad Bertrand Dunkerson') and my only concern has been that someone might sign up with the actual username 'CBD' and I would need to switch to avoid confusion (which is also why I don't use 'Conrad'). However, I can see where if someone wanted to send me a comment and just remembered seeing 'CBD' they could be confused when typing in 'User talk:CBD' doesn't work. Redirecting 'aliases' to actual usernames could prevent any such dangers, but would then reduce the pool of available usernames. --CBD 17:45, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Would you believe that I was thinking of using your sig-name change as an example, Conrad?! :-) The Red Maw Dang! Now I can't claim I've never morphed.
I think all those assclowns who are obfuscating their usernames using stupid nicks should be blocked indefinately. Bloody shenanigans. — Nearly Headless Nick{L} 08:34, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
[User:Mahawiki] has been making uncontrolled and unabated incivil personal attacks on myself, [User:Dineshkannambadi] and Kannada editors in general. Below is a list of his incivil behaviour
I had made a complaint about the above instances to more than a dozen admins. My complaint to Admin Blnguyen can be seen HERE.
Unfortunately none of the more than dozen admins I had complained to took any action. Admin Blnguyen himself, I believe was on a Wikibreak. However, for whatever reasons, none of the admins ventured to mediate or even so much as serve Mahawiki with a stern warning.
Not surprisingly, Mahawiki's incivility hasn't stopped or abated one bit even since then. Below are the list of further instances of incivility by him.
THIS and THIS on Jimbo Wales' talk page is nothing short of misrepresenting others' stands and trying to mislead people. This IS slander and a PERSONAL ATTACK.
Please note: Most of his incivility falls under one of the following categories.
a) Calls me or Dineshkannambadi a snob, troll, Kannada bin laden, jehadi, terrorist, vandal etc.,.
b) Almost every second edit summary of his accuses us of vandalism. This is something that Blnguyen himself had cautioned him against more than a month ago when he had blocked him. And yet, he continues to do it.
c) Arbitrarily trashes all respectable sources cited by us as 'fanatics', 'fiction writers', 'rubbish', 'biased' etc.,. He has rubbished sources like Deccan Herald, The Hindu, Dr. Suryakanth Kamath (a highly respected historian of national(India) and international repute), Dr. Jyotsna Kamat(another historian of wide repute) - both are decorated historians with awards from the Govt of India.
d) Goes around accusing all Kannada editors, especially myself and Dineshkannambadi of 'vandalising' articles, 'kannadising' articles and pushing POV. He carries out this accusation on random users' talk pages but never once does he engage in any meaningful discussion on the talk pages of the articles in spite of being asked/told more than once to take his concerns to the respective article's talk page.
This is just a sample of his incivility and I am sure you can find more if you keep digging. For almost the past one month, I have tried my best not to engage him in any conversation, but he keeps trailing me and lands up wherever I go.
For the last couple of days both he and his pal User:Arya_Rajya_Maharashtra had been serving me with frivolous warnings. They accused me of 'abusing popups'. Curiously, in their warnings, they did not even bother to point out where the purported 'violations' had taken place!! Frivolous as they were, I started archiving them and removing them from my talk page. They misrepresented this and Arya even filed a 3RR against me!! Do I need to remind anybody that 3RR doesn't apply to reverts done on your own talk page?!
However, I am extremely disappointed and peeved at Admin Blnguyen's hasty block of me.
Whats worse, not a single admin has bothered to show up on my talk page even after I appealed to be unblocked!!
This is a travesty of every rule of civility on WP and I demand an explanation AND and intervention from the admins. I also demand that strong action be taken on User:Mahawiki.
And please dont ask me to go for
WP:DR is something I would use in a content dispute and a content dispute is not something I have with him at the moment. The evidence I've provided here should be enough for any admin to haul him up on grounds of blatant incivility. No content dispute can or should ever be used as an excuse for incivility. And I hope the admins dont give him any such loopholes to keep beating around the bush. Sarvagnya
20:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
I take exception to the harsh tone and veiled threat that Admin Redvers has used in the edit summary while removing the block. I would rather he/she explains not even turning up yesterday on my talk page when I was `crying out so loud` to be unblocked or none of the dozen-plus admins pulling up Mahawiki when I had appealed to them almost a month ago. If Mahawiki had been hauled up then, all this wouldn't have happened in the first place.
I'm sorry the whole situation has upset you so much. May I suggest requesting an advocate? Also, private mediation probably could help if you wanted to work something out with Mahawiki, even in a non-content dispute, but not if you just want it all to end. Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 21:16, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
We've already been past an official advocate(User:Amerique) and many unofficial mediators. The last time we had an advocate(User Amerique) it didnt change anything. Mahawiki was his usual uncivil self. So much so, the advocate who had entered the mediations at Mahawiki's behest, abruptly left the proceedings. Admin Blnguyen has blocked him once already for blatant incivilty. That was probably about 2 months ago. After the block was over, he was back to his incivil ways as can be seen in the appeal I made about one month ago to the 'dozen-plus admins'. And like I said none of the dozen plus admins I appealed to took any action on him - some were on Wikibreaks, some were busy, some didnt know enough about the background etc.,. It was only Admin Utcursch (User:Utcursch) who stepped in and to give credit to him, he did solve a couple of content disputes. But even he didnt pull Mahawiki up for his incivility. And Mahawiki continued his incivil ways even when Utcursch was part of the proceedings. The diffs 58-74 I've listed above are from this period, ie., after Admin Utcursch stepped in.
And like I said, I dont see any point in pursuing DR unless incivility ends. And I think I've placed enough before the admins here for them to haul him up. Sarvagnya 21:52, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, private mediation could be set up such that you two could avoid talking to each other directly, at least in the beginning. This would allow the mediator to filter out the potentially offensive material. (By "potentially offensive", I don't mean to make a judgement over whether certain material is "uncivil" or not, merely whether or not it is likely to be upsetting to the receiver.) If both you would consider that worth trying, mediation could still be a useful option. Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 22:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
As you can see in front of your very own eyes, his incivil ways continue unabated! He calls our edits 'fanatical' and what not. He says Dineshkannambadi is taking WP for a ride!! Dinesh is an outstanding editor of impeccable record and has almost single handedly written so many articles, some of which are on their way to FA status even as we speak. Will an administrator please ask Mahawiki to explain his accusations in no uncertain terms. Simply throwing accusations left, right and center without a shred of evidence to back it up is a classic case of personal attack and slander!! This has to end NOW!
This is not the first time he is making accusations like this. He has made this accusations several times in the past and his targets have been articles like
Kaveri_river etc.,. Please go and check the history of edits on the talk page of these articles. On some of these articles, he doesnt even have a single edit to his name on the talk page!! And yet, he is crying hoarse of Dinesh taking people for a ride!! What cheek! I have already given a detailed description of his antics in my complaint made one month ago
!! I cant believe I am still having to repeat this same thing over and over and over again!
Now he accuses me of being anti-
Sare_Jahan_Se_Achcha. That doesnt make me anti-Hindi!! And I have discussed this at excruciating length on the respective talk pages. It is there for everyone to see. The admins can also check with respectable editors like User:SameerKhan and User:Ragib
who were party to those discussions from start to finish. This again is an example of Mahawiki trying to mislead people by misrepresenting his opponents' stands. I have every right to consider this a personal attack!
What really does it take for admins to clamp down on this sort of brazen incivility?
I request all admins to PLEASE READ THIS IN ITS ENTIRETY TO UNDERSTAND THE BACKGROUND OF THIS DISPUTE.Sarvagnya 23:26, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
If that's what you want, I can't help you. I'm not an administrator. Nor am I trying to invalidate your feelings - I'm sure you have every right to be upset. (Nor do I mean to speak ill of Mahawiki, I'm sure (s)he was upset too.) However, I will certainly read anything you like. Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 00:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Any admins here?? Any admins at all?Sarvagnya 05:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Yer. You're not entirely helping this situation with your impatience, but I have issued (yes, another) warning to the other user for his part. Edit warring and arguing really doesn't help anything. Mediation, RfCs, eventually Arbitration... you might want to look at going down these avenues. Your diffs and explanation are lacking in context which makes the argument somewhat hard to grasp and may be why few have responded so far (as well as activity slowing somewhat at this time of day/night), and I'm pretty tired at the moment so I can't help so much myself. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 05:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Reply to Mahawiki's 'explanation'
What is Mahawiki trying to prove below by quoting from random content disputes on multiple articles? A prolific contributor like Dinesh is bound to run into content issues on the many articles he edits. Why is that of concern to Mahawiki?
What business does he have quoting out of context a content dispute Dinesh had with Parthi 6 months ago?(Mahawiki probably wasnt even on Wikipedia then). And infact, its curious that Mahawiki is complaining when Parthi or the other editors whom Dinesh has supposedly harassed havent complained. Parthi infact, is working with Dinesh, to get Dinesh's
Chalukya article to FA. They're doing this as we speak! And in any case, why is Mahawiki bothered about Dinesh's dealings with X, Y or Z. Let him just explain his own incivility vis a vis User:Sarvagnya and User:Dineshkannambadi
.
If he has the guts let him either explain his brazen incivility or atleast let him make a list of the instances where I have been incivil.
Please note once again, all the instances I've listed above are instances of incivility and many a time uncouth behaviour by Mahawiki. No content issue can ever be used as a fig leaf to cover up such shameful behaviour.
And needless to say, most if not all the content disputes he has selectively quoted from tonnes and tonnes of discussion, is bogus.
Once again, I ask the admins to ask him to explain his incivility and not divert attention to sundry content disputes to cover up his incivility.
Also note: I am not interested in digging into the Belgaum issue again and again. That was one place where all parties involved were incivil and all of them have been pulled up for that by the admins. And among 'all of them', it should perhaps be pointed out that it was Mahawiki alone who was handed a block for being extraordinarily uncivil.
The instances of incivility I have listed above DO NOT include anything from the Belgaum dispute. All the instances I have cited are from after admin Blnguyen blocked Mahawiki the first time(that was probably close to 2 months ago).
Sub-pages in "main" namespace
At the risk of
WP:SP says it is disabled, yet see this log or this history. Where should I ask to get the attention of an admin with those powers? --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk
) 09:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
These are not subpages, just ordinary pages that have a slash in the title. That subpages are disabled in the main namespace means that the slash is not a special character in mainspace article titles. Kusma(討論) 09:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! That explains the missing breadcrumbs. I will copy your answer to Wikipedia talk:Subpages. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 09:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Unilateral removal of merge tags
User:Pjacobi has now repeatedly removed a merge tag from two article, whose official merging I proposed (since they anyway were identical in content).
His reason for this "because the article in question has nothing to do with the topic of this article" [116] might very well be the outcome of a discussion but not something he can dictate after only two days. As a side-note, Pjacobi also tried to have one of the articles deleted [117].
In my book, his unilateral removal of the tag constitutes vandalism and he might be trying to prove a
WP:POINT
after his AfD failed.
Please, could some admin intervene and admonish him. Thanks. Str1977(smile back) 14:07, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't see what vandalism or WP:POINT has anything to do with it. It would probably be useful to ask for a
third opinion on a conflict like this. It's probably best to leave a merge tag in place for about a week while people are discussing it. >Radiant<
14:39, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Deletion of class pages
I have deleted several user subpages under
Naconkantari
04:22, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
I have restored the page for now. I politely ask that you discuss first and not unilaterally delete. That page has been online for nearly three years, and was never an issue for the community during this time. In fact, it was useful to have in order to keep track of students' work so that folks could identify otherwise random patterns of edits/newbies. It as the project that inspired the creation of Wikipedia:School_and_university_projects, so I would appreciate you leaving it intact. Thanks. -- Fuzheado | Talk 04:58, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
From the page you linked: "The focus of user pages should not be social networking, but rather providing a foundation for effective collaboration." Which seems to be met here. It's not a host of random information, but things related to editing and improving articles, which is a good thing. - Bobet 10:36, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
WP:MFD seems the best place to discuss this. >Radiant<
10:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
I think some of the issues are relevant to this forum. The pages seem perfectly fine (there is nothing in
Naconkanturi carrying out these deletions (which is after all why Naconkanturi put the action up for review), and whether anyone is going to properly undo all the deletions? I apologise if I am going too far here, but everytime I see a set of deletions like this, I feel that someone should check the other deletions by that admin to make sure similar mistakes haven't been made. Carcharoth
21:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Unfair block
Note that I cannot put this on either of the admin's involved pages; Cowman is on Wikibreak, CSCWEM has his talk page protected.
I was recently conducting a test using a school ip. The point of this test was to discover whether or not people actually use diffs when looking in RC, or if they choose to revert simply because of edit summaries and the passing IP address. The edits from September 5th and up are mine (excluding Oct 9, 17, and 23 edits, all of which were made after this). Using edit summaries most would consider truly awful, I went around and actually edited constructively. For the most part, response was good. I did not receive a single revert or warning. Had I, I would have explained the situation and gladly stopped. I really like Wikipedia, I'm just far too curious for my own good.
I noticed someone had mistakenly left a comment intended for the talk page of an article in the article itself. So I took it out. Gurch promptly reverted me. This I can understand, as even with the diff it probably looked like blanking. That was my fault, really.
But I digress: Curiosity, being both my gift and curse, made me continue. I reverted his revert, this time with an even worse edit summary.
Cowman
blocked me. This, to me, was far too harsh. Not only had the IP I was using not received any warning for over a year, but he himself did not warn me. No one did.
I requested an unblock. CSCWEM, whom was seemingly patrolling the users requesting unblock page, denied my request, one minute later! There is no way anyone on this planet could have reviwed the IPs recent contribs and given it thought in that amount of time. And then, before I could say another word, he protected my talk page with the reason being for the time being. [118]
Now, I respect both Cowman and CSCWEM and admire their work, but I'd like to know: was their conduct correct, or, under the circumstances, was it alright for them to blanket block me and protect the talk page? --172.195.120.236 04:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Don't try to disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point. Edit summaries are not toys that you can "play around" with and see what happens. I'd fully support the block based on your violation of
Naconkantari
04:15, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
I know, I know, it was reallyreally stupid and I fully understand the consequnces. I'm just wondering if policy says that it's alright to block someone without warnings and for using edit summaries. --172.195.120.236 04:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
And it was never really intended to be an experiment, it just kind of evolved into one. The first few were just because I felt like acting like a moron. Stupid, yes. --172.195.120.236 04:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Act like a "moron" and you'll be blocked. It shouldn't matter whether you received a warning or not.
Naconkantari
04:24, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Policy does not contain an exhaustive list of the reasons that you can be blocked without warning. Reading it should give you a good idea of the kind of behaviour that can get you blocked in the future though. Behaving like a moron is definitely one of them. -- Derek Ross | Talk 04:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Your edit summaries were obviously disruptive, and certainly merited a block. I really don't see why you insist on pressing the point. You obviously did something unacceptable. Alphachimp 05:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
You should count yourself lucky. Someone atleast condescended to answer you {{unblock me}} call. I sat with an "unblock me" plastered on my page for 12 hours and not one single admin even strolled by to say... "hey I'm denying your request". Makes me wonder what the "unblock me" drama is all about. And even now, as you can see above, I've brought my grouse here and for almost the last 10 hours not a single admin has even bothered to answer even if only for courtesy!! Sarvagnya 05:27, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
I really amused as why I am blocked?I was resisting Sarvagnya's removal of warnings and non-obscene messages and of course misuse of pop-ups.I didnt even break 3RR rule.I hope wikipedia gives justice to me!!Mahawiki 08:08, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm going to post this same message on both of your talk pages, but let it be known here too:
Stop. Stop the bickering between you. Stop arguing on each other's talk pages. Stop arguing on other talk pages. Stop arguing in public. Just stop. The point-scoring and general nonsense that would shame two 11-year-old schoolboys is just tiresome. You can seek mediation or just avoid each other. But you're going to have to stop the bickering as someone, somewhere, is going to assume that the pair of you are trolling Wikipedia and thus will make you stop bickering in the most permanent way: without discrimination, someone will block both of you. So give it up. Now. Stop. We're done. Thanks.
ЯEDVERS
20:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Sounds like they are on a very steep learning curve. Here's hoping they will learn something from this, and be more productive next time round. Carcharoth 21:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi! I have responded only after admin demanded for explaination.Thanks. Mahawiki 06:10, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete request
Could an admin please delete my user subpage
CAT:CSD, so I'm putting the speedy request here. --ais523 15:24, 18 October 2006 (UTC
Is there absolutely no way to tag a js page for speedy deletion? There must be a better way than coming to WP:AN. enochlau (talk) 15:44, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Putting {{
db-test}} on a js page worked for me. I suspect it's because you had // comments in front of the db tag? enochlau (talk
) 15:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
It didn't work without the // either; I added the slashes when the page started messing up my scripts. I've noticed that sometimes .js pages render plain-text (without cats or anything like that) and sometimes they render in wikimarkup; I'm not sure what causes it to work or not. (It didn't work for me just now).
