Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive76

I've seen it suggested by several people now that we have way too many

12:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd oppose this in general. In Cat:E is some light hearted pieces and some useful stuff that commands some support and certainly illuminates. Perhaps what we should have is a move to userfy stuff which is solo-authored AND quixotic (= opinion that hardly anyone agrees with). Perhaps a first step is do split CAT:E into

1. Cat:General Essays a 'category for essays that are (or may become) multi-author works and either balance differing views or represent views that held by a majority or very substantial minority of the community' all these must be in project space.
2. Cat:User Essays = 'a category for most mono-authored pieces, or essays representing clearly small minority opinions' - this category should generally exist in userspace, although there can be honourable exceptions for pieces that are often used, clearly collaborative, amusing, or deemed to be of wider interest. --
   Doc
   ^g 12:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• I foresee that splitting into "general" and "user" essays will lead to more tag warring over people who disagree that their essay is a minority opinion. >Radiant< 12:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion that essays that don't enjoy general support should be userfied, the move for an extra Category that Doc suggests would be a useful way for users with their own essays to advertise them. But generally any contributions shouldn't be deleted totally (just moved to user space) --Monotonehell 12:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• There are almost no essays that "enjoy general support", since the whole point of essays tends to be to given an opinion. Note that I wasn't suggesting "deleting totally" either. >Radiant< 12:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• I predict that without some sort of a general consensus about this it is liable to cause a serious disruption. There should be a general consensus based upon some sort of criteria. One of the criteria could consist of a threshhold of a number of "What links here" link backs a given essay has with the thinking that the more links a given essay has the more liable it is to have community recognition/acceptance. (→Netscott) 12:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Instruction creep, and and so open to abuse --

^{read this}

Not clear on your response here Doc. Your thinking is the "What links here" idea is instruction creep? (→Netscott) 12:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Counting inbound links is, yes. --

^{read this}

Another possible criteria would be how many other language Wikis have their own versions of a given essay? Obviously the more there are the more likely an essay has recognition. (→Netscott) 13:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I would strongly support a move to userfy most essays. There is room for a fair amount of stuff in project space that's neither a policy or a guideline but the essay tag is over used and abused by people who simpy want to advertise their (non-consensual) opinion. People are free to express themselves (and even collaborate if they wish) in userspace there's no need to clog up Wikipedia space with conflicting opinions. However, I do support keeping userfied essays in a category to facilitate finding them, which can help avoid redundancy. Why express myself in an essay if someone else has already written a better one that I can refer to? I don't like Doc's idea of a two tiered category since I fear it would encourage

WP:OWNing of essays. Eluchil404

12:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

The problem with userfying is that they make what could be corporate works the 'property' of one user. There's another problem, even essays that are contravertial or minority can still be useful. Take

Doc

^g 13:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

<edit conflict>I think it's a good move. I can't see an issue with the

WP:SNOW is certainly an expression of community opinion, I think we'd all agree with that even if there isn't wide agreement that it is a policy. Still, food for thought. Hiding Talk

13:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

The problem with a lot of opinion pieces being in WP: space is that (even though they have a tag on them) they can be confused as "official" wikipedia policy. Userfying essays that are pretty much owned anyway isn't a bad idea. --Monotonehell 13:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't realy have a issue with "Userfying" as a general way to solve a problem (see The German Solution), but I don't see any problem here. What problem is trying to be solved here? Are all the "good" names taken up? ---

) 13:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I guess it's an issue of quantity and quality. There's a LOT of essays, several probably should be merged, others that serve no real purpose should be userfied. It would be an exercise that at the very least would help us examine their content and make people think a bit. It may even lead to some revision of policy --Monotonehell 13:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I continue to hold the (minority?) opinion that the policy/guideline/essay system is rather useless.

Tagging and categorization in general seem to be somewhat at random, and this is equally true in the project namespace.

This means that userfication would also be at random, and in the end, would likely be useless, destructive, or otherwise problematic :-P.

Much of the process bloat is due to people inadvertantly playing nomic in the project namespace ;-) something which I think is probably impossible to stamp out by now.

Perhaps we could move key sections of our guidelines to meta or elsewhere? --Kim Bruning 13:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we should also look at it from the perspective of new users; There's a HUGE amount of (sometimes conflicting) policy, guidelines and essays. generally reviewing what we have now and trying to make sense of them would be a step to clarifying where consensus has got us. --Monotonehell 13:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't overly disagree Kim, but I think lamenting the tagging and categorisation as being somewhat random is a poor reason to not unrandomise it. It may well be that the policy/guideline/essay system is rather useless, but so far it appears to be the best of the alternatives. I am not sure we can dump these off on meta either, I seem to remember them clearing out their space. Wasn't their a dispute over who should host

WP:DICK, I seem to remember meta trying to foist that off on us? Hiding Talk

14:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I've been working on simplifying guidelines from a different angle at the same time. ( See the ~historic

5 pillars ). Since radiant and I have just about the same objective but competing stratagems, perhaps we should meet IRL and discuss! :-) --Kim Bruning

15:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Strong suggestion to let sleeping dogs lie. Essays are a way in which people articulate their opinions and let off steam. Wherever they are located, at best they provoke thinking, at worst when misused we can say "don't misuse them" and deal with it on an as-needed basis. The level of irritation and friction between users on WP is already needlessly high; starting discussions---which I am sure will at some point be quite passionate---about "we will now rename/move/userfy/reclassify your essay" will generate friction far in excess of the benefit it will bring". (Posted by an established user who does not have time to log in right now)

An equal standard

How about this? Propose Wikipedia space essays for at MFD under the following circumstances:

1. Essay is over 4 months old.
2. Essay has fewer than 10 incoming wikilinks.
3. Essay's talk page is blank.

Under those circumstances the essay has had enough chance to sell itself in the marketplace of ideas. The deletion proposal wouldn't be tainted by potential POV issues because it's based upon objective criteria. Durova^Charge! 21:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Incoming wikilink is not a good criteria. They are easy to arrange.--

g

21:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I understand and in most cases I'd agree. This standard would weed out only the essays that not even the creator bothered to spam, which (I hope) should render the deletions uncontroversial. If the original editor pipes up we could always userfy. The goal with this proposal is to remove some cruft without starting any more controversy. Durova^Charge! 21:31, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

This article has been subject to a prolonged dispute for several months. Recently this dispute got worse when one user, Randroide, made a series of contested changes to the main article and ignored all objections by other editors involved in the dispute. Despite this I have continued to make efforts to resolve the dispute following the procedures laid down in

. To date I have attempted to launch one RfC and two RfM’s. None of these initiatives have been able to get off the ground either because they were directly blocked, or because of other actions taken by Randroide. Last weekend we had a RfM ready to go with agreed bullet points and nobody apparently against. At the last minute Randroide halted that initiative claiming he now wanted an RFC. This morning, having agreed to the RFC, Randroide has coupled this with a massive undiscussed edit on the Aftermath article concerning the train bombings – in my view nothing more than an open provocation to the other users involved.

This dispute is dragging on and getting worse, Randroide is openly contemptuous of anyone who suggests he is not entitled to do what he likes with disputed articles and seems determined to impose his will on the other editors involved. It is now time this dispute was forced into arbitration so that we are not obliged to endlessly battle with a user who seeks any opportunity to evade having to deal with those who not agree with his point of view. I believe someone urgently needs to tell him to desist from unilateral and controversial edits while the disputed status of the article is sorted out. I hope someone can act to stabilise this situation and to make it clear that all parties to the dispute must be respected. Southofwatford 15:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I am "the other guy", Randroide.

• The issue of my "contested changes" was treated a month ago by another administrator at this venue. Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive71#2004_Madrid_train_bombings.
  • Administrator Durova´s assesment back then:

WP:OWN: articles don't go on Wikibreak because particular editors go inactive [1]

• About Southofwatford claims (openly contemptuous, massive undiscussed edit...) please ask him for diffs supporting his allegations against me.

• This was the massive undiscussed edit [2] Southofwatford was talking about: I Hided "information" (ahem!) tagged as unsourced since August 2006 [3]. Seems that Southofwatford thinks that the article was much better with +50 (ouch!) unsourced assertions. I disagree with him. To know the "interesting" positions about unsourced c**p supported by Southofwatford, please read Talk:Aftermath_of_the_11_March_2004_Madrid_train_bombings#The_article_is_as_unsourced_assertions_festival).

Randroide 19:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment As someone who's touched base on this dispute periodically over several months, I endorse arbitration. Looks like nothing else will resolve the matter. Durova^Charge! 21:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Please:

1. Unblock my bot, JAnDbot
2. write me the reason, why was blocked
3. If it is necessary, you can reblock it, but only user, not IP, because I am not able to edit from my login.

Thanks, JAn Dudík 21:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

The block log does not have any entry about your bot; however, that is because of a recent software problem (some entries on the log are missing). The list of active blocks shows the reason:

• 08:47, 23 February 2007, Khoikhoi (Talk | contribs | block) blocked JAnDbot (contribs) (infinite, account creation blocked) (Unblock) (per Wikipedia:Bots/Status "discontinued")

--cesarb 21:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

No bug here - you queried about blocks that JAnDbot imposed, not those that were imposed on the account. This is the correct log. —Cryptic 21:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that, looks like I clicked on the wrong link (Logs instead of Block log). --cesarb 21:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Please note I set up

talk • contribs • Bot

) 21:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

So can anybody unblock poor JAnDbot? I didn't knew about somethig like that page and I am not sure, If I understand what does it means. I have filled purpose and date of the bot, it's enough?