By the way, the test worked and I'm about recreate the page (I'm mentioning this to make sure it doesn't get redeleted). --ais523 15:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above.
Based on his representations to the Arbitration Committee, Ackoz(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) is unblocked. Ackoz is placed on probation for one year. Should he edit in a provocative manner he may be blocked for an appropriate period of time, up to a month in the case of serious offenses. Should Ackoz edit while blocked all accounts may be blocked indefinitely. Should Ackoz revert to his previous pattern of sustained trolling a community ban may be imposed. All blocks and bans to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Ackoz#Log_of_blocks_and_bans, with the reason given.
For the Arbitration Committee. Arbitration Committee Clerk, FloNight 23:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
I suggest an admin either close this because of the many Keep All comments or take control of this page so no further dialogue between myself and User:A Link to the Past occurs because quite frankly, I'm about pissed off and his recent personal attacks against me there aren't helping anything. — Moe 00:50, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Jesus. Large-scale AFDs like that never work: this is like the World of Warcraft characters AFD. Anyway, I hate so many individual as well, but I would have proposed a merge to a "List of Danny Phantom characters" article or something. AFD tends to bring out the deletionists and the keepists out in droves, especially for a large one like this that would surely set a strong precedent if passed. Hbdragon88 04:00, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Closed as keep, but I'll merge the minors together editorially in a day or two once the furor quiets down. Ral315 (talk) 08:01, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
WP:3RR violation. Continuously reinserting poorly sourced negative information into the biography of a living person is a blockable offence. This user has a history of blocks for 3RR, disruption, and edit warring, and has been blocked in the past regarding edits to the Jimmy Wales article. I believe another month an indefinite block is in order. - Crockspot
03:56, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Also just noticed that the user has blanked their user talk page (see diff), removing warnings. - Crockspot 04:08, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Users Crockspot and Satori Son make a laughable BLP claim to keep the Controversy section out of the Jimmy Wales article, despite it being perfectly well sourced, and no rewrite whatsoever being needed. Majority opinion on the talk page (Dragons flight, Ken Arromdee, and me) is against their claims, but they're nevertheless edit warring to remove the section. This basically amounts to vandalism, and a warning block might be in order. Margana 04:13, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
I would point out that I am acting in the capacity of a volunteer to the
WP:BLP is a policy that overrides "majority opinion". It is the responsibility of every editor to immediately remove poorly sourced negative information from biographies of living persons. It is the responsibility of the editor who wishes to include such information to be sure that it is solidly sourced. I have repeatedly explained the self-sourcing problems to Margana, yet this user refuses to even attempt to properly source the statements, opting for edit warring instead. - Crockspot
04:22, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
So you're saying if you think something is a BLP case it doesn't matter how many people tell you it isn't? Obviously we can't let just anyone go around and delete entire sections of articles simply by saying "BLP", so this is as much a consensus decision as anything else. You are no more authorized than anyone else in deciding whether BLP applies anywhere, so you should very well defer to others' opinion and refrain from reverting unless there is broad agreement with your action. I am sure it is solidly sourced, and I have explained it to you. You are wilfully trying to misinterpret a policy contrary to the policy's explicitly stated purpose. Clearly you do have an axe to grind, and it's not hard to see which, given that you describe yourself on your user page as a "wingnut", and I suppose Objectivists are the ultimate "wingnuts"... Margana 04:47, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Personal attacks will not help your case. My block log is clean, and yours is filled with blocks for the same types of violations that I am reporting here. I revise my previous call for a one month block to an indefinite block. - Crockspot 05:11, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
It's now a personal attack to quote your own self-description from your user page? Okay... Well, my block log can't be filled with "the same types of violations that [you are] reporting here" because you haven't reported any violation here unless disagreeing with your minority opinion is a violation of anything. But I guess you can use my block log to find those rogue admins who might apply another abusive block for you, just don't try PMA, his blocks were reverted twice already. Margana 05:34, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, note how Hesperian (the user formerly known as Snottygobble) abused his adminship by both protecting an article he was edit-warring on and blocking his opponent in the edit war. Margana 05:34, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Wow, you're up to attacking TWO editors and accusing both of bad faith. I'll leave you to dig your own grave further. I'm done arguing with you. - Crockspot 05:43, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Heh, you're speaking from the bottom of the grave. You have no arguments to begin with, you're trying to blatantly twist policy to whitewash an article subject, you complain about fictitious "personal attacks", and now you even call the mentioning of plain facts as "attacking" and "accusing of bad faith"... On the other hand, speaking of bad faith, you felt it necessary to point out my having cleaned out an 80K talk page, as if there was some requirement to keep indefinitely any months-old warning. I suppose that's not assuming bad faith... And if you're "done arguing with me" (i.e. you declare the bankruptcy of your case) I hope you're also done edit warring with me and stop removing that section again. Margana 05:56, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
In response to my provision of the two wikilinks above, Margana has sought AMA assistance to bring an RfC against me,[119] despite the fact that he sacked his last AMA representation for refusing to help him do so, and despite the fact that I have had no contact with him for over a month. Perhaps I should have taken Metamagician3000's advice when he said:
Yeah, Snottygobble, I think you'd be prudent to keep out of it now. From a brief review, this looks like a user who is confrontational and "difficult" but good at Wikilawyering.[120]
I really wish that an uninvolved admin would review this and take appropriate action. It's a horrible job to take on, but it has to be done, and whoever takes it on will be rewarded by copious accusations of cabalotry. If no-one does anything, we will be back here again next month, and the month after, and the month after that. Hesperian 06:14, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
I consider Crockspot's concerns regarding sourcing to have been rather overblown in this case (he was removing Wired and Boston Globe sources, in addition to more questionable material); however, I have now rewritten the disputed section to increase the number and usage of mainstream sources. I consider the version as it exists now to meet the sourcing requirements of BLP. However, as mentioned at Talk:Jimmy Wales, I am somewhat concerned about the appropriateness of the "Controversy" section within the scope of Jimmy Wales. Even following my edits, which slightly reduced its rendered length, it is a quite substantial section describing a minor dispute in the context of a relatively short biography (why can't we find more to say about Jimbo?). As such, I am open to the idea that it should be reduced further or perhaps moved to some other more suitable venue for the content. Dragons flight 07:00, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
I applaud your rewrite. That is how you source negative info in a living bio, and is all I was asking for. I removed the good sources in the past, because after removal of the poor sources and statements, the section made no sense. But this complaint is not about the content of Jimmy Wales, it is about the behavior of User:Margana. Crockspot 12:15, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
True. As such, I have blocked the user for three months, but I welcome admin review of the block. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 13:06, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Ummmm, 3 months? How did you arrive at that? I've never dealt with Margana before, so perhaps I am missing important history, but that strikes me as very excessive. Crockspot removed a section citing BLP. Margana restored it 6 times over the course of several days (never actually crossing 3RR). Such an edit war was not a productive way to resolve the dispute, but Margana's argument that the section already was cited (Wired, Boston Globe, Newsweek) was not without merit. I'm inclined to agree with Margana that Crockspot was being overly aggressive in his application of BLP in this case. In particular, I don't agree with his argument that removing the disputed sources couldn't be accomplished with far more precision (i.e. leaving the shape of the section intact based on the more reliable sources), or that attributing Larry Sanger's views to a Meta essay he wrote was inherently unacceptable since we should never cite Wikipedia. If it wasn't for the significance we attribute to BLP, this would have been little more than a run of the mill content dispute and edit war, with a little incivility thrown in. The disputed content was never inaccurate, and the only dispute was really with regards to sourcing. BLP gives substantially greater legitimacy to Crockspot's approach than to Margana, but either party could have improved the situation by improving the text rather than edit warring. (And Crockspot, just because you aren't required to do so, doesn't make edit warring into a good approach to solve the problem. BLP patrolers should redact when necessary but also strive to improve when possible.) Had this been a first offense, I probably would have stopped at little more than a warning for Margana. Even with the long history of previous blocks, it seems excessive to me to jump to three months under this pattern of facts. Margana's actions in this case were inappropriate, but they were not exactly a terrible scourge upon Wikipedia. Dragons flight 19:50, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
I think that even though there may be some mitigating factors in this particular blocking, the fact still exists that there seems to be no evidence that Margana will stop his disruptive activities, regardless of block length. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 20:43, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Margana's block log shows: 24 hours (3RR); 100 hours (disruption); 24 hours (3RR); 48 hours (3RR); 1 week (edit warring); 1 week (edit warring); 1 month (edit warring over unsourced info on Jimmy Wales).
It seems to me that a 3 month block is prefectly consistent with the usual process of gradually escalating blocks for recidivist users who simply won't get the message. Hesperian 23:49, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
I promised above that anyone with the gumption to take this horrible job on would be "rewarded by copious accusations of cabalotry". RyanG, here is your reward (lifted from Margana's talk page):
Obviously there's nothing one can do to "get unblocked" here except to put the notice up and hope one of the 5% or so non-corrupted admins will see it first.... This level of rogue admin perfidy puts any fascist justice system to shame. But that's what unlimited terms combined with lack of accountability does. That creates the wrong incentive for adminship to begin with and attracts the very worst elements, and even the few honest ones who get through tend to get corrupted with power, and those who remain honest and who don't subscribe to the admin omertà of ignoring their fellow admins' misdeeds are almost the only ones who ever get desysopped (see Everyking). Leaving you to cope with your own conscience, Margana.
Mmmmm... pretzels (that's what I was eating and thinking while I read that) but it makes me smile like this: :) . RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 02:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Hmm. First one person claims above that 80% of all Admins are corrupt, & now, only a few days later the figure is up to 95%. There's a definite trend here! -- llywrch 22:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
bite Tylerbot, as he seems to be a perfectly resonable new user. How, exactly, does one tactfully tell a new user that they must change their username? Ouraiтс
22:19, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Seems a reasonable sort of person. I'd just wonder over, say hi, and leave a message explaining the situation. He will probably be grateful you told him before he made too many edits with that account. As he self-identifies as a programmer, he might even write and run a bot one day! :-) Carcharoth 00:19, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Random query here, but if your surname was Abbot, then you wouldn't be able to use it as a username? I suggest changing the username guidelines for bots to include a preceding space, such as Tyler_bot. -
n
17:57, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
I think "Abbot" is an exception (analogous to "Yamashita"); in general we should still disallow human accounts named *bot. —Quarl(talk) 2006-10-20 09:01Z
The username should not be the criterion here: the criterion should be whether the user is actually an
proper channels for approval. It's actions rather than username that count: I'd leave it it up to Tylerbot whether s/he keeps the username as s/he clearly isn't a bot. (I have advised Tylerbot, in the spirit of welcome and as a bot owner myself, that if s/he keeps that name s/he may need to be extra careful what s/he does.) I would, however, summarily block any Wikipedia account, whatever its name, which clearly actually was an unauthorised bot up to no good. I think simple bot-related-account naming guidlines such as that suggested by Hahnch and insisted on by Quarl is a solution to a non-existent problem. :-) --RobertG ♬ talk
10:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Most English speakers would parse Abbot as a single name, and Tylerbot as a compound of Tyler and bot. Having said that, I agree with what RobertG has said, though this depends on whether people tend to distinguish bots based on the flag (used to filter RC and similar edit histories), or whether people want to be able to visually distinguish bots when looking at user names. If the latter is wanted, then '-bot' names still need to be discouraged. Carcharoth 10:15, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
is taking wikipedia on a ride by using unreliable and fanatic linguistic materials.He's fabricating history and associating Kannada language with every great things!
I have not posted the links as Sarvagnya did as I dont take all his rants personally (and dont give any importance to it to take pains to find his goof-ups) but if anyone wants evidences of his rough and incivil behaviour I will be obliged to provide so.Morever I would request the administrators to watch
belgaum_border_dispute...That article is prone to POV pushing and I am very much concerned about it along with other Maharashtra
related articles.Thanks!
Mahawiki 22:36, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
I would also request to ask
Belgaon page.I request all to take a look at the Belgaum_talk
Please do provide diffs (and explanations of the context) as to his own incivility. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 05:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Explaination as demanded by admin
Dear Sir,I read ur message on Admin-notice board.here are the proofs of Sarvagnya's misbehaviour.
---
Hello,
First things first.When i joined wikipedia I was not aware of wiki policies and hence I was 'bold' and 'emotiona' when dealing with my edits.It is only after Aksi_great and Sunder adviced to me as being 'citation-savvy'.I agree that I was rude and incivil at times but frankly of admins would take care of
].If any admin promises to take care of this anti-Maharashtra stand I think I will not bother anyone.In fact if anyone wants I would delete my a/c here.I am concerned about misinterpretation of Maharashtra's stand on Belgaon issue which is very emotional issue for all Maharashtrians.
I have also stopped taking all this things personally and would request sarvagnya the same.They are busy on Kill-Mahawiki mission.
Here are the proofs if inciviliy of sarvagnya-
[PLEASE SEE THIS BLATANT POV PUSHING of sarvagnya].This is what bothers me most!I also posting a detailed context of above.I will have no problems at all if admins stop defamation of Maharashtra's standI strongly recommend u to see the difference and pushing of POV by sarvagnya.At first I was pushing for NPOV but as kannada editors continued pushing their POV I had to indulge in revert wars and include Maharashtra's POV to balance the article.
Belagavi district became a part of Karnataka. The Maharashtra Government contested this as it wanted Belagavi district to be merged with Maharashtra instead. Under tremondous pressure from the Maharashtra government,
but most importantly, rejected outright Maharashtra's claim on Belgaum city.
As soon as the commission came out with its report, Maharashtra made a U-turn and refused to honour the report.
Ever since then, the issue has been kept simmering by Maharashtra politicians while Karnataka has continued to press for the implementation of the report.
The Supreme Court hasnt pronounced anything yet and Belgaum district along with Belgaum city continues as a legal and constitutional part of Karnataka state.
I just cannot believe how much a person can lie. Sarvagnya writes mahawiki was blocked for incivility in Belgaon. It is an outright LIE !!!! Mahawiki was blocked for dispute in the
Rashtrakuta page which was Kannadized and POVed by Dinesh Kannambadi. While the Belgaon issue ended with the pulling up of Sarvagnya by admins. I dont want to get into a brawl with Sarvagnya simply because it is a wastage of time and resources. I have always advised mahawiki to keep away from these kind of troublemakers. As far as warnings are concerned, Sarvagnya gave two bogus warnings to me - this and this. Apart from that Sarvagnya has a penchant for pushing his POV in every other article. And when asked for citations, he and his pals provide the Kamat's book (which is total unabashed Kannada glory) as citation. Most other misdeeds of this particular user have been provided by Mahawiki. -AryaRajyaमहाराष्ट्र
12:40, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
I had decided not to reply sarvagnya's badmouthing unless asked by a admin.But just to make a point clear,I was pointing out Dinesh's edits to signify -He uses Kamath's books which MANY editors including me and Arya think unreliable and biased and needs to be verified and how he trashes the sources which are not suitable to his POV.I request admins to take note of this and do the needful.In addition to that please ask Sarvagnya to stop his personal attacks at once!In fact he is using the word 'shameful' here itself!I dont know why he is so wary of me.He seems to vowed to bowl me out of wikipedia.
Not much to say, they're using Wikipedia as Myspace at at least one user is confessed to be another. Just dropping a note for opinions on indef blocking. Teke (talk) 00:59, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
The first three feature nearly identical user pages (exact same userbox syntax structure and complete with tons of copyvios of fair use images, which I just removed), but Daniel kim seems to be an anomoly. On the other hand, he claimed that his userpage was copyrighted, which is ridiculous: go to MySpace if you want to retain copyright. Hbdragon88 04:19, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Has anyone actually explained to these guys that Wikipedia is not MySpace? They're obviously not vandals or trolls; they're just 12 years olds with nothing to do, who probably don't know anything about Wikipedia community expectations.
If the problem is that they are only here for the free user pages, then surely in the worst case it can be solved by delete-protecting their user pages. I see no need to wield the ban-hammer. Hesperian 04:40, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
The thing that's being wrestled with is the Child Online Privacy Protection Act, which makes parental/guardian consent for registered online accounts for minors under 13. Editing anonymously is a loophole, but these accounts will have to go if they are under 13, no matter what the explaination. I wasn't going to just slap a ban block with no explaination on them, this post if for community opinions before the action. Teke (talk) 05:57, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Okay. People need to understand that COPPA shouldn't be a giant worry. I fully support removing the logs, etc., but (IANAL) COPPA only applies to our collection of personal information. We do not collect personal information (username, password, e-mail address and IP address are not personal info) and any unsolicited personal information placed on our pages is treated the same way as an e-mail from a 12-year-old would be- we're a third-party content provider. Obviously we shouldn't keep personal information just because, but COPPA doesn't apply to us. Ral315 (talk) 08:06, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Ah, thanks Ral, that's a distinction I wasn't aware of. Teke (talk) 16:46, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
You do retain copyright to your contributions (where they are copyrightable). You are only licensing your copyrighted work under the
GFDL and any other license you declare them to be under. --pgk
06:00, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, he specifically claimed "This site is copywrited from any changes from content or copy violations." Hbdragon88
If you are concerned about privacy stuff for that talk page, deleting it is not enough. Wikipedia:Oversight is what you need here. Deleted stuff can be undeleted and viewed by admins (who should be considered as much of a risk as anyone else), and viewing the page log summary lets people know that something private was deleted (and those page logs can be viewed by anyone). Carcharoth 10:39, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
I would definitely object to banning users simply because of their age. Legal issues are dealt with by the Board and Brad Patrick; since we aren't lawyers we shouldn't use our indoubtedly incomplete understanding of US law as grounds for blocking. As Ral315 says, COPPA doesn't apply to us. >Radiant< 08:10, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
There's multiple underaged people doing good work on here. COPPA shouldn't stop them from doing it. That rule should only apply to kids who share personal information. These kids need to be warned about the rules and blocked if they violate them despite the warning. - Mgm|(talk) 11:22, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
If the above editors are just using WP as a chat room, warn them a few times or just block them. As for the COPPA issue, if there is personal information that can easily identify a person under 13, just delete it. User:Zscout370(Return Fire) 13:32, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Mgm about young people (self-identified or not) doing good work round here. It would be easy to be overzealous about this. Warnings have to come before blocks. Just remove personally identifying material for children when you see it and request oversight (though whether the amount of it would overwhelm those with oversight privileges is something to consider - and don't file requests in public, that leaves a paper trail for the wrong sort of people to follow back - use e-mail - in fact, this should all be explained somewhere that we can just link to, instead of having public discussions pointing the wrong sort of people where we don't want them to go). And explain things to the child (without being condescending). They (like any new user) will take time to learn how things work around here. If they don't show signs of changing their behaviour, or contributing, then block them. Don't be too slow if they are constantly chatting and revealing things about themselves, but equally don't be too hasty either. That would be my view. Carcharoth 10:56, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Lame edit war
Not an admin thing, just me coming here to let off steam.
copulation in the marriage article and we should not have a picture of the sex act on ménage à trois, not least because there is no evidence that a ménage à trois necessarily involves threesome sex. Threesome has already been forked due to resistance to sexcruft in the ménage article (by me and others). But I digress. This is a plain reversal of the usual burden of evidence: content must be justified by the editor seeking to include it, especially where credible objections have been raised to its inclusion (in this case both the image quality and the subject are disputed). Anyway, I don't want ot get my first ever block for 3RR so I'm coming here to vent instead. AAAARGH!!!! Thank you for listening :-) Guy
12:09, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
... And if the image isn't deleted, Guy, what will you
Better for a neutral party to act. I'd be willing to do a 3RR block if this tips over the 24 hour mark. Leave a message on my user page this happens - and try to
remember this isn't a matter of life and death. Regards, Durova
16:02, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Ass or Arse?
Okay the headline was just to attract attention. I've reverted the entries for arse and ass to remove the image Image:Ykim6-1-.jpeg I'm far from being a prude, but I think this is just a little unnecessary. Part of me truly wants to believe he did it out of an altruistic sense of full "disclosure"... but part really believes it's a prelude to therapy. Thoughts? CMacMillan 17:56, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Ass is a disambiguation page. It doesn't need a picture. That's not really the greatest picture of buttocks anyway, the ones on buttocks are just fine and plenty for illustration purposes in case someone comes along who can't find theirs. ;) pschemp | talk 20:36, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
My block
Note: Since my issue with User:Mahawiki seems set for a long haul, I am uncoupling "My block" from the above "Mahawiki and my block".
I have some very basic questions about my block of a couple of days ago.
Soon after I was blocked, I sent an email to the blocking admin User:Blnguyen contesting the fairness of the block. I received no reply from him for over two hours. I then put up an {{unblock me}} template on my user talk page.
My understanding was that, if i put up that sign, it would be binding on an admin to stop by and either
(a) remove my block
(OR)
(b) deny my request with a reason.
However, much to my dismay, none of this happened. I was forced to wait out my block until it expired. Why?? Why didn't any admin turn up? Is it NOT binding and mandatory for admins to turn up if someone puts up the {{unblock me}} sign, even if only to summarily deny the request. Please clarify this for me. I am asking this because, I want to know. This is the first time I have been blocked. Sarvagnya 19:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
There is a bot that some admins use on IRC that sends a notification when an editor places the unblock template on their page. Unfortunately it has not been working properly in the past few days, so this may have contributed to not seeing your unblock request.
Naconkantari
19:35, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Your understanding is wrong, putting the notice up is not binding on anyone. --pgk 20:46, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Is that an opinion or a policy on WP(if it is a policy, can you please point me to it). If it is indeed not binding on anybody, why doesnt the blocking message say so. All that blocking message tells us is, "....first try contacting the blocking admin(via email). if he doesnt respond, place this template on your talk page at the bottom. another admin will come by and take a look at it.....". It doesnt even give the blocked user a whiff of a hint that it is not necessary that an admin respond to the template. Sarvagnya 21:00, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
And where does it say "admins have a binding obligation to respond". This is a volunteer project, admins are volunteers, I think you need to be a little more realistic in your expectations. --pgk 21:05, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Use of popups in 'content disputes'
From this message of User:Blnguyen(the admin who blocked me), I have inferred that my 'use of popups in content disputes' had something to do with my block. My question is,
a) Is there any rule or policy on WP which prohibits the use of popups to perform reverts in content disputes. Especially when, the 'content dispute' has been discussed at great lengths on the article's talk page and also the adequate edit summaries have been provided in the first couple of reverts leading up to the revert war.
b) If there is indeed such a rule or policy on WP, can someone please point me to it. Sarvagnya 19:18, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Generally, it is not a good idea to use automated methods (popups,rollback,etc.) to make reversions in a content dispute. It's better to revert using a non-generic edit summary.
Naconkantari
19:35, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Generally it is not a good idea - is that an opinion or is it WP policy? If it is only an opinion and not a policy, isnt the admin obviously wrong in blocking users based on opinions.
Please see
civility has a part to play, rolling back in edit disputes using automated tools is pretty uncivil. There are also many other concepts which could play a part (I haven't looked into the situation so I'm not saying they do/do not in this case) such as disruption being caused etc. --pgk
21:01, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Agreed, that WP is not an expt in rule making. I am not pushing to make any rules myself. Clearly here was a case where I was ignorant of an esoteric 'practice' on WP. So the admin should have atleast enlightened me first. Also, I was not reverting any article page. I was reverting my own user talk page to remove frivolous warnings given to me by people whose records are there for everyone to see(Read the "User:Mahawiki and his incivility" section above on this very page).
First of all, it is not even clear to me yet, why I was blocked. The blocking message from the admin says, I was blocked for fighting with Mahawiki. And I was fighting(revert warring) with Mahawiki and Arya because of their frivolous warnings to me about my supposed abuse/misuse of popups. And this warring was on my own user talk page not on any article page.
And Blnguyen's block on me closely followed Arya's filing of 3RR vio(on my own user page) on the 3RR vio noticeboard.
I asked for clarifications for all this in my "unblock me" template, but got no answers.
I am still waiting for answers. Sarvagnya 23:50, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Also please note: This(if this was what the admin was referring to), is a case where I had already for weeks extensively discussed and explained my stand on the talk page. So everyone there knew very well why I was reverting what I was reverting. More importantly, I had explained why I was reverting couple of times in elaborate edit summaries early on into the revert warring session.
In the light of the above, my question still is, is there a policy on WP governing this(I have searched and I could not find any) or did the admin actually block me based on an opinion? Sarvagnya 19:52, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi Sarvagnya.
this may be what you are looking for. And could I also ask you what made you infer that it was the use of popups that had something to do with your block? I think he made it clear that it was because of your fight with Mahawiki. - Aksi_great (talk
) 20:18, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
I didnt infer that the use of popups alone was the reason for me getting blocked. Because Bl made a mention of popups also in his message, I thought that it may have had something to do with my blocking.
More importantly, if you notice my talk page history just before I got blocked, you will see that there was a revert war going on between me and Arya/Mahawiki. Both of them were accusing me of removing 'official' warnings Arya had placed on my talk page. And that official warning pertained to my supposed abuse/misuse of popups. Note that, neither Arya/Mahawiki nor Bl make any mention of where(on which article or talk page) my supposed misuse/abuse of popups took place.
And further, Arya went and filed a 3RR violation against me. Just as I was about to comment there that 3RR violation rule does not apply to your own talk page(correct me if I am wrong), I got blocked by Bl.
So you tell me what I have to infer.
First of all, Arya's filing of 3RR against me itself was against WP policy. Even if it was not, none of his warnings even pointed out where my supposed violations had taken place except that they kept insisting that I was abusing/misusing popups. On top of it, Bl blocked me based on a complaint that shouldnt even have been considered in the first place(due to above reasons). Correct me if I am wrong. Sarvagnya 20:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
I will attempt to point you to where you went wrong (IMO). You have been fighting with Mahawiki for quite a lot of time now. You complained to 14-15 Indian admins to get Mahawiki blocked and that didn't result in anything. Now both of you get blocked and you still lay the blame on Mahawiki and others without for once accepting the fact that you too were in the wrong. You agree that you were into a "revert warring session" and you got blocked for that (along with mahawiki). Blnguyen mentioned popups also in his message to inform you about where popups should not be used. Blnguyen didn't block you based on any 3RR complaint. He blocked you because of edit warring. - Aksi_great (talk) 20:56, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Where have I ever denied that I was also in the wrong? If you see the message I had posted to 14-15 admins, I believe I have made a mention of my incivility too.
The point is, while mine and Dineshkannambadi's incivility stopped soon after Bl intervened the first time, Mahawiki's has continued unabated till this day. No wonder if you see, his defence above, he still keeps harping about our incivility on the Belgaum talk page or Dinesh's run in with some X, Y or Z totally disconnected from our disputes.
Belgaum talk page was something where everyone involved was uncivil. And all of us' got pulled up for that by Blnuyen. I am talking about incivility after that infact after Mahawiki was blocked the first time. After that point, I have always been civil except for maybe a couple of instances that happened in the heat of the moment. But in Mahawiki's case, incivility has become routine. And the most recent case is on the Sare Jahan Se Achcha talk page. It happened yesterday.
Also please note that it is true that none of the 14-15 admins I had complained to took any action on Mahawiki. But the reason for that is not because they examined my complaint and found it lacking in substance, but because none of them even ventured to investigate my complaint. Most of them pleaded being busy or being on wikibreaks etc., while some didnt even respond. Sarvagnya 21:08, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Note that Savragnya reverted the page six times over a short period of time [121], [122], [123], [124], [125], [126]. I warned him against rollback in my edit summary, yet he accused a diverse group of users of being a mob [127] and of course some good home-baked incivility and baiting [128].BakamanBakatalk 01:27, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Complaining against admins
Hi, I haven't treaded this path before. So I have some doubts and didn't know where to go with it. Hopefully some admin here can clarify it for me. I also hope that no admin sees this as an affront to admins in general or any admin in particular.
a) Is there any rule or policy on WP which condones(in any situation) the use of a harsh tone which borders on incivility on ordinary users by admins?
b) Also can an ordinary user like me make use of the {{npa}} on an admin in such cases.
c) Where do I go to complain against an admin if I feel that the admin has been abusing his powers to browbeat me into submission. Especially when the admin in question seems least interested in solving or even lending an ear to any disputes or issues the 'ordinary' user may be having.
d) I have heard a lot about
WP:DR. There should be some way for 'respectable' editors or admins to very quickly take a prima facie look at the issue and comment. And if prima facie the 'respectable' editor finds that the admin has indeed overstepped his brief, that editor or even the wronged editor should be given the liberty to politely warn the admin who has erred. Sarvagnya
19:38, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Naconkantari
19:35, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
An admin may (and in some cases should) respond sternly to some forms of abuses. There is a difference between taking a stern/harsh tone and resorting to personal attacks, like namecalling. To say whether a line was crossed will generally require looking at the details of the specific case. You are free to complain about personal attacks or unfair treatment. Using templates like {{
npa}} are generally discouraged against any established user, in preference for a more specific and personalized message. Wikipedia:Dispute resolution gives advice and options for dealing with conflicts. If you feel you have a significant ongoing dispute with a particular user/admin that you have been unable to resolve by talking to that person, then one option is Wikipedia:Requests for comment, which provides a forum for explaining the dispute and getting third party input. Dragons flight
19:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
See, here was a case where I got blocked and unfairly in my opinion. Then, no admin even responded to my "unblock me" template. I was thus forced to 'serve time'. At this point, I certainly had good reason to be feeling dejected and cheated. To add salt to injury, an admin now enters the scene, after my block has expired and I have myself noticed it and started editing again and leaves me a message in the edit summary.
The edit summary reads, "Block has expired, but for crying out loud, stop the d*mn bickering or you *will*be blocked again. The pair fo you." - I think I can safely consider an edit summary like that as uncivil and borders on a threat a headmaster would make to primary school children. More so, when it comes from an admin, who (a)didnt bother to respond to my "unblock me" template and was crying out loud(in his words) (b)who doesnt know head or tail of what exactly my dispute with User:Mahawiki is about, but doesnt think twice before calling it bickering and (c)who is even now unwilling to even give me a chance to explain myself but makes a veiled threat that he will get me permanently blocked if I even so much as dare talk to him. To tell the truth, I am indeed scared to approach that admin now or in future for anything.([129],[130], [131], [132]) Sarvagnya 20:29, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry it upset you so much. I would reccomend one of two courses of action. The first would be to contact the admin directly and explain how you found that statement to be offensive, as nicely as you can. (Instead of saying "That was uncivil" try "I was offended by that because....") For some reason coming right out and saying "that was uncivil" has a way of escalating conflict. If for some reason the first option is difficult, please consider requesting an
. The IP does not appear to be a shared proxy (it looks like a residential cable modem). I had previously blocked Goodcontent for sockpuppet vandalism, so this would fit his known motus operandi.
I'd appreciate it if someone could sort all of this out. Raul654 01:13, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
I unfortunately don't know any of the other vandals but
User:GoOdCoNtEnT lobbied strongly to keep an article on AfD a month ago, which was deleted. In the process, he vandalizeduser pages of those who didn't support him. This led to a block which he responded to by taunting an admin before being given a final warning before an indef. Now User:Anecdotesarecool shows up out of nowhere, recreating the deleted article, and trollsmy talk page regarding the same article. I'm convinced the two are the same person -- Samir धर्म
04:29, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Aha! I just went digging very, very deeply through the checkuser log to find the previous check I did on him (in mid-August). Goodcontent was definitely using the same IP as Ineffable3000, Anecdotesarecool, and all the rest. Raul654 04:59, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Great researching. I've taken the liberty of indefing Goodcontent -- Samir धर्म 06:06, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Vandal
I'm kind of confused about who or where to report this, but User:67.172.212.249 (contribs) put the words "poop on the face" at the bottom of a list of 20th century philosophers here. I wasn't sure if it was according to protocol to add a vandalism template to a user without a user page and whose entire contribution to Wikipedia consisted of this one edit. Can somebody just do something about that IP address? He's probably somebody who's been blocked before. --Hyphen5 05:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi,
I've been canvassing some support recently, as some of you may have seen, for a program/project to harmonise all of the user page templates and warnings. I'm looking for an admin, not necessarily to carry out much work, but who will be able to point me in the right direction, on certain issues. I'm willing to do all the leg work, but could just do with someone sitting on my shoulder to achieve this goal. If you're interested, or would like to know more please see here .Have a glance through all the different types of warnings and if you have any ideas please list them. Regards Khukri(talk . contribs) 11:37, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Good call. I ahve sprotected the AfD, as we have done in similar circumstances before now. There is a note on the AfD to the effect that new or unregistered users who wish to make a substantive point should use Talk, I will endeavour to keep an eye on it and move anytihng of substance into the main debate. Guy 13:04, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
I wanted to get a broader view of our now more limited Fair Use guidelines. Spearheaded by Jimbo, Wikipedia's fair use guidelines now allow the deletion of media content if a reasonable free alternative can be found. Now, whereas I support this for things such as public artwork, buildings and monuments which we could easily find, users have been tagging images which would be incredibly difficult to produce alternatives for. For example, see the discussion at
The thing that I find most worrying is that such a move has largely been spearheaded by a small group of Wikipedian's who work with images. When Jimbo first mentioned his views on promotional photos being used on Wikipedia, he acknowledged that his views on fair use in general tended towards the extreme range of the spectrum, of course, he's now picked up more supporters. But does the general Wikipedian really believe that such a strong stand against fair use is of benefit to an encyclopedia? I'd like for more people to take part in some of the image discussions linked above. -
Totally OTT in my opinion. Good luck fighting it, though, you'll probably be told to go start your own wiki (as I was). To hell with creating a good quality, illustrated enyclopedia right? Let's fight the institution of copyright instead! Not why I joined. --kingboyk 18:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm confused by this comment. Claiming "fair use" on other people's work instead of creating our own content would seem to be the much more activist anti-copyright position. Would you be as enthusiastic about what we're doing here if we were just cutting and pasting swaths of text from professionals because we believe we can't do as good a job ourselves, while claiming "fair use"? I certainly wouldn't. Jkelly 19:53, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
JKelly, your example doesn't apply here and you must know it. People are obviously still enthusiastic about the project knowing that we include splashings of fair use images. The reason we allow fair use images at all shows us this. I mean an image like
n
01:00, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, that's pretty much it, thanks for being more eloquent than me :) I'm thinking of promotional shots released with the express intention of them being used in the media but not released under GFDL, the use of album sleeves in discographies, and so on. I think these things add to the quality of the encyclopedia and that the average user is more interested in quality than free content. --kingboyk 13:44, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
For the Arbitration Committee. Arbitration Committee Clerk, FloNight 23:36, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
This is a very sad situation. Not that I disagree with the decision, just with the events which led up to it. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Maru was very foolish. It's a shame. Guy 20:13, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
I also agree. I also wish he had posted his /Evidence in the arbitration before he finally did so after the arbs had already started voting and I warned him he was in grave jeopardy (not that the evidence was particularly exculpatory). Maru is no longer participating in WP:EN; his page indicates he is working on some other Wiki projects, and I hope he is doing well there. Newyorkbrad 13:23, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
) are banned indefinitely from Wikipedia. No action is taken against MONGO for any excessive zeal he has displayed. Links to Encyclopædia Dramatica may be removed wherever found on Wikipedia as may material imported from it. Users who insert links to Encyclopædia Dramatica or who copy material from it here may be blocked for an appropriate period of time. Care should be taken to warn naive users before blocking. Strong penalties may be applied to those linking to or importing material which harasses other users.