If Bot wasnť blocked - should I have any chance? or unexcepted blocking is the way to annonce some new rule to operators? JAn Dudík 81.0.194.126 22:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Unblocked (I also removed the autoblock). --cesarb 22:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I would like to express my annoyance about the fact that an old list [4] that was dated, but often accurate, was changed to (Wikipedia:Bots/Status) with all bots set to "discontinued" and then every bot operator was spammed to update their status. And now one apparently risks having bots blocked for not following through with bureaucracy that was largely unnecessary to begin with. The way to update an old list is not to simply go through and declare every entry is discontinued until proven otherwise. A much smarter way would be to start by going through and checking which bots are still making contributions. Dragons flight 23:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I honestly don't get why anyone would block an inactive bot...the likelihood of such an account being compromised is negligible. Ral315 » 10:40, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo hasn't posted anything here, so I'll just place the link.[5]. Yanksox 22:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh my god. This is like an annual event now. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 22:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

He has just a moment ago, actually: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Daniel Brandt deletion wheel war. --

✉

22:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Holy shit. Kyle Barbour 23:02, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I really wish people would think their actions through a bit more before reversing another administrator's actions. We've had an article on Daniel Brandt for years now; nothing is so urgent as to toggle that article's deleted state over a dozen times within a single day. This is disgraceful to all admins. --Cyde Weys 23:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

It is indeed. The whole sorry saga, especially the way the initial deletion happened, reflects very badly on us all. -- ChrisO 00:03, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

What, is this annual now? A massive wheel war in February? The userbox war just happened a year ago (February 6, 2006). I think the UBX could be a bit predicted, especially after the controversey surrounding admin deletions (Kelly Martin, MarkSweep, creation of WP:DRV/UBX), and the existence of Daniel Brandt's bio has been controversial also. I'd wager GNAA, but that was deleted a few months ago. Hbdragon88 00:16, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo has directed that an arbitration case be opened on this matter. There is discussion (and a formal clerk's notice on behalf of the Arbitration Committee) on ANI. Newyorkbrad 00:18, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• Oh dear. Guy (Help!) 00:24, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo has long regarded wheel-warring as considerably worse than other forms of admin misconduct--it is indeed the only reason he has ever personally de-sysopped anyone. Whether or not we agree that it's worse, we are certainly aware of his feelings on the matter and his disposition to act on them and should keep it in mind for the future.

01:37, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive in the extreme. I can see why he would get pissed enough to take personal action. ---

WRE

) 03:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

This user is being highly disruptive in making changes to tennis articles against longstanding and well-established consensus[6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12], editing the comments of other users[13] (including entries on this page [14] [15] [16]), and blanking his talk page (which includes several warnings) [17] [18] [19]. It appears that this same user was making the exact same changes over the last few weeks using various IP accounts, e.g., [20] [21] [22] [23], until the Roger Federer article was semi-protected to prevent those changes. We need administrator intervention. Thank you! Tennis expert 17:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I have blovked Lman1987 for 24 hours for disruption. The editor was trying to mangle this post, remove evidence and generally unconstructive behavior. If anybody has issues with this block, feel free to unblock! Thanks -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Good block, no need to wait for a warning when it was exceedingly obvious the user was intending to be disruptive. If the rest of their editing is similar, I'd be for giving one chance to see if they've learned from the current block, then applying rapidly increasing blocks for repeating the behavior. Say a week next time and indefinite the next. - Taxman ^Talk 17:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I apologize in advance if moving this notice to the bottom was a violation of the rules. It appears that User:Lman1987 has resumed his disruptive activities after his 24-hour block expired. For example, it appears that he created User:Tennis Xspert to confuse users and harrass me (for example, he copied and pasted my entire talk page into his own talk page). It also appears that he is again using anonymous IP address accounts to make the same kinds of disruptive edits that he was making before his block, e.g.,[24] [25]. We are again in need of administrator intervention. Perhaps limited protection of the Marcos Baghdatis, Marat Safin, Pete Sampras, Andre Agassi, Rafael Nadal, Lleyton Hewitt, and Andy Roddick articles should be considered. Thanks for your help! Tennis expert 23:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Seeing as the admins appear to be in short number right now (see how many backlog requests are on here), I suggest putting up something at WP:RFCU. That might help your case. I can't see why no one is blocking this user though. 64.178.98.57 21:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Kgb23 (talk · contribs)'s first action was to slap a vandalism warning on another User's page. They have since gone on and added bogus warnings onto several other Users' pages, made a vandalist attack on Nudity, then reverted it. Corvus cornix 00:13, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Based on their contributions, it's probably the blocked User User:Bbb00723. Corvus cornix 00:16, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Are any administrators going through

01:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

It would be better if you would orphan the images and then tag them {{

Chick Bowen

02:21, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I just took a look, and the first two images were redundant to those already on the Commons. Strike a blow at the pitiful {{

NowCommons}}. Hbdragon88

03:12, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

User Self Promotion

On the article for "

02:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• Uh I removed a link from that article. But it seems to have been there for at least a few days. --W.marsh 02:49, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

User 130.126.15.145 has started a pattern of harassment and cyberstalking. He/she is also using the alias: 130.126.15.57. Clearly a stalker. I have no idea what (s)he's talking about, either way, (s)he seems to be short of a few synapses. Could you please block him, (s)he's not contributting anything to wiki. Moroder 05:19, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

To any admins, if you read Moroder's talk page (User_talk:Moroder#Sockpuppetry_case) you will see that his complaints are regarding my request that he stop using this account as a sock puppet to get around a permanent ban on his main account User:Ati3414. This is my first interaction with User:Moroder so I find it interesting that he would suddenly try to claim this is "stalking" as that implies previous encounters which is only even possible if he is indeed User:Ati3414.

He quietly ignored my first warning to stop using the sock puppet. His response to my second warning was this -- to make a false accusation of harassment in an attempt to shift focus onto something else.

If an admin could make a decision on the suspected sock puppet report (Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets#User:Ati3414) I believe this situation will resolve itself. Thank you. -- HarmonyThree 12:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Not really , on 2/14 there was a first harassment by anonymous 130.126.15.57 which I ignored until it was followed by a second harassment coming from 130.126.15.145. If this is not stalking, what is? You have two sockpuppets right in front of you (130.126.15.145 /130.126.15.57) why take "their" word over mine? Why give any credibility to a report made by two anonymous sockpuppets that contributed absolutely nothing to wiki over the report of an established contributor? Moroder 16:14, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

These three : 130.126.15.145 /130.126.15.57/HarmonyThree are all sockpuppets of Gregory9 Moroder 05:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

This is a new type of violation, never seen before, HarmonyThree is a new sockpuppet of the previously reported sockpuppets 130.126.15.57 and 130.126.15.142 Talk about sockpuppets :

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=HarmonyThree

Could you please suspend all three of "them", their "contribution" to wiki is absolutely zero, "they" are here only to harrass by filing false reports. They are nothing but empty shells of some deeply deranged person. Moroder 18:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Any admins in the house? There are reports at

05:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually that's not unusual. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 07:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Must I remind you, Auburn, that we don't get paid for this? :) ---

WRE

) 02:59, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

There's always Wikimoney (though I never really understood it). ;-) auburnpilot talk 08:06, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Ohioan1 is ignoring concensus, edit-warring, and violating at least the spirit of the 3R rule in order to POV push and spin negative material into the lead. This is a new account that has done nothing but edit the Condoleezza Rice article and I suspect sock-puppetry. -- Mgunn 06:58, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Anyone in a mood to get out a flamethrower and burninate

07:28, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Protection requests

Catchpole

10:24, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Not any more. Cbrown1023 talk 15:13, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:AIV is inaccessible to me,is it down?If so can we report vandals here? I'm sorry if I am the oddball here but I am curious.121.7.56.203 14:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

You are not logged-in, that page is semi-protected to prevent vandalism. You can bypass that by creating an account. Cbrown1023 talk 15:13, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

No it's not. It hasn't been protected in months. 64.178.98.57 21:21, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

The above user has been discriminating against Bowsy and I and may be using the RC patrol to predict our every move. There is no point in trying dispute resolution on or reasoning with this user as it clearly won't work. Can I please have results this time, and not excuses? Henchman 2000 14:22, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• Results? Sure. Have a 24-hour cool-off for this [26]. Guy (Help!) 16:05, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

There are too many broken redirects at Special:BrokenRedirects for me to tag for speedy deletion or fix. I could use some help in clearing this backlog. Jesse Viviano 02:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I did a few dozen starting at the back and ran into Irishguy going the other way; it looks to be cleared now.