For the Arbitration Committee. Arbitration Committee Clerk, FloNight 02:50, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
The history of the
Encyclopædia Dramatica
article
Sorry, missed this before. Does this mean the history of the above should be nuked accordingly? Glen 04:39, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Done by
✉
21:44, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
You are legally responsible for your edits
You are legally responsible for your edits. This says "I, for one, am not about to start reading entire articles to check for problems every time I encounter one of them being blanked by a new user with no explanation." Among the various issues important with regard to this, I wish to raise an issue and concern that is of very wide scope and importance. You are legally responsible for your edits. If you unblank a page you are as responsible as if you wrote it all yourself. If you revert a change that reintroduces libel or a copyright violation or a privacy violation, you are responsible. Don't make changes you are not willing to be legally responsible for. Because you are. In addition to legal responsibility there can be other consequences both warranted and outrageous; please act with due regard for consequences. Wikipedia is not a consequence free zone. WAS 4.250 04:35, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Ummm, we are not here. You were probably not born with the name "Was 4.250," although I was, of course, with The Geogre. The point is that when we try to come up with "legal consequences" to "you," as opposed to "ethical responsibility," we get into a netherworld that is not profitable. Can't we merely say that people need to investigate cases of blanking and unblanking and take appropriate action without jumping into the threat of periwigs and gavels? Geogre 16:21, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
No. Some people have already publicly declared they are going to sue and are now gathering evidence and the Foundation lawyer says the Foundation is not legally liable, but that the editors are. Further, the courts can find out who anonymous editors are.
"Law.com: What is your liability for inaccurate information that's posted on the Web site?
Bradford A. Patrick: Our belief is that since every post is attributed to an individual, is time-stamped and is retained in the database, the foundation itself is not publishing that content. We view individual editors as responsible and have prominently displayed on every edit page that individuals are responsible for their own contributions. We take the position that we are a service provider and are protected under §230. We try to emphasize to everyone who posts that they, as publishers, have responsibility for what they add. "[133]
The Foundation lawyer wishes to emphasize to everyone who posts that they, as publishers, have responsibility for what they add. Please don't unemphasize it. WAS 4.250 17:51, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
You'd need to get guidance on whether reversion of blanking counts as insertion of content. The content in question in the WikiEN-L thread was actually added by an anonymous editor. I suspect the lawyers could make a lot of money out of that argument, and the answer is unlikely to be simple... Guy 20:04, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Editors need to understand that they are financially liable for the legal costs of defending themselves for their edits on wikipedia and we serve them poorly if we make it sound like we know that they have nothing to be concerned about if they restore text they have not read. WAS 4.250 22:01, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
But you'd need to get guidance on... oh, why bother. Guy 22:38, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, and then the question of expectation of privacy and conditions of publication would get involved. Please do not try to emphasize a fringe case of a clear violation to try to frighten everyone and prevent their working on the project. People need to investigate cases of blanking and unblanking, and there is neither a clear "do it" or clear "don't do it" or clear "you're on the hook, buddy" or "you are not on the hook, buddy" or "you are assumed to be past the age of majority" or "you are presumed to be in jurisdiction of a particular court." If Foundation lawyers made a blanket statement actually attributing responsibility rather than denying responsibility for the Foundation, then they are being remarkably jumpy. Geogre 02:11, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and lawyers may wish to emphasize that people, rather than they, are responsible for what people add, but mistakenly undoing a change that was destructive and outside of established procedures for the removal of libel is neither adding nor the absence of a policy for protecting against libel. That's a far, far cry from telling people not to restore blanked articles, as blanking is not the way bad content of any form is dealt with on Wikipedia. We have a process for eliminating malicious editng, two processes, in fact. Removing the entirety of an article to get rid of a portion of an article is destructive, is vandalism, and is not, in fact, the removal of libel: it is the attempted erasure of an entire work of art. Are the people blanking going to be financially and legally responsible for what they've done in blanking the good contributions that surrounded the alledgedly libellous sections? The standard you are proposing is impractical and unlikely to be law. This is in addition to the fact that no, courts cannot tell exactly who added a thing. A court can determine an IP which locates a machine, but not the fingers at the machine, as any of us who have dealt with vandals and sockpuppeteers knows. All of which is not to absolve editors, but the attempted chill in this case is, in my view, mistaken. Geogre 02:21, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Unexplained blanking of articles is unacceptable regardless of the cause. It's listed on
Your technical solution sounds like a great idea. That said, please don't make the mistake of thinking that everyone who is being impacted by a Wikipedia article has read all of our policies and procedures. If a brand new user blanks an article about a living person that contains unsourced libel, please don't automatically revert because Wikipedia:Vandalism says you can. Jkelly 17:38, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
I understand that not everyone has read the policies, especially not new editors. (In fact, I doubt that even most experienced editors have read every policy.) However, I similarly do not believe we should be able to fault an editor who reverts unexplained page blanking simply because of that minor possibility. --
There's nothing "minor" about this issue, and we do need to be very clear that we will "fault" someone who introduces libel into a Wikipedia article, whether by a revert or not. Jkelly 18:05, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
So does that mean we need to read the entire article and verify everything before reverting a page-blank, just to make sure it isn't libel? --Kbdank71 18:10, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, if someone blanks Moon, I'd check the history to make sure that I'm not reverting back to vandalism, but I'm not going to read the whole article. If the article is a biography of a living person, however, then we do need to take some time. The important point here is that we need to make reasonable decisions based upon what we are looking at. Jkelly 18:18, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Might not any article, or even any user page or talk page, include material about a living person? Tom HarrisonTalk 20:12, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes. A legally actionable libel or copyright violation or privacy violation could be in the middle of any article. DO NOT RESTORE TEXT YOU HAVE NOT READ. Even on the Moon. WAS 4.250 22:12, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
I do not think that is reasonable. I appreciate your good intentions, but I will take your interpretation of what is legally actionable with a grain of salt. Tom HarrisonTalk 23:41, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Does "someone" include bots? In another possibility, 425 instances of the word fuck are put in place of a long and generally well-sourced biography page, which incidently contains a short sentence of libel. I revert the page. Am I now legally responsible for "libelling" the biography subject because I did not wish to leave a page full of obscenities describing him for even one second longer than was absolutely necessary? (And where do I make a dev request at?) --
Probably not. If the libel was introduced with the obscenities, then you'd have just reverted that also. If the libel was already there, then you weren't the one to introduce it. Where you'd get into trouble is if libel was already in the article and was removed via page-blank. If you revert, then you are introducing the libel back into the article. I can see many biographies being blanked and not fixed because of this. --Kbdank71 18:27, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
edit conflict See
Wikipedia:Bugzilla for how to make feature requests. Let us know when you've done it, too, so that other editors can comment on the idea. Obviously, I can't give you real legal advice, and we each need to make decisions for ourselves -- but, yes, I would strongly encourage people to really read any article about a living person before publishing a new version of it. Jkelly
18:37, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Taken to its logical extreme, no editor or administrator should dare to revert anything on a BLP, for fear that somewhere on the page may be a libel. If reverts to unexplained blanking could result in legal liability then responsible editors be crazy to fix vandalised articles. -Will Beback 18:44, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Don't restore text you have not read. You can be sued. Even if you win, you pay the financial costs. WAS 4.250 22:05, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
The way you describe it, I'd be in trouble if I reverted an article to which someone had added "Jones is a poopyhead" on the off chance that maybe it also contains a comment that Jones thinks is possibly libellous. If you give me the foundation lawyer's talk page, I can post the vandalized articles on his page. That way he can decide what to revert. -Will Beback 22:26, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
The foundation lawyer's talk page is User talk:BradPatrick which says :"Note to those of you contacting me about legal issues affecting the Wikimedia Foundation: Please contact me by email - bpatrick at wikimedia.org rather than leaving stuff on this page. I prefer to keep this page related to my edits and repartee with Wikipedians about en:WP rather than current legal issues." WAS 4.250 00:09, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Fortunately, this is easily solved by locating editors who can read. We have several already, I'm quite sure. Jkelly 18:53, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Reading isn't the issue. Simply reading isn't going to be able to tell you if what you are reverting to is or isn't libel. As I said, to make sure it isn't, you need to verify every statement in the article. Good luck with that. --Kbdank71 18:59, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm quite sure we are all able to read. But having to read a whole article before reverting a page blanking can be a bit much, in
✉
19:23, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
(edit conflict, Re:Kbdank)It was technically "removed" by the replacement of the article with obscenities as well. It would similarly be "removed" by replacement with other libel, or a copyvio, or a personal attack against another editor, or a "Cool, I can edit this!", or the goatse image, or, as happened to the
Indeed. I understand how an editor who willingly reintroduces libel after it has been identified should be held liable, but I cannot fathom why an editor who is cleaning up simple vandalism is legally committing a crime. Perhaps what we need to do is to be less confrontational in the blanking warnings (or use {{
Tort. Not crime. Look it up. WAS 4.250 22:22, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
That's a legal technicism, and doesn't actually address my argument.
test1a}}, which is quite polite and asks a blanker why he is blanking. That said, I do agree that someone reverting an edit that is clearly marked as removal of libel, or when an editor reverts a BLP noticeboard-based removal, that get closer to actual malice. Titoxd(?!?
) 05:12, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
You are right that I did not address your argument. Sorry. "In general the elements for libel and slander are a false and defamatory statement concerning another, made in a negligent, reckless, or malicious manner, and which is communicated to at least one other person in such a fashion as to cause sufficient harm to WARRANT an award of COMPENSATORY DAMAGES."[134] The point is whether or not reverting without reading is "negligent" or "reckless" and whether one wishes to risk a lawsuit by negligently not simply reading what you are causing to be posted. A thirteen year old might decide why not. Someone with a family to feed might decide to only post by reverting what he has read. Some people are cautious and some like to take chances. I have no wish to suggest one choice fits all. WAS 4.250 08:02, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
I've left a note on Brad's talk page asking for some clarification.
(talk)
19:23, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Arbitrary section break
Libel laws internationally differ as to culpability vs intention, but I'd say you run a risk when unintentionally reverting a change back to libel on a BLP article. From a likelihood-of-trouble point of view, it's vanishingly small, but it is a risk.
However, from a Wikipedia point of view, there's a bigger point than just libel. We are clearly approaching some sort of critical mass. Journalists are using us as a primary source whilst disparaging us on feature pages. So we've clearly arrived in the firmament for the media in general.
That means that minor-famous people are now start "Wikipeding" for their articles, just as a year or so ago they started Googling for their own names. The truly famous don't, but the minor-famous do.
So, when reverting a BLP article, I think we do now need to be careful. We've reach a stage - one we've always aspired to - of being thought of as a journal of record. That's great, in so many ways, but it requires us to be more careful.
We might not have reached it yet, but the day is only months away where we get some serious trouble for our vandalism or our reverting. The first we can cope with, although it will be expensive to do so and will open the floodgates.
The second is harder to justify. The time is coming where we will switch from reverting vandalism on BLP articles to automatically stubbing them and letting them be reviewed at leisure. In the meantime, the days of blindly reverting vandalism are coming to an end, so anyone who visits the contribs of a vandal and just hits rollback for each contribution will soon have to think twice.
And we'll need to review our procedures and processes in light of all of this. Not now, per se, but soon enough.
ЯEDVERS
19:18, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure you need to prove actual malice if you're going after a reverter. I don't think that systemically allowing the destruction of the work of perhaps hundreds of editors because of a couple idiots will ever be acceptable, though, so I don't think automatically stubbing articles will ever take hold. I don't mind vandals getting sued, though. Titoxd(?!?) 19:23, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
I left a link to this discussion on the
WP:BLP did not apply. I think in that particular type of situation, the reverting editor does not have much to hide behind, since the "libel" was reported, removed by an editor working in a semi-official capacity, and added back in by another editor. - Crockspot
19:47, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
No clue if I did it properly, but the feature request/bug to prompt page blankers is posted here. --
I don't know if anyone has mentioned it (yet), but it's case law in the 9th (US) Circuit that reposting Internet libel elsewhere on the Internet is not, in itself, libel. See, for example, Barrett v. Rosenthal in
DMCA. The appeals court found that the material was not libelous (being an opinion), and explictly declined comment on the repost ruling. In this case, it would imply that only the editor who originally inserted the libelous material could be found liable. — Arthur Rubin | (talk)
20:54, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
That would certainly be a relief, and far more sensible besides. --
An editor who blanks a portion of an entry due to liable must note it as such, or there will be no case. El_C 22:26, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
This entire argument is ridiculous. Can you imagine how the media would mock someone who sued, not the person who actually libelled them, nor the person who randomly threw feces at their article later on, but the volunteer who came along later and scraped the feces off? —Cryptic 22:39, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
I am getting calls from armchairs missing their lawyers. -Splash - tk 22:45, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
I plan on continuing my editing habits as they have been, which includes the occasional reversion of the complete blanking of a page. Yes, there's a risk that I might get sued, but that's just the sort of devil-may-care, caution-to-the-winds sort of fellow that I am. Bring on the lawyers, and have them do their worst. Ξxtreme Unction 23:14, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm not suggesting purposely making any illegal edits (libel, copyvio, etc.), but considering the possibility of doing it accidentally, may I suggest using a proxy? Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 23:23, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Advice to users using Tor to bypass the Great Firewall mentions softblocking. Armedblowfish (talk|mail
) 00:22, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
I've sent an email to Brad asking him to weigh in on this discussion. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:48, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
The bits I'm still not clear about from this discussion is how
WP:NLT applies to users making threats on-wiki, but the point made about editors feeling constrained by uncertain legal issues is a good one that needs to be resolved with a clear demarcation of responsibilities, plus legal advice (or, rather, advice on when to seek legal advice) for editors who want legal advice, and not only legal advice for the Foundation. Also, I see people focussing on Biography of Living People (BLP) stuff, but the point was made that libellous edits can be made to non-BLP articles (eg. adding something about a living person to Moon, which a new editor might be even more likely to blank, as that would be an obviously vandalised article). Thus the focus on BLP articles for the "should I revert page blanking" issue, is somewhat misleading - this issue applies to all articles. Finally, I often jump into an article to correct a spelling mistake or rewrite a single paragraph. I am aware that I should read the whole article, and copyedit the whole thing, rather than make one tiny change, but this is an example of the same sort of thing: small, incremental edits, eventually adding up to a reasonable article, but where editors often don't read the whole article. Maybe the "stable articles" feature is also relevant here. Marking a version as stable (implying you have read the whole thing), when it contains libel, is, to my mind, potentially exposing an editor far more to legal action than reverting a page blank of a non-stabilised article. Carcharoth
01:34, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
If an article contains something that leads to a lawsuit, either the Wikimedia Foundation is liable or it's not. For all of our sakes, it's far better that the answer is not - if the Foundation is liable, the entire project could shut down. Or, only slightly better, a lot of money that could go to servers or bandwidth could go to lawyers to defend the Foundation.