Chick Bowen

03:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

There's apparently some sort of problem over at

04:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

See also

WP:ANI#Habbo vandalism. This user seems rather zealous. —Centrx→talk

 • 04:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

You got there first. I suggest removing the image altogether to force both sides to discuss (even though protection does not endorse the current page, it is better to get sure they will discuss by removing it, and stating that, if no agreement is reached, the article should stay image-less). -- ReyBrujo 04:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Oy vey. Natalie 04:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's really that important. That's the image that has been there at least since December, and he's the only person who hasn't discussed the matter; he's just been reverting it repeatedly the last 5 days. —Centrx→talk • 04:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

)

Just looking for a second opinion on this block. First we have the vote and the contributions. This is quickly followed by the whoops and clean-up because of this. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 07:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Quack. Essjay (Talk) 13:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Someone please delete

) 11:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC).

Nobody at

AIV

Is anyone going to be over at AIV anytime soon? I've had a user on the list for a solid half-hour and the list hasn't gotten any shorter.

Thanks,

) 14:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

If by solid half hour you meant 10 minutes...there were 2 users on the list at the time, hardly a backlog by AIV standards. Metros232 14:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

This user [[27]] (

threat over me to somehow make me confess to his line of thinking. I really have no idea how to resolve this issue and would appriciate some admin input into the matter. Many Thanks

edit: Further to the above, the subject of the ArbCom mentioned above has clarified her position by accussing me of being an article's (Stephen Barrett) son [[33]]. I have referred the editors of that ArbCom to here for further discussion of this matter.

edit: I'clast's harassment continues [[34]]. Some third party advice and/or intervention would be appriciated. Thanks Shot info 06:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

edit by I'clast: I re-affirm my position below. I will not be *too rushed* into assembly of the most complex evidence and presentation that I have prepared for Wikipedia. I have manifested far more patience over the last month based on my view of the situation, so I will ask Shot_info's comparatively brief indulgence, especially since he says that I am going to have some (negative) surprises. I plan to email my package to two admins later this week and then listen for their comments.--I'clast 07:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment from ArbCom plaintiff

I find this whole matter deeply distressing, as it is brought by a supporter of my opposer in the ArbCom, has been introduced into the ArbCom situation, and is against an uninvolved person, and this all rubs off on me. This is very improper and ill-timed, though very strategically timed if one wishes to

) 11:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

"Plaintiff" How interesting that Fyslee calls himself that. It's the only thing I agree with.It's a very interesting and complex comment. I'm very pleased he so phrased it.

This Arb was indeed, appropriately called Barrett Vs Rosenthal.

If in fact, user:shot_info is who all evidence points to, he will indeed be another Barrett Vs Rosenthal.

Fyslee, as here on Wiki, publicized the same Barrett websites [35]. I believe his denials are perfect examples of doublespeak.

In fact, this quote from him shows undeniably that his behavior is as Barrett's publicist.

If you have any other matters that need answering, just ask. The answers usually exist, and I know the people who can provide them. Keep in mind that Barrett, the NCAHF, etc. are open about their activities. They have nothing to hide. The information is there if you know where to look. Even participation on the Healthfraud Discussion List requires using ones real name. Regards, Paul -- Fyslee 21:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC) [36][37]

He posts links to his own homepages, blogs and webrings, and openly and repeatedly discusses his years of responsibilities as assistant listmaster for the plaintiffs' Healthfraud List:

As the Assistant Listmaster for the [http://www.quackwatch.org/00AboutQuackwatch/discuss.html Healthfraud Discussion List,]. Advertising Barrett Operations on Wiki

As Barrett's Assistant Listmaster for several years (until December, 2006 when he said he resigned but continues posting there) he has solicited members to come to Wikipedia to help him collaborate. This is but one example. Re: healthfraud Wikipedia Please note the list of his affiliations advertised on this link, which he also advertises on Wikipedia. Here is a list (if it disappears too, I have the evidence in my files) Hundreds of posts on Healthfaud List

Perusing this list you will see, in addition to his Wiki conversations, and in November, 2006, many posts relating to the lawsuit members of the Healthfraud list lost to me. Any who investigate will easily and clearly see that he continues the Quackwatch / NCAHF agenda here on Wikipedia. Further, recent evidence shows that he, the Webring Owner for Randi's lists, has had this email on their forum and circulated for over a year now. He claims he was a newbie, but I believe it speaks for itself that he knew exactly and precisely what he was doing. Skeptics needed for Wikipedia: Any coordination of efforts should be done by private email, since Wikipedia keeps a very public history of *every* little edit, and you can't get them removed. We don't need any accusations of a conspiracy! If anyone wants to respond to me, please do it on my talk page or by email as I have an important project and won't have the ultimate Wiki time to find conversations on this. Thank you. Ilena (chat) 23:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Note: This COI issue is secondarily focused on the very relevant RfArb question of whether Ilena "jumped or was pushed", and to a degree exculpates any negative interactions assigned to you, on a percentage basis. (The later primary issue is the COI's impact on QW-land articles and altmed editors in general.) The real timing issue is that it is still somewhat premature for me, that I have less data, analysis and preparation than I prefer (click, full auto nail gun) for such a possible confrontation. I would prefer to not bring it up until I was closer to ready (gather redundant data, nerve, better analysis, writing, and working through WP policy, etc problems - who/how to approach this).

There is no implication that you are pre-involved, it does not even make logical sense and I didn't notice it. If a "super secret agent" is going in under deep cover, one doesn't tell an evangelist or extrovert about it. It is not that you will deliberately mention it, rather just that at some point, your conversation will likely assume or otherwise radiate it to watchful eyes. Think if I had informed Ilena what I thought 6 weeks ago... You actually are somewhat of a beneficiary because I have substantially refrained from commenting more at this RfArb based on my broad historical knowledge for a variety of reasons often related to this.--I'clast 14:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Main charge brought by I'clast

Shot_info is an editor with an apparent, severe, trojan horse-like

NCAHF, and Barrett v. Rosenthal. He is a highly educated editor usually capable of going many edit rounds[38] on very tighly focused issues that affect the image of the respective organizations and individuals. While I am not trying to make him a party to the RfArb, he does need to timely disclose his substantial COI both for the RfArb and for the health of the community and these articles. He repeatedly challenges[39][40] [41]

me as bluffing about my purposes, putatively a "smokescreen", and about my having observations and correlations that connect him to these organiztions that are the subject of the articles. The truth is that I am giving him (too) many chances to simply end it without administratively initiated action with a full statement of his choosing rather than mine.

Unfortunately for Shot_info, he is in a difficult position between loyalty to organizations & family and my insistence that he now come clean about this COI, after participating in provocative edits earlier this week that affects an editor subject to a RfArb. His challenges to me as bluffing could not be more mistaken, I am loaded, my personality not a natural attacker. I often wait too long and have given him extra, progressive hints about my concerns over the last 5 weeks, primarily readable by him, and extra chances to avoid confrontation as I think his voluntary handling would be most efficient and least compromising to him and those whom he feels strong loyalty to. Even one of my usual edit opposites and an ally of shot_info seems to think that I am okay here[42].

I guess at this point I have little choice but to begin discussion with the adminstrator, User:Lethaniol, that volunteered last night as well as another administrator that I queried yesterday about some related matters, and to prepare for the extra time of an AN:COI whereas shot_info may be exposing himself less favorably to administrative attention and my lamentable writing.--I'clast 13:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Please don't place too much weight on my comment mentioned by I'clast. I am only saying that I'm in the dark on this one and that I may be quite surprised at any revealings. That's all. --

Fyslee (collaborate

) 15:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

IRC and WP:SNOW

I found the blitzkrieg DRV on Daniel Brandt curious enough to go to the #wikipedia-en-admins channel to find out if people there know what's going on. I found it even more curious that the editors who voted endorse on the DRV where largely the same editors who were present in the channel. It turns out that the link to the DRV was posted, but there was no soliciting for meat puppets. Anyway, after a mass of editors from that channel voted endorse, the DRV was quickly closed per WP:SNOW.

This brings up a problem with WP:SNOW and IRC. Many editors hang out in various IRC channels, and links to deletion and other discussion inevitably get posted. If those channels contain likeminded people, we get a big influx of votes for the same position at once, before the general readership even gets the chance to review the case. If such a discussion is closed early, we can't really tell what the final result would have been, so WP:SNOW should not apply.

The other thing is the #wikipedia-en-admins channel itself, or rather its name. I was told that it's no longer an admin-only channel, but rather "an informal gathering of interested, trustworthy and influential people". Without going into the actual trustworthyness and influence, I question whether the channel should keep its current name, which implies that it's something it isn't. Zocky | picture popups 17:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• The only response I can manage here is to wonder where you were a month ago when all of this was publicly discussed by prominent members of the community, including non-arbitrators. I will say that these blanket assumptions of bad faith do nothing to improve the functioning of the community and the encyclopedia but instead cause great anger to no good cause. Mackensen (talk) 17:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  • This has nothing to do with that debate, and it would probably have been better if I brought it up in two separate comments. There's no implication that the deletion was planned or anything in #wikipedia-en-admins, it could have been any other channel and we would have the same problem with WP:SNOW.
  • The other issue, the naming of #wikipedia-en-admins, is a completely separate question. Zocky | picture popups 17:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I'm happy to see evidence of leadership and management skills by our non-existing cabal. WAS 4.250 17:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Not this again. TINC. --

^g 21:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

(A semi-moot point, given the events that have transpired in the last 12 hours) For the record, I found out about the DRV via the IRC channel, and voted to overturn. There is indeed no IRC cabal (or, if there is, I'm not of a high enough cabal level to gain entrance to it...) Ral315 » 10:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I do wonder sometimes if an issue is ever actually dead on Wikipedia. I think that Brandt and Peppers prove that. And so does this. It's not a cabal or anything close to it. And frankly, I get offended when lumped into said cabal. It just doesn't work that way. And btw, I frequent said IRC channel quite a bit and yet I didn't learn about this whole Brandt thing until I saw it on the noticeboards. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 11:08, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

The IRC channel didn't really have anything to do whatsoever with the Daniel Brandt wheel war mess. That all started from on-wiki. Actually, if anything, the IRC channel helped alleviate the issue. I saw several people being dissuaded from continuing the wheel war by strong admonitions such as "Don't do it, you'll get de-sysopped" ... which ended up being eerily accurate. --Cyde Weys 21:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• Indeed, the same thing came up on #wikipedia-spam-t and I remember saying "Don't go an inch near that whole mess if you value your sysop bit, because it's just going to get messy" which seems to have been a similar realisation to Cyde's. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 22:04, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Errr... I was talking about a problematic interaction of IRC and WP:SNOW. As I say above, it could've been any other channel. I obviously screwed up by including the other issue in the same comment. So please, forget cabal talk, and think about how a single announcement of a poll in IRC, followed by earnest application of WP:SNOW can cause problems. Zocky | picture popups 00:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm following you, at least. For the record, I tend to think that any debate (but especially DRV) less bogus than this one ought to stay open a minimum of 24 hours even if it's heavily edited. Otherwise, you are locking people out without cause. Gavia immer 18:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Could someone please take a look at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Robotam, please? It's been created and "certified" by three editors - one of whom has under 50 edits, one that has three, and an anon. Considering it involves an editor who's been bagging sockpuppets, it might want some looking into. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• It's indeed fishy. All three certifications wasn't done in three tidles. Consider running it through
  Mailer Diablo
  04:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

The person who is bringing up the RfC is none other than

Real96

06:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Real96 is right (and she's quickly getting the nose for sniffing these socks out). The funny part is that one of the "certifying" editors (FreakinFool) has been indef-blocked for several days and couldn't have signed it. I've blocked the other two as obvious socks and will close the RfC. | Mr. Darcy talk 16:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

This article has been locked, so I can't edit it. The subject's clearly notable, so I had to recreate it at Tom Rockney (male model).

And, please, DON'T delete the article on him - he's notable enough in his own right, unless you disagree.

Please let this article stay... --Wilker Howerd 16:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• It's locked because it had been previously deleted eight times as a nonsense or attack page. The current version you've created is neither, but it still might be deleted if you can't provide some
  reliable sources to attest to Mr. Rockney's notability. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!)
  16:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

New Arbitration Clerks

The Arbitration Committee would like to announce the appointment of two new Arbitration Clerks; please join us in congratulating

17:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations to two worthy candidates--but I could have sworn both of them were already clerks.

Chick Bowen

19:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Sí, Sí. Please share the wealth. :-)

Real96

19:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, they have been "in training" for some time, we're just making everything official and handing out the usher's uniforms. Essjay (Talk) 19:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Isn't there a rule where clerks can only serve on one committee? I am sure that there are many interested people for the projects. For example, I am gladly interested in being a clerk for a project, but alas, I only have 1,500 edits.

Real96

20:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't be much of a worry there, many users multitask.

now? :D Teke ^(talk

) 23:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry, I'm only a clerk for this committee, so I'm not filling up too many slots. My thanks to the arbitrators for their confidence and to Thatcher131 for nominating us. Newyorkbrad 20:04, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

To quote David Gerard: "The reward for a job well done is three more jobs." With that said, jobs like clerking are fairly commonly needed; stick around for a while, and someone will notice you're helpful and sane, at which point you'll have more work than you ever imagined. ;) Essjay (Talk) 20:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

The

20:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

An anon 68.100.211.222 (talk · contribs) placed a comment I found distasteful on Dragonfiend (talk · contribs)'s talk page. I attempted dialogue but it seems to have degenerated somewhat and I believe communication has broken down between us. Someone neutral of webcomics might want to get into this one, whilst I disagree with Dragonfiend over some of the instances which the anon may be disputing, I may have too close a relationship to Dragonfiend to have objectivity. Relevant comments are in these edits [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54] and [55] on User talk:Dragonfiend and these, [56], [57], [58], [59], [60], [61], [62] and [63] at User talk:68.100.211.222. I don't know enough about internet addresses to know if this edit, [64] by 68.211.88.215 (talk · contribs) is related. Hiding Talk 21:26, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I've left a notice at

, due to multiple situations, requests and comments, both in the past and present.

It would seem obvious he's well-meaning, but he's also apparently forcing his POV.

And even though he's been warned several times, he's continuing his disruptive creations.

To make it clear this is a history of many categories, over a period of months.

However, I hesitate to block. for a couple reasons:

1.) "How much is too much" could be considered subjective. (The cry of: "That's what

is for...", rings in my ears.)

2.) I think this could set a precedent that could be abused, related to the above. ("You created x number of categories which went up for CfD, so now you're blocked.") - Though I honestly can't imagine an admin doing such a thing, I've been surprised in the past : )

3.) If blocking is appropriate, then we should probably discuss a community ban, since it's been an ongoing issue. (At least from methodist, or even christian-related categories.)

4.) I want to give some time after the warning.

Interested in others' thoughts.

PS - I don't think I would oppose a short block by another disinterested party.

- jc37 23:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

First off, that is a very good post you made on Pastorwayne's talk page.

To the issue at hand, I think you made a fair and valid warning. A block would only be appropriate if continued disruption occurs after the message, so that the user is prevented from misbehaving more while the discussion of appropriate action is undertaken. I don't see a block at the moment for preventative reasons- no dialogue+disruption= a day or two. Teke ^(talk) 04:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I am one of the people who has seeked administrative assistance regarding Pastorwayne. I read through jc37's comments, and I think he missed one key point. Some of the categories that Pastorwayne has recently created are effectively the recreation of deleted content, which is clearly disruptive. See the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 February 15#Category:Methodism in Ohio. This issue needs to be addressed. Dr. Submillimeter 08:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, rather than address my concerns, he created another category. He could have explained his reasoning behind the primate categories, but instead, seems to have ignored the warning and created another one. I think that he qualifies for a block based on at least the two following criteria on Wikipedia:Disruptive editing: "Is tendentious" and "Rejects community input". I think that this also brings us to step 5 at Wikipedia:Disruptive editing#Dealing with disruptive editors.

Based on that, I'm instituting a 24-hour block. I do welcome further comments on this. - jc37 15:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Also good block. Will give the user time to respond and re-think. Probably could have done with even shorter, or an unblock if they're willing to discuss. If no discussion and the same repeated problem editing repeats, then escalate the blocks. I've seen escalating blocks be very effective. Start with the minimum to mitigate the behavior and then increase as they continually repeat without improving. - Taxman ^Talk 17:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Pastorwayne appears to have circumvented the block. See the recent edit history of User:70.104.101.220. The user left a vote at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Samuel_Heistand that sounds very much like Pastorwayne. Moreover, the anonymous user started editing Mary Ann Swenson where Pastorwayne left off. Could someone investigate this further and take an appropriate course of action? Dr. Submillimeter 21:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

User:70.104.101.220

18:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe User:Pastorwayne has voted in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Samuel_Heistand as 70.104.101.220 while blocked. They both have an interest in Methodist bishops and sign “thanks”. I think he is an honest man who will not deny it if it is true. Over to you. - Kittybrewster 19:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I was going to ask about this myself. User:70.104.101.220 sounds very much like Pastorwayne in his vote at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Samuel_Heistand. Moreover, the anonymous user started editing Mary Ann Swenson where Pastorwayne left off. Could you please investigate further? Dr. Submillimeter 21:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it would seem rather obvious that this is User:Pastorwayne. If necessary I suppose that we could submit a checkuser request.

Taxman suggested escalating blocks. This is where I plead lack of experience. My understanding is that IP blocks are a bit more complex. Also, at this point, he seems to have stopped, so he may just be waiting out the 24 hour block. This probably justifies a notice, and perhaps an extension of the block? While I've read the various pages, I think I would rather err on the side of caution and ask someone more experienced in IP blocks, for suggestions. - jc37 07:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser requested Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser#Pastorwayne - Kittybrewster 13:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

-- roundhouse

14:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

And now Pastorwayne is back as himself, and has already created the 'useful and appropriate' category

-- roundhouse

21:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Just as well it wasnt a living bishop. I have added a few souls. I still think it merits a seven day block for him and user 70. - Kittybrewster 22:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Interesting process certainly. He + his alter egos are edging towards the top of the checkuser list ...

-- roundhouse

23:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

QUOTE:

• Pastorwayne (
  talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki
  )
• 70.104.101.220 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• User44130 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Possible block evasion by 70.104.101.220 (talk · contribs) as set out at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#User:70.104.101.220 - Kittybrewster 13:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Please check User44130 at the same time - cf this deletion of a clone of a clone of a deleted page.

-- roundhouse

14:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

 Confirmed, but User44130 has nothing to check -- no contributions other than to that of the deleted article, and that leaves no tracks checkuser can follow. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Request 7 day block

User:Pastorwayne and User:70.104.101.220 and User:User44130 - Kittybrewster 04:12, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

At least 7 days.