If some editors cease editing because they worry about personal liability, that's not good, but it's not the end of the world. And, arguably, there really should be few good people who leave - as someone noted above, From a likelihood-of-trouble point of view, it's vanishingly small that someone who lacked intent (and reverting a blank page, with no indication that the blanking was done for good reason, clearly is a case of no intent to commit libel) will successfully be sued. Folks like the EFF and the ACLU are presumbably around to help, if necessary. Which isn't to say that lawyers might not go after the editor who originally posted the libel - but that's not the concern above, of course. John Broughton | Talk 02:19, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
I take heart in the fact that the Foundation has tons more money than I do, and is thus a much more attractive target. --Ξxtreme Unction 03:08, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
law.duke.edu says "Many corporate plaintiffs that sue for Internet libel seek to send a message to the public that they will pursue aggressively anyone who criticizes them online, and these plaintiffs seem to be using libel law to squelch not just defamatory falsehoods but legitimate criticism as well. [...] This new class of nonmedia defendants are unlikely to have enough money even to defend against a libel action, much less to satisfy a judgment. Thus, wealthy plaintiffs can successfully use the threat of a libel action to punish the defendant for her speech, regardless of the ultimate outcome of the libel action." [135]WAS 4.250 08:39, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
I continue to remain unconcerned. People who have minimal experience with the legal system have a very overinflated notion of that system. I spent 10 years working with the U.S. legal system, on the federal, state, and local level, on both criminal and civil proceedings. If I didn't have at least 10 threats of dire legal consequences by noon, it was a wasted day.
None of those threats ever materialized.
This is a tempest in a teapot. --Ξxtreme Unction 14:48, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Arbitrary section break, redux
Is there a minimum amount of time that records must be kept for under the section that Brad references to make his statement about Wikipedia being a service provider. In particular the records that may be illegally disposed of may be the IP records, which for Checkuser purposes I know are not kept for very long at all. Ansell 03:42, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Neither Wikipedia nor any other online provider is obligated by law to keep records of who connects to them. Wikipedia could delete every system log they currently have and refuse to log any further, and there would be no legal ramifications. --Ξxtreme Unction 03:48, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Wow, if that is how it is under Florida law then thats great, I think. I was asking because I think it is different under Australian law, which is where I got the conception from. Ansell 03:55, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, a bit of Ameri-centrism crept in. I try to keep that at bay, but sometimes the cultural blinders operate full force. Mea culpa, and my apologies. --Ξxtreme Unction 04:28, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Would any of the following links be relevant to Wikipedia's service provider status? [136][137] (library records, but then again, isn't wikipedia just one big library. if the patriot act relates to libraries why would they stop at wikipedia? )
On the other hand, this article clearly (i think) states the overall situation with a view to changes in the future apparently. The EU based sites should definitely think about the 6 months - 2 years provision at the bottom of that article.
"A 1996 federal law called the Electronic Communication Transactional Records Act requires ISPs to retain any "record" in their possession for 90 days "upon the request of a governmental entity"--a practice known as "data preservation." " Ansell 04:22, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
The Federal law in question simply requires that ISP not delete or destroy any pre-existing records they may have in their possession if requested by the Feds that they preserve it. If they don't have the pre-existing records in the first place, the Feds are out of luck. It is not uncommon for preservation requests from the Feds (and from state and local law enforcement, to say nothing of civil litigants) to ask for everything under the freakin' sun to be preserved, such as transcripts from AIM and IRC chat sessions, IP transaction logs, emails received, emails sent, files uploaded, files downloaded, and so on and so forth. If the ISP does not keep this data in the course of its normal business operations (and believe me, most don't), the ISP is not obligated in any way to suddenly start keeping them in order to comply with the preservation request. They can forthrightly tell the Feds "We don't keep those records," and the Feds will go about their merry way. --Ξxtreme Unction 04:28, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Of course, Wikipedia does keep IP/Checkuser records in the regular course of its business. So even the regular deletion of those tables would be a violation under a request from that act. Anyway, its pretty clear that for the next little while at least that, if the english wikipedia is classed as a service provider, it is not liable given the extremely ambiguous and lax US laws on the issue. Ansell 04:38, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
It is only a violation if Wikipedia gets a preservation request document from the Feds which outlines in specific the records the Feds desire Wikipedia to preserve. And the request has to be specific. It has to specify dates, and times, and specific IP addresses. It can't just say "preserve ALL your records for 90 days." It has to say something like "preserve your records for IP address 207.172.33.14, from 12:01am 9/29/06 to 11:59 10/4/06" or similar.
You may trust me on this, as someone who worked at an ISP processing subpoenas, search warrants, and other court orders for a living for the better part of 10 years. --Ξxtreme Unction 04:47, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Sounds okay. I know alot more about the topic from that research though. Wondering whether it would ever be useful.... Would it be valid for them to ask for the IP's of everyone who edited a certain article, or the IP's of a specific user? Ansell 04:52, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
I can't imagine a circumstance where they would care about the IP addresses of every editor who has edited an article. But a request for the IP addresses used by a specific user is an extremely common request (probably the most common one they make).
Of course, this whole subsection was started on the basis of dire warnings about civil legal proceedings, which has fuckall to do with the Feds in any case. Never let it be said that I don't enjoy blathering about stuff I know about just to hear my fingers bounce merrily across the keyboard. --Ξxtreme Unction 05:05, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
I think posting in this thread is more likely to haunt you in court than inadvertently reverting to a "Joe Doe is a douchebag" version of some obscure bio. Now, some admin, please block this IP. It's a www.ninjaproxy.com IP. 72.29.81.87 22:49, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
This user has resorted to personal attacks against me several times on his talk page [138]. He passed disparaging comment on me at this RfA [139]. He has also removed a question from there because it referred to his actions. Never considering the other parties' arguments and shutting out the possibility of a discussion in advance ("I don't give any credence to anything you have to say") he repeats himself. He has expressed his willingness to renege on his own promise to the community on his RfA [140]. Cronyism is at show on this section of his talk page. Three of the Indian administrators argue for him with unconcern for his personal attack, ignorance of rules, and willingness to break them. When I reported his personal attack on
WP:PAIN it was removed citing no warning (in edit summary) [[141]] and it was explained to me thus [142] When I put a warning template on his talk page one of his friends removed it because he thought it was ugly. I placed a message on Jimbo Wales' talk page merely inviting his attention but it was removed [143]. You can also see an instance of skewed opinion under my message there and see this apropos [144]. Kundan After Sundown
04:46, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
I have somewhat of a problem taking this fellow seriously. Personally, if I had a username which had an obscene meaning I wouldn't expect people to take me seriously either and would be surprised if they didn't block me. As for "I don't give any credence to anything you have to say", I don't see that as a personal attack at all...he simply doesn't agree with your comments Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 06:11, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Can't help replying to Blnguyen. This sort of comment would be called quibbling in common usage, sorry, I don't know WP jargon. Registration (user space) that met objection had been given up and a new registration done, which you undoubtedly know. So the first part of your comment is null. Personal attack occurs not in the expedidient quote in the comment above. Here is one of several seen here [145] : "Hey troll. Here's elitism for you: I don't give any credence to anything you have to say. Go away and troll elsewhere. I suggest LiveJournal." Kundan After Sundown 07:21, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
I endorse this. I further propose that the community ignore this thread unless other evidence of realpolicy violations (other than the username bit) are alleged. As to the username, do we have a sysop who speaks malayalam and can determine whether this user should be made to pick a different username? -
We do not have a sysop who speaks Malayalam; but as a native speaker, I guarentee that the word has a distasteful meaning. The user even had an obscene picture on his userpage. Further see these comments by two other native speakers: [146], [147]. And this deleted article created by the user shows that he was very much aware of the obscene meaning.
It is really in someone's interest to divert from the issue and discuss username here, as if one username requires a
WP:ANB thread. What surprises me is the lack of receptiveness and quibbling on the part of all the users who speak for this erring administrator. I have already made it clear that objected username has been abandoned and all the three who discussed merely that here are well aware of it. Either they want to divert focus or they want to make this TL;DR
.
Kundan Lal Saigal, and numerous google results for Kundan show the fallacy of his demand for block. Kundan After Sundown
17:13, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Kuntan literally means "a young boy kept for the purposes of sodomy". And I suppose, there is difference between Kundan and Kuntan; Kundan being a common North Indian name. — Nearly Headless Nick{L} 17:22, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Er, this is not off-topic, sir. I am only trying to establish, that you created that particular account for the purpose of trolling. And if you do not have anything "productive" to give you wikipedia, you might as well leave the project, then waste our time. Thank you. — Nearly Headless Nick{L} 19:24, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
And the reason for this tirade has been explained here [148] in a formulaic form by another user. I suggest changing dharma part of your signature by prefixing an "a". You suggested me a career in comedy on your talk page and I needn't suggest one for you as you are already engaged here in one fitting your propensities.Kundan After Sundown 05:59, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
05:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC) - Kundan After Sundown posts an Oppose Vote in a RFA
14:36, 17 October 2006 (UTC) - Samir धर्म in the same page says Wow, someone chooses an obscene username, balks when he's called out on it, then expects his sophomoric opinion to have credence on the caller's RfA. Guess what: it doesn't.
18:15, 17 October 2006 (UTC) - Kundan After Sundown in Samir's talk page says Hey user, your out-of-place remark [149] is in poor taste and in bad faith. Do you know Malayalam and the meaning of the word to guess that it is obscene? Or did you rely on the opinion of two users who looked at once credit-worthy because they cried foul on somebody's user name? If that is the case, you are relying on somebody who in turn relies on ignorance ("I didn't know the other meanings for it"). I can let you know that the two users concerned have plainly refused to look up the word in a local language dictionary and never denied the fact that it is a proper name among the
scheduled castes
of Kerala. Ignorance, lack of receptiveness, élitism and disdain for the peripheral lives- you have been party to them. And one user who googled the word in question and found that it meant a very loose cunt in some Icelandic language epitomises the wisdom of your ilk.
23:13, 17 October 2006 (UTC) Samir धर्म says Hey troll. Here's elitism for you: I don't give any credence to anything you have to say. Go away and troll elsewhere. I suggest LiveJournal
In my opinion this is
Uncivil. Let us finish this and get to other useful tasks. Doctor Bruno
15:52, 21 October 2006 (UTC).
Who was being uncivil. I just wanted to know how an admin could behave in this fashion? See how he responded. If Samir had admitted that, it would have been the end. He chose to ridicule me instead of answering my questions. The other admins were trying to justify Samir "somehow". Samir does not admit that he is violating any guideline( not even bending) but another admin justifies his action quoting
Emmalina was deleted and redirected as a result of its third AFD nomination. Currently, a blurb in the Notable YouTube memes article has all the information that the previous Emmalina article had. It is my understanding that such merges need the entire history intact at the redirect page for compliance with the GFDL. Therefore I request that a sysop restore the old Emmalina page and then redirect it to Notable YouTube memes. Hbdragon88
06:15, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
The problem with restoring this article is that its history appear to contain several revisions that should not be restored. Since Notable YouTube memes is also up for deletion, I suggest waiting for the conclusion of this other nomination. Tizio, Caio, Sempronio 13:36, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Those were all hidden just before the admin deleted the article. I suppose that they're still visible to the sysops. I'll wait for five days (or however much longer the AFD has). Hbdragon88 23:20, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
User:Nlu have abused his right of an administrator in the page of Goguryeo. Because User:ABCBBCKBS had removed the entire section of Modern Politics, I reverted it to a previous version.
In addition, the previous version, which I reverted to, was similar as the version edited by [[User::Nlu]].
Even I reverted to the version that is similar as the version by Nlu, he said that the Modern politics violate the POV. , and then he removed the entire section of Modern politics.
Please compare the three version by me and Nlu.
1. This is my reverting due to User:ABCBBCKBS [[150]]
2. This is the previous version by Nlu[[151]]
3. This is the version of Nlu by his abuse of administrator's right. [[152]]
The section of modern politics is entirely removed.
He warned me to block my id if I revert the article that has modern politics.
I dont think that it is fair.
I have dicsussed about this, but he dont want to discuss about it
Yes and it's alright to accuse an admin of misconduct if it's warranted but then please sign your posts. --Woohookitty(meow) 10:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
And just how is this an abuse of admin rights, when it is just simply an edit? User:Zoe|(talk) 21:01, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Attempts to discuss seem to have failed [156], thus I'm stepping back and asking for a third party to intervene. - Thanks already,
Evv
17:43, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
lol This is simple WP:V... I'm getting involved again, and removing all those unsourced, politically motivated "Kosova"s. -
Evv
20:36, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
According to policy, if I'm not mistaken, articles' titles are generally supposed to be the ones that are the most commonly used. Both "Kosovo" and "Pristina" get many more Google hits than "Kosova" and "Prishtina", so you're probably right that Mig11 shouldn't be changing them to fit his POV.--
Would another administrator review my action to make certain this was appropriate? I responded to a new request at
WP:PAIN and discovered a legal threat posted by this user on 19 October.[157] Blocking is policy in this type of situation, but I'm not certain whether the indef block I issued is appropriate. Please review and shorten if my action was excessive. Thanks, Durova
02:36, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
I would support the block, per
WP:NLT. It is entirely counterproductive to have users running around making threats. Should the editor choose to retract his threat, I'd suggest rescinding the block. Alphachimp
02:42, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Also a single-issue editor: A sign of problems and not much loss. —Centrx→talk • 02:56, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the thumbs up. I've requested a checkuser on this account's suspected puppetmaster. Durova 03:21, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
New question, User:E.Shubee says that I misunderstood his earlier post. His reasons are complex so here's the diff:[158] Does anyone consider this a reason to shorten the indef block? He should probably still get a block for link spamming even if the threat is a total nonissue.
Personally I'm skeptical: he seems to claim that the mere existence of a Wikipedia article about a verifiable Christian denomination constitutes trademark infringement, and that his disputed edits protect us from legal action by a third party. Durova 04:46, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Going through the history, this was/is obviously a troublesome user and some block was appropriate. However, when blocking for "legal threats," it seems to me that a link to the
WP:OFFICE can also be provided, to give the user a vehicle for raising any bona fide legal issue that he or she might think to exist, as opposed to just saying, in effect, "you have no rights, go away" which in the long term may just aggravate the discontent that resulted in the threats being made in the first place. In this case, the user may not be likely to ever become a productive editor anyway, but I think the blocking admin might still want to consider these ideas for the future. Newyorkbrad
13:18, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't know. I hate to encourage any user to pursue legal means against Wikipedia or its editors. I think that if they wish to pursue anything like that, they should do it completely without our help, support, assistance, or backing (but that's just me). Alphachimp 17:17, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
I appreciate these can be tough calls. Certainly urging the user to withdraw the threat is something we agree upon. It's more a case-by-case judgment whether, once the threat aspect is removed, there is a genuine issue to be addressed or not and how best to counsel the user to address it, or whether just to ignore it. In other words, whether tactically turning the person to the right instead of the wrong methods will help avoid long-term legal issues no one wants, bearing in mind that 99±% of legal etc. threats go nowhere. Newyorkbrad 17:31, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Either way, they've retracted the statement and I've unblocked the account. My checkuser request hasn't been fulfilled yet so I'm extending the benefit of the doubt - suggesting they join the mentorship program and edit at other topics. Durova 01:14, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above.
For edit warring, personal attacks, and other disruption, PerfectStorm/C-c-c-c is banned from editing Wikipedia for one year. For edit warring and incivility, Bormalagurski is banned from editing Wikipedia from one year. For edit warring and disruptive use of sockpuppets, Dardanv under any username or IP, is banned from editing Wikipedia for one month.
Hipi Zhdripi is limited to his one named account, Hipi Zhdripi. All edits by Hipi Zhdripi under another account or an IP address shall be treated as edits by a banned user.
Ilir pz, Hipi Zhdripi, Vezaso are banned for one year from editing articles related to
Article probation to allow more swift dealing with disruption. Editors of Kosovo
and related articles who engage in edit warring, incivility, original research, or other disruptive editing, may be banned for an appropriate period of time, in extreme cases indefinitely.
ChrisO is warned not to engage in edit warring, and to engage in only calm discussion and dispute resolution when in conflict. He is instructed not to use the administrative rollback tool in content disputes and encouraged to develop the ability and practice of assisting users who are having trouble understanding and applying Wikipedia policies in doing so. .
Dardanv, Ferick, Laughing Man, Osli73, and Tonycdp are placed on Probation for one year. Each may be banned from any page or set of pages for disruptive edits, such as edit warring or incivility.
Ilir pz, Hipi Zhdripi, Vezaso, Dardanv, Ferick, Laughing Man, Osli73, and Tonycdp are placed on standard revert parole for one year. Each is limited to one revert per article per week, excepting obvious vandalism. Further, each is required to discuss any content reversions on the article's talk page.