-- roundhouse

04:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Let's wait the result of the checkuser, since it was requested. - jc37 10:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Might I suggest blocking PW pending the result of checkuser, and keeping an eye on

-- roundhouse

14:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

It is now confirmed. So how long is he going to be blocked for? Tendentious disruptive editing + block evasion + sock-puppetry. - Kittybrewster 19:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Pastorwayne - Guilty as charged. - Kittybrewster 19:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

So at this point, he sidesteeped his block by editing anonomously, and is still creating categories without discussion, regardless of the concerns of other Wikipedians. Again, I would like to clarify: From what I can see, this isn't simply a single dispute between User:Pastorwayne and a handful of users. These involve a fair number of categories (and articles, apparently) over several months time.

Since the previous block has expired, we can't extend it, but I think we can start over.

My intention is to block him for 24 hours (effectively restart the block which he evaded), and explain why on his talk page.

In addition, I'd like to suggest that he be placed on at least a one month probation, during which he cannot create any categories. Doing so should extend the probation, such categories should be speedily deleted, and any further blocks or whatever else, determined at that point.

I'd like some input from other admins about probation and how to handle it. I've seen it used here before, but any additional insight would be welcome. - jc37 16:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I suggest (1) that he be invited not to creat fresh categories without first mooting them on his talk page. From the responses he gets he may learn what is deemed reasonable and what is not and why. (2) that this happen for two months - Kittybrewster 17:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

After doing some reading, and giving this some more thought, I think that the best next course of action would be for one of you to start an

21:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Introducing the deletion "bots"

Some Wikipedians seem to have a profoundly negative reaction to the idea of adminbots. Curps operated the only "approved" adminbot in our history, and that approval is somewhat questionable since in addition to the widely known pagemove preventing functions, Curps also quietly added functions to block vandals and bad usernames. The response of the community to automating admin functions has been so poor in fact that, like Curps, many bots and bot-like tools get built and deployed in secret with little or no community oversight.

Personally, I like the idea of admin bots. There are a variety of places where they could be useful, such as deleting orphaned fair use images older than 7 days (

I5). Done well, they could perform repetitive tasks with greater care than real admins often do. To use the orphaned fair use example, they could a) verify that the image is an orphan, b) check the history to ensure the tag is at least 7 days old, c) check the histories to make sure no comments (that might be challenging the deletion) have been posted to either the image description or the talk page, and d) post a note to the uploader's talk page to explain the deletion.

However, we don't do these things well. Rather we do them in near total secrecy, and both deleting and blocking bots are run on Wikipedia with no transparency or openness.

What follows is meant to address the deletion part of that. I ran an analysis of a database dump of our log files looking for unusual deletion patterns, and will report my results here. I am not doing so because I want to get anyone in trouble, but rather because I believe the secret use of highly automated deletion tools is bad for Wikipedia, and it is time these things came into the light.

After experimenting with some different approaches, I found one particular diagnostic to be especially useful. This I have defined as a "run", which for the purposes of the analysis below means at least 100 consecutive deletions each separated by no more than 1 minute. Of the 1097 admins who had made at least 1 deletion in the log, 95.4% have 0 runs. 2.9% have 1-2 runs, 0.3% have 3-4 runs, and the remaining 15 individuals (1.4%) have 5 or more runs. Now, deleting 100 items at a rate of 1 per minute is not an impossible feat to do by hand, and I certainly suspect that some people have done it by hand. However, some of those highest 15, shown below, have done it dozens of times and at very high speeds (typically only several seconds per item). It is this pattern of repeated, long sets of deletions occurring at high rates that I am using as a qualitative indicator of bot-like activity.

	Total Deletions (rank)	# of runs	Fastest 100 deletions	Longest run	Longest semi-run
Gurch log	36410 (2)	43 runs	259s	3.46 hrs for 3343 dels (3.7s each)	20.05 hrs for 10740 dels (6.7s each)
Mailer diablo log	35501 (3)	5 runs	478s	0.19 hrs for 126 dels (5.4s each)	8.05 hrs for 1510 dels (19.2s each)
Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh log	29029 (5)	14 runs	164s	0.1 hrs for 135 dels (2.7s each)	10.82 hrs for 1862 dels (20.9s each)
JesseW log	26809 (8)	96 runs	96s	0.59 hrs for 1136 dels (1.9s each)	8.92 hrs for 1468 dels (21.9s each)
Fang Aili log	21193 (11)	7 runs	1048s	0.44 hrs for 141 dels (11.2s each)	10.51 hrs for 964 dels (39.2s each)
Mushroom log	18235 (13)	10 runs	510s	0.74 hrs for 393 dels (6.8s each)	15.66 hrs for 2368 dels (23.8s each)
Kungfuadam log	14998 (16)	9 runs	179s	0.14 hrs for 203 dels (2.4s each)	5.76 hrs for 2206 dels (9.4s each)
Naconkantari log	14963 (17)	37 runs	62s	0.36 hrs for 650 dels (2.0s each)	1.73 hrs for 2386 dels (2.6s each)
Misza13 log	11605 (26)	24 runs	147s	3.28 hrs for 2302 dels (5.1s each)	8.06 hrs for 4449 dels (6.5s each)
Bluemoose log	10605 (30)	13 runs	281s	1.69 hrs for 986 dels (6.2s each)	3.42 hrs for 2388 dels (5.2s each)
Blnguyen log	8123 (42)	9 runs	515s	0.3 hrs for 191 dels (5.7s each)	1.09 hrs for 589 dels (6.7s each)
Marudubshinki log	4756 (75)	5 runs	207s	0.28 hrs for 319 dels (3.2s each)	0.3 hrs for 320 dels (3.4s each)
Betacommand log	3511 (112)	7 runs	136s	0.22 hrs for 429 dels (1.9s each)	2.22 hrs for 1595 dels (5.0s each)
AmiDaniel log	2575 (155)	5 runs	894s	0.61 hrs for 216 dels (10.1s each)	3.06 hrs for 520 dels (21.2s each)
RexNL log	2009 (189)	5 runs	613s	0.28 hrs for 151 dels (6.7s each)	1.11 hrs for 360 dels (11.1s each)

Footnotes

• Total deletions is the number of logged deletions an account has performed through February 6th, 2007. The rank is where the account sits in the list of all-time most deletions. It is worth noting that 9 of the top 20 deleters in fact have 0 runs.
• "# of runs" is the total number of runs detected. As above, a "run" is defined by the consecutive deletion of 100 or more items with no breaks longer than 1 minute.
• "Fastest 100 deletions" is the shortest length of time in which the person was able to delete 100 items. This can happen at any point within a run.
• "Longest run" is the run with the highest number of total deletions.
• "Longest semi-run" is the most deletions detected at an average rate of greater than 1 deletion per minute, but pauses of up to 2 hours were allowed within a "semi-run" (provided the average rate including the pause was still greater than 1 per minute).
• For all of these, deletions of old revisions of images where excluded from statistics. This is because "deleting all revisions" of an image produces multiple log entries for a single action, and if these had been included it would have skewed results.
• User:Marudubshinki was desysopped by ArbCom
  for bot and other abuses.
• User:Naconkantari, and User:Bluemoose
  are no longer active on Wikipedia.

There once was a time when prolonged, rapid-fire editing was the definition of a bot (regardless of how it was accomplished). Now

) that allow an admin to reduce the bothersome process of emptying out a category to one click per item (without needing to ever open the item to look at it). At least one of the people above even claims to be able to do the activities shown all by hand. Rather the detailing what I know (or have inferred) about each case, I am rather going to invite these people to explain their own methods.

Highly automated deletion tools can be problematic for a variety of reasons. For example, a semi-automatic tool created problems a while ago when it was used to empty out images marked as Fair Use Replaceable without checking if {{

WP:PRODs

, which certainly goes against the spirit that at least two people will look at the item and agree that it should be deleted. Regardless of how it is accomplished, any process that reduces deletion to a few seconds per item is not engaged in any meaningful sort of review. That may be okay in some cases, but we ought to discuss which cases those are.