For the Arbitration Committee. Arbitration Committee Clerk, FloNight 04:00, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
This address is my school's IP address. It has a long history of blocks due to various idiots vandalizing. I'd like to request a "hard block" (in opposition to a "soft block"?) to prevent users registering from that IP address. A couple of other students in my class thought it would be fun to vandalize the project; when they thought someone was "on to them" they registered new accounts. These users were User:Headmaster2008, User:ImaSpamThis and User:David2001. Altogether, "they" vandalized the Brisbane Boys' College page repeatedly, posting my personal info on there (I occasionally do RC patrol via the school PC's, thus they found it amusing to do so). Can someone please help with this? Also - if such a block were done, would it prevent me from logging in and doing RC patrol via that IP? Thanks. SMC 04:42, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes it would. A soft block means only anons are blocked, pre-existing registered users can still edit (I presume account creation is off also). If we hard blocked all activity from that IP is blocked, yourself included. Glen 04:48, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Kind of limits options really. Is there any way to turn off account creation for that IP? SMC 04:49, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Okay, just reblocked. Anons only, no account creation (I assumed incorrectly, account creation was allowed previously). Expires in 6 days per the prior block, let's see if that helps. Glen 04:54, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks a lot, should help (I hope). Have a good one! SMC 04:56, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
I just blocked User:ImaSpamThis - and I hope like hell you dont get caught by an autoblock. Place {{unblock}} on your talk page if you do... it sometimes happens Glen 04:57, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Alright, thanks for the warning. Thanks again SMC 05:02, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Diatribe
I'm an admin, but I'll admit I'm not sure of the rules on this: I know we are extremely lenient about leaving even vaguely on-topic remarks on talk pages, but it seems to me that this is trolling: Talk:Affirmative action in the United States#Racism. Can we delete this sort of thing? - Jmabel | Talk 05:11, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm NOT an admin, but IMO although it's nominally 'on topic', it's not a discussion about how to improve the article, and while I probably wouldn't delete it, I think there are grounds to do so, or perhaps to move the post to a sub-page with a note on the talk page asking the author to re-work it as a suggestion for improvement. Anchoress 05:17, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
For me, it would depend on context and the level of disruptiveness. If it was from a repeatedly problematic editor, a personal attack, on a widely trolled page (e.g. one where it threatened to begin a flame war), or filled with obscenities, I would remove it. In most other cases, especially a really new editor, I would leave the thread with a reply such as "This is not the place to elaborate your personal opinions.", and maybe give the user a civil note about posting rants on their talk page. This is because many people mistake honestly talk pages for forums, and simpy reverting their comments (especially without explanation) will often cause more disruption than leaving it. Of course, a similar rant on a BLP page would warrant a swift removal. --
This is indeed a "repeatedly problematic editor"; see his talk page. And just yesterday he was disabused of any notion that the talk page on subject X is the place for a rant about X: see this. -- Hoary 08:39, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
I've removed it. It was just a rant, as was obvious from the multiple exclamation marks, the numerous reminders that the writer was laughing out loud, and most obviously the assertion that it wasn't a rant. It didn't offend me at all; it didn't even sadden me, as I was already very aware of the popularity of this stance. It might offend others, I don't know. But it was about the subject, not the article, so I zapped it. The writer may now feel additionally aggrieved and thus inspired (?) by this grievance to add stupid comments in the article itself. If others disagree here with my deletion of this rant, go ahead and revert me; I won't take it personally. -- Hoary 08:05, 21 October 2006 (UTC) ........ PS Here is my deletion edit. -- Hoary 08:42, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a venue for negotiating ultimate truth. The use of article talk pages to assert or denounce some Eternal Truth is utterly inappropriate. A little banter is ignorable. A jeremiad isn't. There are people who live to find articles on subjects they hate so that they can symbolically enact their frustration. Their problems are not ours. Zapping is appropriate. Geogre 14:39, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Need assistance on violated 3RR
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR
page, but one of his friends, that is also an administrator, insists that he didn't violated 3RR, because his first edit was not a revert, although it was a combination of a revert and adding some information. Please take a look, or tell me how can I request for a review. Thanks
--Hossein.ir 05:30, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
I reviewed the information presented and Jayjg is correct. What you listed as the first revert is not really a revert. Nor is it an attempt to circumvent 3RR, which is the only circumstance here where I'd count it as a revert. This was the first edit, not the last. Btw, this is the place to put something like this for review. --Woohookitty(meow) 09:06, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
In response to a section above where another user complained about this user changing the names of "
Oui?
14:48, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
I was
Being reading the new article here on Wikipedia called Housewife Bangers. The article had 2 contributors so far and existed for a while before I believe it was speedily deleted last night. Speedily deleted out of process I say. What happened to the article? Harthacanute3 15:01, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
ЯEDVERS
15:06, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
HarthaCanute3 has already been blocked indef as another Courtney Akins/Cheerleader sock. Newyorkbrad 17:02, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Jamie Lee Curtis and Nikki Craft
(from my talk page)
You edited (removed a portion of) my comments on the Jamie Lee Curtis page. This is not acceptable. I'm happy to discuss any differences of opinion I may have with other editors, but I won't accept other people editing my comments because they disagree. Blanking sections of articles is considered to be vandalism. Atom 16:10, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons says "Unsourced or poorly sourced controversial (negative, positive, or just highly questionable) material about living persons should be removed immediately from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, and user pages." I noticed you used Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons as a reason to deletesources in Nikki Craft. I too have a problem with Nikki citing stuff at her own website to source claims on her bio page, but deleting the only listed source and leaving the claim makes no good sense. I also notice almost all your recent edits are sex related. So you want to pick a fight with me over my correct use of WP:BLP while you use it to delete sources instead of claims and your edit subjects are troll bait (but I have not reviewed your edits on those sex pages). Altogether a troubling pattern. WAS 4.250 16:55, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
The comments above were not placed here by myself. They were copied by WAS 4.250. The way it is placed, it gives the appearance that I am complaining here, when it was a conversation between myself and WAS 4.250 on his talk page. The issue has been resolved as far as I know. Atom 23:07, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
User:Huaiwei
My edits to airline destinations are reverted by user:Huaiwei with no valid reason given. [160] He claimed there was " major changes " while there was none, and he even couldn't tell what he considered to be " major changes ". What should I do? — Instantnood 21:34, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Do you guys never get tired of this? /wangi 21:41, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Additionally that article really is one designed to be
AFD'd - Airline destinations - a list of all airports in the world served by airlines. OMG! Thanks/wangi
21:44, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
I made slight improvements to an article (please refer the diffs), and yet he keeps reverting without any valid reason. — Instantnood 21:48, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for bringing the edit wars to my attention. As both have warned constantly about this sort of behavior I hope both of you enjoy your blocks. Joelito (talk) 21:53, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Images on MediaWiki pages
hprotected}}. More images are making their way in to the interface, as recently as the one in MediaWiki:Spamprotectiontext. Should protecting such images be required? Thanks for your comments! — xaosfluxTalk
01:55, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
I think that images should not be overused in the MediaWiki space, but where they are used (13 times according to Special:Allmessages I would support protection, or perhaps reuploading the file as a duplicate and protecting the duplicate, so that the original, used on non-MediaWiki: pages, could still be edited. —Mets501 (talk) 02:00, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
The images (
talk
) 14:35, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks bainer, guess I was in line with the normal view here then. I updated the note at MediaWiki:Editinginterface to reflect this process. — xaosfluxTalk 02:54, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Could somebody explain why "this process" was not s.o.p. from day one? Thanks. —freak(talk) 12:11, Oct. 25, 2006 (UTC)
Protected Double Redirect
I can not remove this double redirect as Austin Osueke is protected - can an administrator sort this out.
This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above.
SpinyNorman is required to edit using only one account. SpinyNorman may be banned from any article he disrupts. SpinyNorman is placed on personal attack parole. He may be banned for an appropriate period of time if he makes personal attacks. SpinyNorman is placed on revert parole. He is limited to 1 revert per week on any article, excluding obvious vandalism. Should SpinyNorman continue to disrupt Wikipedia he may be banned for an appropriate period, up to a year. All bans to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Honda_S2000#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.
For the Arbitration Committee. Arbitration Committee Clerk, FloNight 14:44, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Request for unblocking
My username is user:lil_crazy_thing
i wanted to leave a message here because i know otherwise it will not get looked at. and i know i'm not ment to do this but there no other choice. i have very unfairly been yet again blocked by Yamla. He his always singling me out and applying rules to me and not others on wrestling images. He is forever basically harassign me and stalking me on wikipedia and i'm getting very sick of it, i never had any priblems at all on wikipedia until yamla started on me and ever since then he will not leave me alone and will find fault with anything if he gets the chance to he will also block me. I'm always being unfairly treated by him and all i want is for him to just leave me alone for once which he will not do. I add an unblock request but he said no and i think that very bias to have the blocking admin review it cos everyone will know that a blocking admin will not undo his own block. Please can someone please review it and if they want me to i can prove proof for every statement i've made if need be.80.47.161.10 16:02, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
This user knows that it is not stalking to continue warning a user for repeated violation of policies (see WP:STALK). Additionally, the claim that I am applying rules to images uploaded by this user but to no other wrestling images is a blatant lie and this user is well aware of that (even apart from the rather strange claim that only wrestling images are relevant). I have provided examples of other wrestling images which I have similarly marked as inappropriate under Wikipedia policies. I welcome other admins reviewing this particular block, but in the interests of maintaining civility, I am taking a 24 hour break from responding to this user's accusations on her talk page. --Yamla 16:22, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
The above anon has been blocked for trying to get around a valid block. User:Zoe|(talk) 17:48, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
CSD backlog, again
Up to 158 articles, at least one of which is 12 hours old. --Calton | Talk 16:05, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
I am not sure whether this belongs here or not, but in y'all collective opinion, do you think that
civil in those places, as well as User talk:Hossein.ir, but it seems to be for naught. Any suggestions, besides deep-breathing excecises and full-body contact yoga ? Thanks. -- Avi
17:18, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Would I be correct in stating that the origin of your dispute is some removed material that
libel. Hossein.ir seems to have an issue with a number of people who do not share his view on Iran, Palestine, Jews, MA, etc. His lack of civility and constant attacking is getting to be somewhat distracting, however. -- Avi
17:45, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Hossein.ir seems to be disputing it, which would probably make it a content dispute rather than vandalism, albeit a rather escalated content dispute.
refactoring, although that generally works better when a person refactors their own comments, or when a neutral third party refactors them, given the controversial nature of refactoring. Armedblowfish (talk|mail
) 18:07, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. One question, though, in all the wikipedia guidelines and policies, such as
Al Jazeera for that matter. I believe Hossein.ir is using this as a bad-faith effort to whitewash the sourced and cited material. However, as he brought (what appears to be a bad-faith) nomination of 3RR against me (which was shot down by two other admins, AND in which he was warned for incivility and baitinig) I do not want to be the one to levy sanctions as I feel sysops must hold themselves to very high standards. If anyone can show me why this would be considered libel according to wikipedia, I'd be grateful. Otherwise, I am afraid he is merely trolling. -- Avi
18:12, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Looking at this,[161] I'm not sure why Hossein.ir considers it libel, given that many varied references (both Western and Islamic). However, with less than 500 edits, Hossein.ir seems to be
new, so it's quite possible he doesn't understand Wikipedia policy. Being biased (because I know you), I can't be a neutral mediator, but I'm willing to try to talk to Hossein.ir. In the meantime, you could ask an uninvolved administrator to protect the page, if edit warring is a problem. Armedblowfish (talk|mail
Can you please protect that deleted page? As of right now, it has been deleted 9 times. Two of those deletions took place today, one of them took place on the 20th, and five of them took place in other parts of 2006. It was protected to prevent recreation on 1/26/06, but it was deleted on 9/19/06 for a reason unknown to me. Thanks.
There are some backlogs at Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies. One of them is the proxy servers to check section. There are 41 proxies remaining to check. The other backlog is at the blocked proxies section. It needs to be moved to the Meta project's blacklist. Unfortunately, the blacklist on Meta requires a Meta administrator to edit it, as it is fully protected. I therefore cannot move those open proxies to the blacklist. Jesse Viviano 21:54, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
This backlog is largely due to Burak18(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·nuke contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log), who is using a massive amount of open proxies and sockpuppet accounts to avoid his ban and continue his vandalism. He has created several sockpuppet accounts on October 8, which he used last week. He has now opened a can of accounts created on October 9. Is there a way to find all accounts created on that day, without having to flip through 60 pages of the new user log first? AecisDancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 22:39, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
I would think that CheckUser might work, except that it does not help find sockpuppets of users who use open proxies because it matches socks and their masters based on IP address. Therefore, it can be used to find the open proxies used by known sockpuppets and other accounts, or it can be used to find the sockpuppets of a user that does not use open proxies. Jesse Viviano 23:58, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
I've found some other patterns in Burak's editing, so that I know what to look out for. I don't think it'd be wise if I said it here though, per
Mess with the numbers in the URL. I'm sure this URL will be out of date soon enough, but try starting here. Also, I encourage you to softblock the proxies. Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 00:00, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
There is no need for a Meta administrator; IP addresses should not be moved directly to the blacklist from the English Wikipedia. Please move them to
Pathoschild
15:18, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
"AOL proxy range maintenance"
With this innocuous edit summary, a bot is wiping all comments (mostly vandalism warnings) from AOL user talk pages. These aren't all old comments; they're recent. See this example.
If a non-bot did this, I'd revert the edit and post a complaint on the perp's own user talk page. But I'm not going to battle a bot single-handedly.
I realize that despite all the minatory white-hands-on-red, etc., WP gives more or less carte blanche to AOLusers to make as many stupid edits to as many pages as they wish. ("Blocking might prevent good edits by innocent users"!) However, for a bot to blank mere criticism of an AOLuser (and to do so with a bland and uninformative edit summary) seems several steps too far.
As for the warning (in red!) that warnings to AOL users go to the wrong place, this is untrue for certain AOL IPs. See this for example: an AOLuser with obsessed by dark thoughts about Elvis Presley. -- Hoary 03:33, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
I cannot find any place where this has been discussed and approved (the talk page of the WikiProject on user warnings has several users complaining about this idea), so I've blocked the bot indefinitely until discussion here occurs. Titoxd(?!?) 03:37, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Should we re-add the comments back? --210physicq (c) 03:40, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I've just now reverted the particular blanking that I linked to. Unfortunately the "real world" has a pressing demand on my time and I can't look at the bot's list of recent "contributions" for now.
Incidentally, I'm no fan of melodramatic warnings on user talk pages. I think the warnings should be curt, clear, and uninteresting. But that's a different issue. -- Hoary 03:43, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm the operator of the bot in question. The bot is removing warnings posted to pages in the
User warning layout standardisation talk page (all of which have been answered there). A user in the proxy range changes very rapidly; it is said that the 'new messages' banner is permanent, and that clicking the link brings you to a talk page for an IP you've already moved from. Very conservatively, proxy users switch addresses within fifteen minutes, which makes all warnings older than fifteen minutes absolutely irrelevant. Leaving warnings after that point is the equivalent of warning Titoxd about hypothetical vandalism committed by Hoary
, and arguing that they are relevant because someone has to be warned.
The AOL dynamic ranges are more traditional, randomly assigned on connection and generally stable the whole time the user is connected. Warnings on these pages don't need to be removed, since the user actually will see them. Those IP addresses should no longer be categorised by {{
Pathoschild
04:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
This does not appear to be one of the tasks this bot was approved to run at
At the same time, the warnings on the proxy pages will still be visible, and blanking the warnings will just trigger the confusing orange bar again, and a user will get confused anyways if he clicks the diff link, so I don't see any benefit in blanking those pages. The case there is for not warning AOL users, not for removing the warnings already there. Titoxd(?!?) 04:28, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
The bot was approved for "tedious or slow tasks", which includes this one. The bot policy has changed since it was approved, which may require re-approval of such tasks, but it was originally given that scope.