I don't have anything against adminbots and highly automated tools, in general, and in fact would like to see their use increased. However, having such tools operate in secret is begging for problems as it means that there is no oversight in their design or their application. That is why I am posting this here. I don't want to get any of the above users in trouble, but I do think that we as a community need to confront the fact that automation is useful for dealing with the ever growing deletion backlogs, and talk about the best way to do that, rather than having individuals simply apply automation in secret. Dragons flight 20:43, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Discussion of deletion "bots"

There is problem if there is a rule against bot use and it is detected that that rule is being broken. There is a problem if someone does something that hurts wikipeia and they are allowed to get away with it with the excuse that it wasn't them but that it was a bot. I see no problem with an editor using an detected bot if that editor takes full responsibility for anything that goes wrong, including being discovered using an unpermitted bot. If we can't tell its a bot and its doing no harm, what's the problem? Some people are very bot like. Bot like editing is no cause for alarm. WAS 4.250 21:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• Bots? Sure? If I chose to simply ignore those which are not immediately self-evident, I could easily rack up a hundred deletions in no time at all when the CSD backlog gets up to 300 or more. Deletion summaries? Guy (Help!) 22:44, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
  • You, JzG, have never strung together more than 40 deletions without a 1 minute pause, and your personal best for 100 deletions is over 13 minutes (compare with under 3 minutes for some of those above). Yep. All by hand, no doubt. Feel free to look through the logs yourself, but you will find long runs of very uniform summaries. Dragons flight 23:24, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Maybe this seems obvious, but I'm not sure I understand. How are "runs" of less than a half an hour evidence of bot deletions? Can't just about anyone maintain a fast deletion pace for a half an hour? That seems plausible to me. Firsfron of Ronchester 23:29, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Says someone else with 0 runs ;-). And when you do 1100 deletions in that half an hour? Yes, with the right aids, just about anyone could do deletions at the rate of twenty per minute and string hundreds together. That doesn't mean that having admins acting like bots is a good thing. Dragons flight 23:53, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
        • Yeah, well, I freely admit I'm slow at deleting, even at CSD. I'm automatically assuming people are faster than me because I know I'm slow, and I get bored easily. My mind starts wandering... Anyway, thanks for the reply. Firsfron of Ronchester 00:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
    • [EC] That is because when I get to a tricky one I stop and work it out, or AfD it or whatever. If I simply closed it and moved on to the next unambiguous one... Guy (Help!) 23:31, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Javascript will do the trick nicely. I have used that for WikiProject tagging which speedied things up from an already fast cut&paste action in Firefox tabbed browser windows. Agathoclea 23:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Yup. And if I was apply to just accept that images in the "unsourced for over 7 days" category were unambiguously deletable, I'd be able to match that, because the deletion summaries would all be the same. —The preceding
        unsigned comment was added by JzG (talk • contribs
        ) 23:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC).
        • And then you would be a "bot", in the sense I intended, because you were deleting things without thought simply because a category told you to. Dragons flight 23:40, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
          • Absolutely not. I would be a human admin rapidly knocking off the easy ones and going back to the hard cases later. Which is not how I work, I go through alphabetical blocks. But others do it differently, assuming good faith of the taggers. I think we wait until we get input from the admins concerned. Guy (Help!) 23:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
            • To clarify, I know some people are deleting things from those categories without ever even opening the image description page to see if there even is a source claim, etc (because they have admitted as much to me). Doing that kind of thing turns an admin into a bot. Dragons flight 00:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
              • You know? Really? Which ones? Guy (Help!) 00:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
                • Indeed, DF, that raises a completely separate question. It would be possible to peruse the image pages thoroughly and still delete at, theoretically, any rate of speed at all, if you did the analysis first (this is how I do it, though since I rely solely on Firefox tabs I still can't get very fast). But if admins are skipping that stage, that's not so great (depending on which category we're talking about), but it won't be reflected in the rate of deletion.
                  Chick Bowen
                  00:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
                  • Everyone I know has already been invited to the party, though none have commented so far. I suspect the urge to cut corners is strongly correlated with an urge to delete really, really fast. Whether or not that is really true, most of the people I know of who have admitted cutting corners in the past, said so during off-wiki discussions prompted by this analysis (over the previous several weeks), so they are certainly correlated in my sample. (Which is not to say that high speed deletion, necessarily requires cutting corners, or that everyone above necessarily did so. But let's wait for their direct input.) Dragons flight 01:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Do note that it is simple to inspect each in a list of pages and then "automatically" delete them all using the Jude tool. The deletions would appear to be "automated"—they would not be by hand, they would have uniform edit summaries and be done in uniform time period—but the pages themselves would have been checked. It would be useful to have an AWB-like tool that shows a page alongside its page history and allows quick deletion with a pre-selected summary. —Centrx→talk • 23:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Please note: Marudubshinski was not desysopped for running a bot through his admin account; he was desysopped for a pattern of behavior that included various levels of bot abuse but also unblocking himself and sockpuppetry. There has never been anything close to consensus that running a deletion bot, if done conscientiously, should lead to desysopping.
  Chick Bowen
  23:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Betacommand did not use a bot. He used a script developed by GeorgeMoney, the same script used by a handful of other administrators. The process they take, when doing it responsibly at least, is to go through the backlog, remove the ones that should stay skipping over bad ones, then use the script to remove all the pages that DO need deleted all at once. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 23:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Looks like Diablo is trying to beat Gurch's record. :-) Anyway, could we use the deletion bot in order to delete the WoW and the Brian Peppers' Day redirects, once they are created? I remember one time, there was a vandal who struck 50 or so pages. It took a really long time to move those pages back and delete the redirects.

Real96

00:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Interesting stats. What about NawlinWiki? He puts up staggering deletion numbers, but is pretty evidently not doing a bot, since most of his tasks require human judgment. He'd be an interesting look at what an ultra-active human looks like in these kinds of statistics. --W.marsh 01:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

NawlinWiki log

36602 (1)

0 runs

1076s

0.5 hrs for 98 dels (18.4s each)

9.42 hrs for 931 dels (36.4s each)

Per request, though Nawlin is certainly not quite "normal" either. Dragons flight 01:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

How is NawlinWiki's deletion log so different from Fang Aili's, shown above? Both had long runs (in FA's case, 10.51 hrs for 964 dels (39.2s each), in NW's case 9.42 hrs for 931 dels (36.4s each)). For the record, I cannot imagine spending nine or ten hours a day deleting, but that's a personal preference... Firsfron of Ronchester 02:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

It makes a lot of sense that you'd see a similarity... they are (as far as I know) the two most active people at doing CAT:CSD, which clearly does require a human, not a bot. --W.marsh 02:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Fang Aili is perhaps the most marginal on the list. I'd be a little surprised, but not shocked, if he is in fact doing everything by hand. Dragons flight 02:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

On a good day I can clear 100 or so articles from CSD using the

Steel

02:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

No, I think it shows he's very much not a bot. A slower time to 100 deletions than any of the people listed above. And while "9.42 hrs for 931 deletions" seems extreme... it's still well within what a human could do just sitting at his or her computer all day. The main thing is that he didn't have any "runs" which I do think is an indication of bot activity (though correlation is not causation). Maybe he's not a "normal" human but still human numbers. Thanks for the numbers though. --W.marsh 02:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I do all my deletes by hand. I am pretty quick with shortcut keys (control-V and whatnot), but I don't have any scripts that help with deletes. --Fang Aili ^talk 16:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I can't help but note that the CSD image backlog is nuts at the moment and has been kind of crazy all day. If someone, anyone, has been doing something to keep it from being this way, and is not doing it at the moment, then whatever they were doing before bears some serious consideration. Not wholesale approval, but consideration. If I'm drawing a false conclusion here so be it. But it's a bit suggestive to me personally. And these image backlogs drive me a little nuts because I'm a total newbie at images and don't feel up to handling them at all efficiently. Cheers. Dina 01:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

My deletion runs were also using the Jude tool. I have backed off of that lately, however. I loaded up tabs, inspected them and used the Jude auto delete tool. I don't think that this a bot.--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 02:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

This is all find and dandy, but don't you people realize how dangerous not checking what your deleting is? There are some major beans here, but I could imagine a situation where hundreds of pages accidentally get deleted by an admin who means well.

WRE

) 02:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

"I loaded up tabs" means he looked at them before hand, and then deleted them en masse. There is the possibility that someone could, in the time between inspecting the page and deleting, happen to replace the page with a good article or licensing, but that is unlikely and is a problem to a lesser degree in any non-automated deletion. —Centrx→talk • 03:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Such a situation did happen recently, not surprisingly all the images were deleted by a "run" by one of the people in the above list. Dozens (maybe hundreds) of images had to be restored by hand. So mistakes can happen, obviously. --W.marsh 03:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

If you are referring to the situation I think you are, as a result of a template change a number of images were orphaned, these were tagged for x days and then marked for speedy deletion. I'm not sure how you think that could be mitigated against or what it has to do with looking at the images. --pgk 16:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• All my deletion is still done by hand, with the only help of
  Mailer Diablo
  03:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm now having a go at
    Mailer Diablo
    15:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• I seldom do image deletions anymore (which surely account for the bulk of the 29k deletes), but the majority of the fast deletes were done using Opera. I check 100 tabs of images in each shot and if the deletion reason was correct for all the images, delete using keyboard.
  M. Salleh
  08:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• As a little test, and mainly for my own edification and curiosity, I'm going to see how much I can validly delete in an hour (and by validly, I mean checking every page's history and whatlinkshere). I've got a fast connection, and shall be using tabbed browsing but no java assistance (because I don't know how to use it). I'll start on CSD then move onto images as soon as I post this message. Ready, steady, go!

  ►

  12:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

  Right. In one hour I deleted 251 images / articles, clearing out 3 days of backlog from replacable fair use images and emptying CSD. I could have maybe done more but kept getting sidetracked (protecting pages from recreation, saving images / pages from invalid speedies, and castigating one very rude image tagger who kept mistagging pages for replacable fair use deletion and labelling any reversions of this as vandalism). I was going as fast as I could, but I would be very surprised if more than around 500 deletions (assuming no distraction) in an hour is possible and still retaining a human component, and I know I'm going bugeyed after an hour.