As I said "does not appear", we have yet to go back through all the old bot requests (am working on validating several inconsistant pages) but "open-ended" bot tasks are no longer approriate. It would be just as easy to say that adding a new template to every page in the wiki would be tedious, but it is certainly wouldn't be acceptable to have a bot start doing this. User talk:Robchurch who approved your bot is not around to elaborate on the discussion though. It's simple to request bot task expansion, so I'd recomend you bring this there, and one of the first questions will likely be to link to a project page where this has been requested and consensus agrees it is in best interests. — xaosfluxTalk 06:25, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Users are confused by the warnings themselves. Many emails we recieve on the
Pathoschild
04:59, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
See also the precedent set by
Pathoschild
05:32, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
The warnings have to be removed some time, and recency is not a factor for the proxy IPs. —Centrx→talk • 06:02, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification, Pathoschild. I hadn't noticed any differentiation by en:WP among AOL IP numbers, which I suppose is "my bad". Putting aside the question of whether your bot was authorized to do what it's doing, what it's doing does seem to be a good thing. So I eat most of my words. But not all: I still think "AOL proxy range maintenance" was an unnecessary, even misleadingly bland edit summary; it could have been "AOL proxy: Deleting all messages other than AOL template" or similar. -- Hoary 06:24, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Time ranges for these should be determined at
bot requests and the bot should not remove recent messages, otherwise why waste the time donig anything on these pages, just blank (other then the template) and protect all of them. — xaosfluxTalk
06:29, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Why waste the time leaving messages indeed. Time ranges should not be determined at bot requests, because the bot is incidental to the task— I could do the same task semi-automatically or manually (as
Pathoschild
07:00, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Agreed, determining the best use of these pages is not the role of bot approvals, but the implementation of those determinations is. Without further details the situations are endless (e.g. at the shortest possible intervals, all messages left on these talk pages would be getting immeditatley removed-even if a project group determined that having these pages blank is best, implmenting that by immediately reverting talks is obviously not useful. Sometimes project groups miss some details like this (usually not as obvious as that example of course) and when the bot task request comes in we refer the operator back to the project group for further direction. Most bot approvals are fairly straight forward, and the process has been streamlined in the last month or so. — xaosfluxTalk 13:17, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
As for not leaving messages at all, is there a serious proposal for this somewhere, if so where? — xaosfluxTalk 13:17, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
This might sound like a radical proposal, but I do not think we should be leaving warning messages on the talk pages of AOL proxy range IP addresses at all. Not once have they been picked up by the intended recipient, with exception to a vandal who is seeking out these warnings. All that they do is provoke vandals and confuse the casual and innocent visitor. Can someone show me a diff that would prove otherwise? Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:30, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Does
Pathoschild
16:21, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Seems sensible. Or we could just block unregistered editing from these ranges entirely, with a suitably infromative block message. I was about to do that some months ago, but then some rumors appeared that AOL was going to get XFF support soon, which would've made blocking the proxy IPs pointless. Since this doesn't seem to be happening, I guess it's time to restart that proposal. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 19:38, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
That would be even more efficient; feel free. —[
Pathoschild
20:33, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
AFAIK, AOL is sending XFF headers, but the whitelist needs to be modified to support
CIDR ranges. You may want to poke Tim Starling about that, though. Titoxd(?!?
) 20:40, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
User:Zaphnathpaaneah
This guy is completely out of control.
User talk:Zaphnathpaaneah to see what I mean. He's been blocked for the next 24 hours on an civility violation. He's lucky it wasn't more. I'll run up an RfC if he comes back swinging. Thought you all should know. - Lucky 6.9
07:32, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm shocked it took this long for someone to block him. He totally destroyed the black people article, transforming it into an uncited POV personal essay and edit wars causing it to be protected. He even managed to destroy the black people talk page which is dominated by his ranting, raving, and race baiting. I got so tired of trying to deal with him that I put all my energy into the Definitions of black people article. If someone can redirect the protected and POV black people article to the well cited and neutral Definitions of black people article, that would be great. Timelist 09:05, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I think that merging all of your work over at Definitions of black people back into Black people would be much better for the project, once it gets unprotected. —Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:12, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
No. That is not how things are done on Wikipedia. Black people will be unprotected, soon, and you will be able to merge your work at the separate article over there. Just give things time. If/when Zaphnathpaaneah comes back, and he starts up his bullshit again, then he'll be dealt with. —Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:30, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
However, someone should go through Talk:Black people/Archive 4, 5, 6, and 7 to see what damage this guy may have done, already. —Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:32, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
I've unblocked Black people for now, but I'll leave it up to the regular editors of the article to correct the POV. I've increased this user's block to one month and protected his user and talk pages since he threatened to continue to disrupt the site via his talk page. If any sockpuppets should appear, please let me know. - Lucky 6.9 16:11, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
After careful consideration and discussion with User:Timelist, I've permanently blocked this account for trolling, race-baiting, incivility and disruption of Wikipedia. - Lucky 6.9 16:55, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
What's going on here?
Could someone take a look at the contributions of
Anticipatory thinking (futures) article with its "Pathfinder portfolio" stuff? Didn't check the rest; but to me, this sure looks weird. Lupo
10:30, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Looks like blatant spam to me. Very well done, though. Looks like it's time for a speedy-delete/rollback/block. yandman 11:28, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes this use has a habit of adding large number of low quality edits - along with some good ones. Unfortunately he doesn't seem to be learning proper editing style. Rmhermen 22:10, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Proposal for blocking anonymous edits
To whom of the administrators it may concern,
I don't know if this is the right place to offer suggestions, and I have a feeling that this has been suggested before, but anyway:
It is my opinion that a lot of administrative work and undoing of vandalism could be avoided if WikiPedia were to stop allowing anonymous/non-account users to edit the WikiPedia content. I am also of the opinion that it would be a slight improvement for the community, and would enhance the community "feeling", if people had a better idea of who are who and who does what edits.
As such, i would suggest that The Wiki-Rulers consider making it mandatory for would-be editors to create accounts or them to be able to edit WikiPedia content.
AS you guessed, this is a perennial proposal; as such,
WP:VPE is the best place to ask. (Administrators would find it very hard to prevent all anons editing; it's more an issue for the developers, but they wouldn't change it without consensus within the community, which seemed unlikely the previous times this was proposed (for instance, I think anons should be able to edit; User:69.145.123.171 has a list of other anon-supporters if you're more interested.) --ais523 14:24, 23 October 2006 (UTC
I know this sounds a bit unusual, but can someone please block me for 1 day? I need to focus on classwork, and I am afraid Wikipedia is taking my time from that. Thank you. --
Could someone check Kely Support Group? Mainly because I don't want to look like I am harassing them (besides I don't have too much time, boss is coming soon), and because the history shows a user pattern. I believe it may qualify as a notable organization, but I would like a second opinion. Thanks. -- ReyBrujo 16:02, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
I think it's marginal, on the side of being sufficiently notable. However, I think you can in good faith submit an AfD and see what the consensus is. --Nlu (talk) 16:32, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Userpage question
What's the current policy on commercial promotion on userpages? I'm talking about apparent single-purpose accounts like User:Swissprivatebank or User:Privatebankaccount, where the user's only edits are to their own userpage. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 16:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't know if there is a particularly pinpointed policy on this, but if I were you, I'd block both of them indefinitely as violative of
Since I don't have The Button, would you be willing to do the honors? -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 16:40, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
I asked them to change username. If nothing changes, I'll block them. NCursework 16:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Since they now have zero contributions, isn't asking them to change usernames pointless? If they are legitimate users, they can easily just create new accounts, (which would be less hassle for them and the bureaucrats,) and if they aren't legit, then why would they bother requesting username changes to monikers that are less promotional? (Which would defeat the purpose of promotional usernames.) Picaroon9288 18:13, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Open proxy block causing inability to read articles?
I got an e-mail from Kskang3247 (talk·contribs), whose IP address (210.210.12.141(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·filter log·WHOIS·RDNS·RBLs·http·block user·block log)) I had previously blocked as an open proxy. (The open proxy check site indicated that it is probably not an open proxy, but a lot of Web lists treats it as one due to poor security precautions by the ISP allowing access through the proxy.) Kskang3247 said that as a result of the block, he cannot read articles (after I initially wrote him and declined to lift the block, citing the open proxy nature of the IP and that he would still be able to read), and asked me to lift the block. He sent me a screen shot of the block message; however, that screen shot indicated that the message read that he is only blocked from editing, not reading. So my questions are, for those who might know more about this:
Is it possible that an open proxy block causes someone to be unable to read articles?
Whether this is true or not, should I convert the block (indefinite, as open proxy) to a soft block, and if so, should I also lift the block on creating user accounts from that IP?
Information/opinion are appreciated. --Nlu (talk) 16:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Blocked users (and IP's) can read articles just fine. Not sure about your second question though, what's the difference between an open proxy and a proxy with poor security that allow anyone to use it? --Sherool(talk) 16:31, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
I see no practical difference, although this brings the issue of this user possibly being an "innocent" user who is being hurt by the ISP's carelessness as opposed to a malicious user exploiting an open proxy. The latter is unlikely to be true, since such an user wouldn't be bothering to e-mail me, I don't think, as there would be other open proxies to find and use. --Nlu (talk) 16:34, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
How is using open proxies "malicious"? : ( Using open proxies, Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 16:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
The main reason people use open proxies is to get arround something that stops them from accessing somewhere, be that filtering software in a workplace that forbids wikipedia use or wikipedia blocks. Plugwash 18:34, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Or because they are paranoid (with or without good reason) like me. (For example, if someone gets your IP, then assuming your
ISP has records of IP assignment, someone with either a warrant or very good cracking skills can also get everything else on your ISP bill.) And yes, I have seen m:WM:NOP, so I guess if I get autoblocked it's my own fault. But although one reason Plugwash mentioned is relatively "malicious" (avoiding Wikipedia blocks), not all reasons are. Armedblowfish (talk|mail
) 19:25, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
So you don't trust wikimedia servers to be secure regarding your IP, but do some unknown provider of an open proxy? --pgk 19:34, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm proxy-chaining, with encryption. (The idea is that although some of the proxies may be untrustworthy, hopefully not all of them are.) And it's not Wikimedia servers so much as the things in between the Wikimedia servers and I, like my ISP. I'd explain in more detail, but that might be
WP:BEANS for those who do want to use proxies to get around blocks. Armedblowfish (talk|mail
) 19:43, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
I got more clarification by e-mail from the user. Apparently, the user mistakenly thought that red links lead to additional information, so when he clicked on one, he thought he was blocked off from content. I sent him an e-mail back explaining the situation and informing him that I'm not inclined to grant the unblock. --Nlu (talk) 09:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
history merge needed Gaim and GAIM
this is an *old* copypaste move that it seems never got spotted before. Plugwash 17:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
[162]. It was deleted. The reason was given is a copyvio. Please restore it. I don't knwo if it is a copyvio (I don't think so). I'll rewrite it and remove the (possibly) copyrighted text form the entry. --Haham hanuka 17:55, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
I've reviewed the situation, and I believe it is a copyright violation. I've therefore explained on my own talk page (User talk:Nlu) that I will not restore the article. --Nlu (talk) 10:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Sock of indef blocked user
User:CME46 is a sock of User:Andrew Lin, who is an indefinitely blocked user that has edited under many usernames. CME46 is definitely an incarnation of Lin, as the discussion of "25 Years of Beauty" (an article that Lin actually created over a year ago that was deleted) on CME46's userpage confirms. Additionally, the odd pattern of edits, especially relating to soda and odd comments on my talk page, are consistent with Lin's other edits. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/68.170.0.238 for the old Rfc on Lin that led to the indef block. · j e r s y k otalk · 18:24, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
This may be my.. er.. stupidity, but is there a better way of dealing with this: A vandal posted someone's personal info in this article, and it was reverted. Anger22 asked me to delete the vandal's edit. So I delete, and go to restore, and... yeah, I'm not going to click 1,920 check boxes. Is there a select-all function, or is anyone using a browser/tool/etc that could more easily do this? Thanks... --Aguerriero (talk) 19:28, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
In Mozilla, check the first, go the last and check it while keeping "shift" pressed. No time for doing it myself now, sorry :-( Tizio, Caio, Sempronio 19:35, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
I've got a little javascript bookmark that checks all the boxes for me. However, I can't remember where I got it from or who made it or how to pass it on to someone else. Hmm. I think you paste javascript:for (i=0; i<document.forms.length; i++) { for (j=0; j<document.forms[i].elements.length; j++) { f= document.forms[i].elements[j]; if (f.type == 'checkbox') f.checked= true; } } void 0 in as the location and then give the book mark a name. Try that. pschemp | talk 00:03, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Done. However, I only removed an edit dated "18:46, 23 October 2006". When asking to remove single revisions, please also specify which ones are to be removed. Tizio, Caio, Sempronio 11:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Moving deleted revisions out of the way
By the way, I think it would be nice if, whenever people are doing such selective history deletions, they'd also move the deleted revisions to a different title. That will make the job of any admin who needs to repeat the exercise later for the same article easier, and ensures that the revisions containing confidential information don't get restored later by accident. There are two ways to do this:
Restore all revisions except the ones you wanted to remove.
Move the article back to its original title.
Method B:
Delete the article.
Restore only the version you wanted to removed.
Move the restored revisions to a new title (as above).
Delete the moved revisions.
Restore all the remaining revisions of the original article.
The second method takes more work, but has the advantage that you don't need to select lots of checkboxes at any point. Also, before doing selective history deletion, it's a good idea to always check if the article already has deleted revisions, and, if so, move them out of the way first. This can be done using a similar sequence of moves and deletions as above:
Move the article to a temporary title (say, Stupidity/temp).
Move the temporarily renamed article back to its original title.
Continue with either method above.
(This should probably go to some "advice for admins" page, but I'll post it here for now since the subject came up.) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 20:07, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Can someone explain to me how to rename categories? Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈t • @ 20:26, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Howto for how to nominate for renaming. Deletion process Deletion process for how to close and rename, once the CFD discussion has ended (under "If the decision is Delete, Merge, or Rename") --Kbdank71
20:32, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Short version: Create a new category with proper name, re-categorise all articles to use the new one (typical bot work unless the cat only have a handfull of members), then delete the now empty old category. --Sherool(talk) 21:13, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Really short version: file a bug. -Splash - tk 21:54, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
This reminds me of the first time I realised that category renaming wasn't possible in any simple way. I thought "that must be a bug". But actually, if category moving was as simple as page moving, the vandalism possibilities would be endless! A big clue that categories can't be renamed in any simple way, which I only spotted recently, is that there is no "move" tab for category pages. This also means that the history of any work on a category page is lost (well, technically hidden) if it is deleted. Now that really is a bug! :-( Carcharoth 22:24, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
He claimed to be Johnny the Vandal, a permablocked multi-username vandal, and I see no reason to doubt the claim, so he should stay permablocked, as far as I'm concerned. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:20, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Minors creating autobiographies
A new user has been creating his own autobiography, which I've deleted twice now and had planned on userfying if I see it again, but he has given his full name, the city he lives in, the school he goes to, his age (13) and the names of his friends. Should this be deleted? User:Zoe|(talk) 22:17, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Absolutely! Do not userfy. There are several possible reasons this might be big trouble. FloNight 22:35, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I thought so. Thanks for confirming it. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:06, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Permanent, untagged semi-protection
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I quote from the top of this page: Please be aware that these pages are not the place to bring disputes over content, or reports of abusive behaviour — we're not referees, and have limited authority to deal with abusive editors. We have a dispute resolution procedure which we recommend you follow. Please take such disputes to requests for comment, requests for mediation, or requests for arbitration rather than here.
I am thus closing this discussion - see my fuller reasoning at the end of it--
Doc
01:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Ok, this is unfortunate to my mind.
WP:PP, but that's really only half the job and the tag and category exist for a reason. I can't get any response (to anything, at all, even why he blocked someone for 8.625 fortnights) from his talk page, I suppose he must not like me (fair enough, but still) so I'm kind of wondering whether this seems like a good balance to be striking or not? (The answer from IRC vandal fighters is naturally yes! protect anything!) -Splash - tk
22:19, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Trollish comment struck out. Let's stick with relevant material, shall we? Luna Santin 22:37, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
1. Not a troll, 2 Can look after self. 3. Shall we? -Splash - tk 22:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm frankly confused by your pre-emptively adversarial attitude. This is a collaborative project, all editors should strive to get along, and divisive comments like that don't appear to add anything to the topic; worse, they take away from what could otherwise immediately leap into productive discussion. But I'll drop it after that -- I made my point, and I would like to move on. You're free to compose a clever rebuttal if you like.
For the most part, I try to appropriately tag pages I've protected, and I do dig through my protection log to unprotect every two or three days -- I'd encourage most any admin to do the same, I think. It does seem unusual that CSCWEM wouldn't reply to your message, though to be fair he might need or want more than sixteen minutes to do so; is there any history of bad blood, there, or is it just a case of a missed message? Or I guess more to the point, is this thread about reminding people to tag and eventually unprotect, in general, or about CSCWEM in particular? I'm guessing the former, or maybe both, but please correct me if I'm wrong on that. Luna Santin 23:23, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, I more or less torpedoed his 2nd RfA if you're looking for blood. I gave him the whole day to answer the questions about odd blocks. It's about CSCWEM in particular; I've never come across such an imbalance and lack of tags. Nor such bizarre block lengths, and unwillingness, despite a full day's editing, to discuss. -Splash - tk 23:30, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
I have to admit these blocks of 299 hours are really annoying when trying to determine how long the next block should be. I'm gonna leave him a message about that (since he's given out another since Splash first brought it up). --
Steel
23:40, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
299 hours appears to be 12 days and 11 hours; I can't see why that's useful. As for 8.625 fortnights, apart from being useless to the next admin is an extradorinary 120+ days. -Splash - tk 23:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Could you provide some examples?
(talk)
23:18, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Protection log has 4 unprotects since July. If you look down the (current) top of [163] you can see 99 hours, 299 hours, and 8.625 fortnights. As well as crytpic codes. I asked about blocks [164], [165], [166], [167], and protection [168], [169]. (This is all available from logs, you know. That's why I didn't clutter with diffs; I'm not likely to be making this up, really.) -Splash - tk 23:30, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't add the tag either since the box ruins the article. I guess I could start adding them to the sprotected category (a self-reference in the cats is less serious), but as long as the bot is adding the pages I protect to WP:PP, I really don't see the need. The PP-list is much nicer to browse since it includes the date for when the articles were (s)protected. What does the category give us that the list doesn't? Shanes 23:23, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
It is the imbalance that I'm principally interested in; he regularly protects, never tags and never unprotects (see above). He also hands out really weird-shaped blocks. I can't rustle up talk page reply on either point. -Splash - tk 23:31, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
You've gotta admit, his block times are a bit interesting to try and figure out how long he's gonna block for... livens things up a bit and it looks cooler than the standard week block we put on repeat vandals :o -- Tawker 23:50, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
No, I do not admit that. It makes it hard to work out where are/not in the scheme of blocks, how long they may have left until the block expires and is generally way outside the usual, perfectly functional stuff. If things aren't lively enough, then, well, that's not everyone else's problem. Never unprotecting articles appears to contradict the notion of a number of fairly serious things. -Splash - tk 23:52, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
He is working to counter-act vandalism. On that end, he is protecting pages. He is not going to encounter many pages that warrant unprotection in the process of reviewing bogus recent changes. I doubt he looks through Category:Requests for unblock either, but that does not mean he is doing anything wrong in blocking the people. —Centrx→talk • 00:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
I didn't say he was; it's the weird durations that I think are unhelpful. If an admin protects a page, they should head back later to unprotect. -Splash - tk 00:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
After reviewing the logs this looks like a spurious thread, even if it was not meant to be. It is de facto standard to lengthen block times for returning vandals including those on problematic school nets as long as logged in users can edit. My only concern is why you felt it was necessary to go as far as to unprotect for example Atlantic Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) which has a history of vandalism even while semi-protected. Why did you do this? Yamaguchi先生 08:06, 24 October 2006
It is not de facto standard to use wacky block lengths; and I did not, quite deliberately, say that lengthening blocks was in any way wrong. Please don't try to re-invent what I said just to make it appear spurious, ignorant, trollish or stupid (this thread has tried all of them). Once a semiprotected article is receiving vandalism, semiprotection is no longer effective, and unprotecting it is unlikely to result in an increases in vandalims; thus unprotecting it make this look a little bit more like a wiki. -Splash - tk 21:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Splash, you have the opposite problem. You unprotect articles that are facing heavy ongoing vandalism and then walk away from them. Some of these are then re-vandalized within minutes. Which is worse? --Cyde Weys 23:53, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
That doesn't validate CSCWEM's blocking/protection habits. If Splash's unprotection is causing an issue, bring it up in another thread rather than using it as tit for tat.
(talk)
23:58, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Considering this thread should never have been started here, it makes more sense to evaluate why anyone would have done so rather than discuss the frivolous complaint. —Centrx→talk • 00:07, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
And where, pray tell, should it have been? And which is the frivolous part? —Cryptic 00:21, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it should have been. I tried the talk page, don't want to RfAR particularly, and can't RfC by myself, with an unresponsive other party. It's not frivolous. -Splash - tk 00:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
8.625 fortnights = 120 days = 4 months; AB = Autoblock; AO = Anon-Only; 299 hours = 12.5 days; 744 hours = 31 days; Calculator = programmed into most computers; most other blocks are pretty simple from CSCWEM. —Ryūlóng (竜龍) 00:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Calculator: Use your brain. —Centrx→talk • 00:03, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
That was just plain rude. -Splash - tk 00:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
None of which actually explains their length's meaning, nor clarifies much in terms of the stuff I already mentioned. They are substantially unusual durations which are not part of the normal blocking vocabulary. It just confuses. 8.625 fortnights is not 120 days, and 120 days is not 4 months. 299 hours is not 12.5 days. -Splash - tk 00:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
"the tag and category exist for a reason": What are those reasons? The page is already listed elsewhere, and a clearer message could be added to the MediaWiki page rather than cluttering the article. —Centrx→talk • 00:21, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Splash, use the
dispute resolution process please. If others have complaints about Splash do the same. FloNight
00:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
How? A request for arbitration seems far excessive; an RfC is impossible if I'm an only user and the other party is not responding. Here is the standard place to start. An RfAr against me has already been tried and failed.... -Splash - tk 00:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
IMHO, if it's set in hours, then we can determine how long the next block should be. 99 hours is his most common number he uses, but what is 99 hours but a little under 3 "31 hour" blocks? The use of fortnights is a little excessive, true, but it's nothing to start a discussion, RFC or RFAr about. I mean if he all of his logs in fortnights, I guess that would be a problem, but he doesn't. For the most part he uses hours, which we can always just do the simple math. semper fi — Moe 00:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Splash, I agree with Flo, and RfC is the proper course. If you want a general admin discussion on protection then fair enough, but it looks to me like you are here 'requesting comments' on an individual admin. Yes, RfCs need to be seconded - and there are good reasons for us requiring that. Don't use this board to get round that requirement. If CSCWEM isn't responding to you, you should ask someone else to have a word. If there's still no adequate response then RfC is the place to go.--
Doc
01:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Asking someone else to have a word is exactly why I came here. I can't very well turn up on some random other talk page and ask said random to go and 'have a word'; that'd make no sense. Since it is actually ok to talk about things here, I took away the silly purple box. Ive not really understood the prevailing feeling that it's never ok to be critical on this page. -Splash - tk 07:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Splash, the issue is that you seem to be trying to turn this into an informal RfC on an admin rather than having a discussion about the issue in general, so I'm going to restore Doc's archiving. SlimVirgin(talk) 08:15, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Someone has undone it....oh well. I simply can't see how this thread isn't a 'request for comment' on CSCWEM.--
Doc
13:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
For a third time, this is not a requests for comments forum. I am endorsing and restoring the archival notice. RFerreira 16:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it really is, that's what almost all the sections on this page and it subpage are, just under another note. The archival note has no magic effect, other than a pretty purple box. -Splash - tk 21:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above.
Upon returning to active editing, Pat8722 is placed on Probation for one year. He may be banned for an appropriate period of time from any page or set of pages for disruptive editing. Should Pat8722 violate any ban imposed under probation, he may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeat violations. After 5 such blocks the maximum block period increases to one year. All bans are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pat8722#Log of blocks and bans.
For the Arbitration Committee. Arbitration Committee Clerk, FloNight 22:28, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
In the light of this, this, his/her talk page archives and dense reversion history, I'm concerned about this user's manner within Wikipedia. Is there anything that might be done to encourage him/her to behave in a more collaborative, friendly and civil way...? Thanks, David Kernow(talk) 23:05, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Short, sharp shock? I agree Tasc is being problematic and possibly even disruptive, and you have been more than accommodating, trying to work with Tasc but not getting any response. Carcharoth 00:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for responding, Carcharoth. If by the proverbial short, sharp shock you mean a block, I'm not sure if that would help; perhpas, though, you had something else in mind...? I left a few (informal) requests for comment on the template discussion and am pleased to see a few folk have passed by; maybe this reminder that we all need to accommodate each other – even though, yes, it can be frustrating and time-consuming sometimes! – might be more effective. I hope so. If not, however, there's this thread as a point of reference. Yours, David(talk) 08:34, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
ChaCha Search
ChaCha has been removed several times, although the post is legitimate and non-adverstisement. Clusty, Squidoo, Google and Yahoo have all been able to stay on Wiki and the reasoning behind ChaCha being removed in unclear. Please advise as to the underlying issue.
Planets in Stargate, have noticed that for no reason whatsoever, the link in the toolbox to the French version appears more than a hundred times. There was nothing in the code of the page that would indicate this, and no oone had made any edit that would seem to cause this. After trying to Delete the French link entirely, they were still there. Even after screwing around on the French version, we still haven't been able to remove the links. I think this might be a glitch in the software, or some sort of Vandal virus that reprograms the codes. We need an admin with very good technical skills to take a look. Tobyk777
I seem to be having trouble with the Paul Hindemith article. I noticed some vandalism... "i am very bored and need to call someone!!!. A BOT then seemingly showed the removal of the graffiti.[171] When I however looked at the article it still showed the vandalism. I reported it here, at the Obvious Vandalism section. I followed the suggestions in clearing my memory and refreshing the article. It was still there, so I reported it again this time to user:gdo01 whome suggested it was my browser.[172]. I eventually got fed up and simply did the revert myself to the same version of:
(cur) (last) 15:38, 22 October 2006 Tawkerbot2 (Talk | contribs) m (BOT - rv 71.31.144.249 (talk) to last version by AntiVandalBot)
The vandalism has disapeared. However the history page doesn't show my edit.[173] I think there could be something else wrong with the wikipedia article. Or maybe I have something that doesn't allow me to refresh the page. (neverthe less I am able to refresh the WP:VAN Page) I think there is something wrong with the server? --CyclePat 04:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
The behavior you describe happens sometimes when two editors (or an editor and one of the anti-vandalism bots) try to make the same edit at the same time. One edit will show up and the other won't. It's happened to me more times than I can count. If the end result is the same, don't worry about it.
I checked the article a moment ago and it looks fine to me - the last edit I see was by Antandrus, who is an admin and an all-around good guy. KrakatoaKatie 05:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Random username rule
I'm fairly concerned that few admins have weighed in with opinions on the "random" rule here as 1. admins are the ones who make these blocks and 2. no one noticed when it was removed without consensus, yet people still used it for a blocking reason. (Does that make it de facto policy since people use it regardless of the wording? I don't know.) I personally think that usernames are meant to be a human, understandable interface that promotes collaboration. A random string of garbage made by a vandal as a throwaway account such as User:1524gf86d3sf546 should be disallowed. (The only reason "vandalism" appears in that block summary is that rather than doing the usual usernameblock on sight, I've been checking first to make sure innocent editors aren't harmed. So far I haven't found any that were traumatized as has been claimed.) One argument seems to be that regular editors can't trust admins to make good decisions based on this policy, though I have yet to see evidence that this rule is rampantly misused. More discussion is on the village pump here, but again few admins have weighed in and they should (whether you agree with my view or not) since ultimatley we are the ones who deal with enforcing this. pschemp | talk 05:31, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
This is the old descriptive not prescriptive. The policy itself gives various rationales and the lsit of inappropriate names is (in my understanding) not intended to be comprehensive just documents those frequently held to be inappropriate. As the policy states "...but it also means picking a name that others are comfortable seeing and collaborating with.", which is where I'd place the "silly" random strings, they aren't that easy for others to remember and work with. Also username blocks are generally without prejudice and autobocks removed without question. --pgk 06:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
mmm...well said and sensible. The issue I see is people saying we "can't" block these usernames if the random rule is removed or "only a suggestion". Perhaps that's just policy wonkism at its best? pschemp | talk 07:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Well that's not the way it works anywhere else,
wikilawyering etc. all cover this, we aren't an experiment in rule making and it is the underlying rationale/purpose/spirit which is important. The username policy is quite clear as to it's aim as indeed is the list it gives as "Wikipedia does not allow certain types of usernames, including the following:" which quite clearly seems to indicate it is not exhaustive. The question still comes down to are the names being blocked because of the rationale behind the username policy. It would be silly (and wrong IMO) to block a name just because it could be interpreted within those criteria and we adopted a rules is rules approach when clearly it isn't problematic (say a username of asfdg which is of course a random set of letters, but is not problematic in regards to a "sensible" identifier of a user it isn't that complex or confusing) , similarly usernames which are within the base raitionale and purpose of usernames should be blocked regardless of an explicit mention in that list. It still comes down to a question of discretion on behalf of the admin and indeed the username policy recognises that too "Fairly or unfairly, the line between acceptable and unacceptable user names is drawn by those who find the username inappropriate, not by the creator of the name." --pgk
11:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
People unfortunately are policy wonking out about this though, there was a bit of a revert war on the page where this was discussed, and one editor kept insisting that there is no consensus for this policy, even though it has been this way for a while, and when it was changed, a number of editors spoke out against the change and for the status quo. That editor gave every appearance of trying to ruleslawyer. So I'm glad pschemp brought this up here so it could be discussed further. ++Lar: t/c 11:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
People are wonking out in the extreme on the Village Pump and I'm the only person trying to contradict their premise. Basically they are arguing that admins can't be trusted to make correct decisions and interpret policy fairly but they seem to be in the majority right now so don't blame me when you get taken to arbcom for blocking User:1524gf86d3sf546. I've already got one nutter on my talk page ranting about this. Someone else might want to tell these people that "It still comes down to a question of discretion on behalf of the admin" please because they aren't listening to lonely me. pschemp | talk 15:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm not getting involved, but I just had the thought: how does a random user name differ from someone editing as an IP address? That often appears to most people as a random group of numbers. Carcharoth 21:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
I deleted the articles, but I'd wait a while before declaring him a vandal. He's only just created his account. Raven4x4x 09:19, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Delete link
For any andmin who would like a "delete" link on the Whatlinkshere page and "Move successful" page, the delete link can be added by adding
function addDeleteLink() {
var targetSpan = document.getElementById('specialDeleteTarget');
var linkSpan = document.getElementById('specialDeleteLink');
if (targetSpan == null || linkSpan == null) return;
var targetLink = targetSpan.getElementsByTagName("A")[0];
if (targetLink == null) return;
var targetTitle = targetLink.childNodes[0].data;
var deleteHref = "http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=delete&title=" + escape(targetTitle);
var deleteSpan = null;
with (easyDom) {
deleteSpan = span({ "class": "plainlinks" }, " (", a({ "href": deleteHref, "class": "external text" }, "delete"), ")");
}
linkSpan.appendChild(deleteSpan);
}
addOnloadHook(addDeleteLink);
document.write('<script type="text/javascript" src="'
+ 'http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Mike_Dillon/easydom.js'
+ '&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&dontcountme=s"></script>');
to your personal js. I don't know any better place to let admins know, so here seems good :-) —Mets501 (talk) 11:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Would it be possible to clarify what this is used for? I'm guessing it is for when you delete one article (presumably as a speedy, as anything else doesn't really need a tool like this to save time, as they have to go through AfD), you click on "what links here" to see if the article was linked from anywhere else that might also be suitable for deletion (eg. walled gardens). But I'm wondering why this "delete" link is needed, as surely you have to go into the article and read it, and look at the history and so forth, first? After all that, how does having the delete button on "what links here" help?
I'm also concerned about the "move successful" page. I'm guessing this is for deleting the old page after a move (the old page turns into a redirect), but I was under the impression that this was only needed if moving pages out of the way to create space for moving another page to that location? I thought that in general, redirects after moving are nearly always left in place. Carcharoth 13:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
MediaWiki talk:Linkshere explains a bit of the history behind this. The idea is that when doing a speedy, an admin should check the page first, then the history, then the WLH (because you can't easily get from WLH to the history), and it speeds up the deletion as there isn't a need to go back to the original page. Not being an admin, I can't comment on how useful this would be. --ais523 13:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Glad to know that some admins do check the history and what links here before deleting. Sorry for being cryptic, but I had an argument with someone a week or so ago about this. :-) Carcharoth 15:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Maybe it's the real Mary Fualaau. Maybe it's a vandal playing games.
In any case, I've blocked the user with a username block. Interested admins are cordially invited to review my decision in this regard, and revert if they feel my block was unjustified.
Sounds fine. I think you should have left the user a message on their talk page explaining this, so I did it. Mangojuicetalk 13:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Just out of curiosity, what's the procedure for having her verify that she's the real deal, assuming that she is? --Ξxtreme Unction 14:08, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Sometimes a Wikipedian "knows" the real person through other channels and can contact them. Sometimes, the real person makes a contact "back in to Wikipedia" from an obviously valid source. I don't think there's a hard-and-fast procedure to follow yet for cases like this.
Beyond conceptually, there was nothing amusing about it, so no need to keep it. RFerreira 16:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
We could always reopen it next April first. -- llywrch 20:15, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Did you see Jimbo's User Page at the BJAODN page? :-) Carcharoth 21:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Gogeta Article
Someone has been vandalizing the Dragonball Z article on the character "Gogeta" by changing his name to "Frank" and inserting nonsense text and images. Can the page be locked until it is edited back to normal? Full Shunyata 21:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
? Thanks. -- Avi 17:18, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
? Thanks. -- Avi