  ►

  13:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Just sticking a note in here, and apologies if it was mentioned above and I missed it. Last summer, we had a serious problem on Commons with tens of thousands of unsourced and unlicensed images, all of which needed to be deleted because they had been in the "to be deleted" categories for a number of months. As Commons admins, we were concerned about deleting these images, as they woudl be unrecoverable; at that point, a push was made, and image deletions were made reversable by the developers. (If anyone has ever wondered why that came about when it did, there is the answer.) With such a daunting task before us, having to mass-delete tens of thousands of images outright, I had a toolserver tool written that produces "autodelete" links; basically, it creates a link that when clicked, automatically goes to the deletion confirmation page and fills in the summary. (As a side note, I let the Commons community know about this before it was used.) If you enable a javascript snippet in your monobook.js, the links will automatically submit as well. Additionally, there is an extension for Firefox which lets you open multiple links at once. If you use these tools in concert, you can open 100, 250, or 500 autodeletion links at once and have them all submit, in the course of a minute or less. Using this method, I deleted more than 10,000 unsourced and unlicensed images from Commons in a matter of about 24 hours. I point this out because there were no bots involved; only a lot of links, a couple lines of Javascript, and a Firefox extension. Even without the javascript and the firefox extension, this is possible; you can create the links in a text editor, load them into a wiki page, open them all, then go through clicking "ctrl + tab" and hitting "enter", the way Willy on Wheels vandals used to do page moves. When I was still active there, I used this method to delete all the old Quote of the Day archives at the end of each month. Essjay (Talk) 13:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• If you're not really looking at the image/page you're deleting, I don't see the difference between that and an actual bot other than the technicality... the bot actually saves some guy 10,000 clicks really. --W.marsh 14:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Essjay, I think that was an acceptable use of those tools under those circumstances... but if people are doing the same thing to CSD on a regular basis then we have a major problem. ---

WRE

) 17:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Now I'm curious, have I ever met the criteria for a deletion 'run'? I don't use a bot, but I've had days where I've zapped appropriately tagged things in C:CSD in pretty short order with a little tool I wrote (not a bot) helping out. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 18:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

You've never gotten to more than 36 without taking at least a 1 minute pause, sorry. Dragons flight 18:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Sigh, well, I guess I'll just have to work harder. Thanks! - CHAIRBOY (☎) 20:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

If anybody wants to know, prior to July 2006 I did everything manually. I think maybe July2 or July 3 I did 500 manual image deletions in about 3.5-4 hours. I did use Jude's tool a lot after I was notified of it. The way I did it was to used Special:Recentchangeslinked on the category, to see if the tagging issues had been rectified in the week since, and then manually fix up the tags which were manually tweaked as a result. Then I would go through a sample of maybe 20 articles in the cat to see if the pictures were still being used in articles, and if the 20 I checked were all clear - ie, they had been machine processed by OrphanBot properly or by a human, cleanly, then that would give a statistically good indication that the rest of the pictures in that batch had been de-linked properly and I would use the script to mechanically remove them. It increases the speed by about a factor of two (I'm not using tabs) on my computer anyway. Having said that, I've not done much deletion duty this year since I read too many arbcom cases, but I will refrain from using the script if it is a concern. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Post-archiving, sorry I didn't see the invite to the discussion till now -- I use a semi-automatic tool that loads up the image description page for each image in the unsourced category, asks me if it should be deleted, and then, after I have confirmed, for each and every image, that they should be deleted, it goes though and executes my actions (at bot speed). No deletion is done without a confirmation, after viewing the wiki-text of the image description page (and the last-edit time, and a few other things). The script is written in Python, using the pywikipediabot framework; I have not released the source for it because of concerns over vandal use, and mainly because of the lack of a clear sense of community consenus on the subject. I will send the code to anyone who asks, under a Free Software license (meaing they can post it if they wish). I haven't been using it much lately (as my log shows, mainly because I haven't been logging in to my account lately, mainly because the backlogs (VoA's tool makes them loom over my watchlist) are too depressing. But I've been doing various actual article work as an anon, much of which is linked from my User:JesseW/not logged in page. Much thanks to DF for his analysis, and prompting me to explain the tool I use. In closing, don't be dispirited, there is still a vast magnitude of good material in the Wikipedia corpus, and good things will come of it in time... 75.215.120.251 (really User:JesseW/not logged in) 08:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

What this all adds up to

Admins are currently using a variety of tools to aid deletion, with a wide range of automation. There is nothing wrong with using any tool to speed up the process as long as the admin makes sure to view each page (and relevant logs or whatlinkshere, depending on the process in question) before deleting. There is no consensus in support of total automation; there is also no concrete proof that anyone is using total automation, though it doesn't really matter, since none of us are pointing fingers here—the questions is what there is consensus for. However, any admins using completely automated processes should stop for now. It would be useful, however, to identify processes, as Dragons flight says above, that would work well with total automation. I think we all agree that RFA is not the place to get consensus for such a process, and ultimately it would probably mean running a script in a pre-existing admin account, Curps-style.

23:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Well, some have essentially admitted to using bots to do these deletions. Not here though. If it were anything but images being deleted, people would probably care... but in the current culture you can easily justify deleting images (even with a bot) as something that benefits the project and should not be questioned. --W.marsh 00:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• Ooh, scary "bot" word. What they are actually doing is reviewing everythign and then using an automated tool to do the final donkey work. As long as the checking is done my a human, surely that is sufficient? Guy (Help!) 22:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

What it all adds up to is some people are scared of things they don't understand. Wikipedia editors should use whatever tools they find useful in improving Wikipedia so long as they take full responsibility for their actions. If a tool is complex enough that you are not sure what it will do then you should not use it; but that does not mean you should stand in the way of someone else using it. I hit a key and know what will happen; John hits a key that executes 100 key strokes; Jane hits a key that conditionally executes keystrokes based on a simple if-then script; Bob hits a key that turns on his artificial intelligence device that guides him step by step in creating a great article. Let us not be afraid of tools. WAS 4.250 06:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Unless some very carefully work is done, it would be very easy to abuse any system that relies heavily on bots (or highly automated users) and categories. Anyway... everyone just needs to be careful. If I delete something I shouldn't have, it's entirely my responsibility weather or not it was "assisted". ---

WRE

) 06:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• I should point out that the recent RFA for an adminbot would have passed if it had not been withdrawn at the last minute. So this is not nearly as controversial a subject as some people think. >Radiant< 12:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Corticopia made a personal attack in this edit summary. Please take action. Dagnabit 06:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Simply, warn with {{uw-npa1}}.

Real96

06:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Said editor removes information to suit his

vandalism (which this editor also accused of). I can instead refer you to the article about not being a dick or notions about crying wolf -- but you get the point. Too bad. Next ...Corticopia

11:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:AN. Corticopia, I strongly recommend against the use of the word "twit". If you want to refer to another editor, I strongly suggest you do so by name (e.g. "Dagnabit"). — Armedblowfish (talk|mail

) 17:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Noted. Corticopia 23:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Why do I have to, this already follows from

WP:Civil. Corticopia is completely hopless and insists on adding patent nonsense to articles. I'm not sure what the refernce to Finland is supposed to be, I do not edit articles about Finland. (I believe, maybe I've stubled upon something at some point.) Dagnabit

23:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Deal with it: I am restoring the table entry you persistently remove (based on the UN listing of territories) without any modicum of consensus and despite the notes therein (which you either won't or can't read) -- that's arguably vandalism. Why don't you do the same for the entries for Finland (Aland), the UK (Isle of Man, Guernsey), et al. Because you are

pushing a point of view which other editors don't share. And if you think your sweet talking will get you brownie points, you are sadly mistaken. Corticopia

23:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I see reverting on both sides and no talkpage or other discussion, so even apart from the fact that this is not really an administrator issue, I can't even readily tell what your disagreement is. If you post your respective views on the talkpage I'm sure someone will be glad to give you a third opinion. Newyorkbrad 23:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Per edit summaries: essentially, D., believes the table entries for Norway and Svalbard (an archipelago with is under Norwegian admin but with unique status)/Jan Mayen should be combined and persistently does so without any chat; however, the table (which has seen its share of manipulation/POV-pushing about contents) is based on a consensual listing of territories (per UN) where both are discrete, as are similar domains (e.g., Finland/Aland). D. then accuses me of adding gibberish to the article in restoring prior content, resulting in collateral damage. What the fcuk is that? RE civility, that's more like hypocrisy. Anyhow... Corticopia 23:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

It was hard to tell that's the only change; there seems to be reverting on other issues as well. In any event, if the two of you can discuss on the talkpage you can get other views (including mine if you like). Nothing further required here at ANI. Newyorkbrad 23:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

User Corticopia continues to use profanity in edit summary [66] and [67]. Please take action. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Let's talk! )} 00:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

First of all: you remove content

generally to make a point. Wikipedia is not your mother, and neither am I. Corticopia

00:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Request for advice \ help

Hi guys - this is a strange one, but I am hoping you can help me out.

When I first started using Wikipedia, I created an article about the place I work (

NMUK

) - which in hindsight was a stupid thing to do. Over-time the article has grown, and has started to get noticed by management. It has become used as a politcal sounding-board, etc. Now people are trying to find out who made it, etc. Almost like a witchunt. This has started to get me really worried, and I'm beginning to get stressed about it. If the dots are joined and my real world anonymity is breached (which is possible, because I haven't exactly tried to hide it up until this point) it could really cause problems for me at work.

So - I am asking for your help. What can be done? My personal preference is that the article (and therefore it's log) is deleted. If it's genuinely missed, then someone else will recreate it. It's not that good an article anyway. Failing that, can my username be stripped / changed in the log?

I realise what I am asking for breaks the rules of Wikipedia - but I am really worried. At the end of the day this is an online encylopedia - it's not life or death. And in situations where an article can cause problems for people in the real-world, can exceptions not be made?

Thanks for your time. John the mackem 17:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately due to the nature of the copyright license we have we can't remove contributers from the logs when there contributions were used to build the article.

WP:BOT

.

However, I wouldn't be all that worried. Unless you were engaged in more serious activity (sock puppetry, POV-Pushing, etc) then I doubt much "trouble" will happen. ---

WRE

) 17:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't count on it. Gator1 wasn't doing anything wrong and he got in a lot of trouble... Hbdragon88 23:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Do you realize that you comment boarders on trolling and is a violation of his

WRE

) 06:04, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with that comment at all. Nowhere has it been requested that we never mention Gator1; in fact, he's still listed at

Chick Bowen

11:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, so the Gator1 story has put me into Defcon1 paranoia mode - when I think of how lax I have been with anonymity in the past. I realise I am not an admin and there is no reason for anyone to stalk me... but I am not taking any chances. I am attempting to rectify the situation. I have started by changing my username.

*** Can an admin please delete my old user talk page (User:John the mackem) and logs? *** It means I lose a Barnstar... but i'm sure I will live.

The remaining problem I have is to do with pictures in the Commons. I have taken lots of photos for the project, and rightly wanted attribution for them. Unfortunately, on a lot of the photos, in the Author section of the template, I put my real name. As this is just metadata, can this be deleted from the logs? What are my options? Cheers for the help fellas. Elysium 73 22:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC) (The editor formerly known as John the mackem).

Responded at

Chick Bowen

00:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

...so you need to keep Z."

Heard that one before?

I've drafted a new essay called

). In a nutshell it specifies,

Don't argue that an article shouldn't be deleted just because other, 'less important' articles still exist in Wikipedia. Don't argue that a block is invalid because another editor happened to do the same thing without drawing a block; don't argue that your antisocial behaviour is acceptable just because another editor hasn't been sanctioned.

Comment and editing welcome. Have at it. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes,

very familiar. I think we already have something along those lines with regards to "Do Not Delete because X and Y exist" in an essay about bad keep reasons - does anyone recall the essay I'm talking about? The antisocial might be funny to some, but I fear that links to the essay could be construed as personal attacks because of that line. Picaroon

20:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

You're thinking of Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Sam Blacketer 20:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Specifically, this seems a bit redundant to the

WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS part. Picaroon

21:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

The essay also has a hint of Wikipedia:Inclusion is not an indicator of notability. Aecis^Brievenbus 21:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Oops. My face is red now. Ah well. Does anyone like the story? :D TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

...On the other hand, there's still the second part—the "He got away with being a dick, so why can't I?" bit. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I think there is a "Pokemon test" essay somewhere. Goes along the lines of "If it's more important then (insert non-notable pokemon who has surived an AFD) then it must have an article!" ---

WRE

) 21:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Pokémon test. Aecis^Brievenbus 22:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

To which the common reply is "Only if you can cite as many sources for your subject as can be found cited at Bulbasaur#Notes and references will you have an argument that actually holds water.". Uncle G 02:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

It may be a bit redundant with

WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, but I'd keep it around. It at least is a bit more civil of a way of making the point.--Isotope23

15:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Not sure why this user wasn't permanently banned for sockpuppeteering (their sockpuppet accounts were), but they are now clearing out their talk page which contains many warnings and blocks. [68] Their comment as they blanked it sums up their general attitude on WP. Isn't this vandalism? Gsd2000 21:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

1) Sockpuppeteers aren't always indefinately blocked along with thier sockpuppets, it's up to the blocking administrator to decide what to do with them (and there is a difference between blocks and bans: bans come from Jimbo Wales, the Arbitration Committee, or the Wikipedia Community acting as a whole; blocks can be placed by any administrator for cause). 2) Removing warnings was once considered vandalism; the last time I remember it being discussed, I believe it was decided that users could remove warnings if they chose to do so. 3) If the edit summary was a continuation of previous conduct, then it may be cause for further blocking. Essjay (Talk) 21:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

OK - but now I'm getting personal abuse from this contributor: [69] Gsd2000 21:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

And based on that nasty little message, and given the busy block log already and the sockpuppeteering, I have blocked the account indefinitely. Please feel free to review this block.

►

21:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks for that. However, they are now evading their block by editing (engaging in 3RR violations, actually) from their IP address: [70]. Gsd2000 22:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Which appears to be static. Doh. Softblocked that for six months.

►

22:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear, he's back again, reverting the same article [71], using a different sock puppet account (to get round the semi protect status). Please please please - can we get an IP range block on this guy? Gsd2000 01:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

, but as I feared his contributions since being unblocked have been entirely centred around himself. Recently he posted to the user pages of the various sockpuppets making the assertion that the "check loser" is invalid and asking them to identify themselves.

• Nyslee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was major editor of Lee Nysted (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), proven by CheckUser plus the obvious name. Nysted added his comment to that user page as well, so that's pretty much holed his argument below the waterline.
• Huntress829 (
  no other contributions
  .
• somelight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a "friend" who happens to edit from the same IP address as Nysted and Huntstress, this is available in the undeleted histories.
• Symphonic Flight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has no edits remaining undeleted, posted the contents of the former Lee Nysted article at talk:Lee Nysted after the former was protected from re-creation.
• Billybobsteak (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was a CheckUser block, no edits to Nysted articles, but has not attempted to edit since - this may have been a sleeper caught before use, or it may be that one day the user will come back and ask to be unblocked.
• Smdewart (talk · contribs) is known to Nysted and was not blocked, because this is a provably different account.

See also user talk:Yamla, where Tony Fox points out that Huntstress has at times claimed to be unrelated (when challenged about her participation in the deletion debates, I think).

I don't know what Nysted is up to, but Is suspect it's nothing good. His edits on my Talk [72] suggest that his long term aim remains unchanged: to have an article on himself. Guy (Help!) 21:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

What is the whole Lee Nysted story about, is it some kind of

talk

22:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Lee Nysted Experience is the nexus of the discussion, I believe. Tony Fox (arf!) 23:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• I found a copy on the Dutch Wikipedia, here -
  talk
  23:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Seems to have been nuked now. Guy (Help!) 13:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• Shtop, thish vandalishm ish not ready yet! Yeah,
  ►
  16:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• Heh! Not editing from the coffee shop I hope :o) Guy (Help!) 22:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Cross-posted from Yamla's talk page are my thoughts about the unblock:
Please do not overturn checkuser blocks without consulting with the checkuser that conducted the investigation beforehand. These blocks are made due to information the administration in general is not privy to and as such should not be overturned without discussion. In fact, I'm rather of the opinion that no block should be overturned without discussion with the blocking admin, but that's tangential. I would kindly ask that you please reinstate the block pending discussion with jpgordon. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 21:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 23:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• In a truly stellar example of left hand not letting right hand know what it's doing, Nysted was re-blocked as having been unblocked without discussion or reference to CheckUser case (reasonable) and then unblocked again! [73], again with no evidence of discussion with the blocking admin. Brilliant, guys! Guy (Help!) 23:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  • This needs seriously addressed before it becomes wheel warring. I would support an indefinite reblock, pursuant to the harassment and vandalism Lee Nysted (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) participated in since unblocked. Opinions? ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 23:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Left hand not knowing...? Well, seems like it. I must say I hadn't seen this discussion here, but the on on
      WP:ANI#Unblock/reblock of confirmed sockpuppeteer, where I did consult and where both the previous unblocker and re-blocker had participated. I unblocked in what I saw as an absence of tangible indication of new sockpuppetry - nothing concrete mentioned there, no recent entries in the checkuser archives, and the previous re-block at least partly owing to a self-admitted misunderstanding of the blocking admin about the timing. Apologies if I got it wrong, I'll have no objections against another re-block if there are any strong reasons for it. Fut.Perf. ☼
      23:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
      • The fact that all their contibutions since being unblocked are attacks on users, attacks on the checkuser process, and removing sock tags, does not fill me with optimism that he will have ANY valuable contributions. He hasn't before, he hasn't now, where do we draw the line? After the 5th sock? The 10th? ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 00:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• Also the fact that the first I really knew of it al was yesterday - I know I am not terribly active right now due to RL but I am hardly on the missing list. Not that it matters overmuch, but he is deeply tiresome and really quite rude. Guy (Help!) 09:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Not sure why he was unblocked given the tone of his unblock demands both onwiki and on unblock-en-l, and having followed this for quite a while (since his legal threats on his talk page weeks ago), I'd support any re-block with good reasons. – Chacor 16:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to suggest that for now, we avoid any further confusion and just let things stand as they are. There's a lot of folks keeping an eye on him at the moment, and I suspect any further attempts to continue his self-promotional work will be responded to quickly. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

03:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

And, CyclePat has reported this as vandalism at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism (permalink: [74]). older ≠ wiser 03:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

That is not technically "vandalism", but you still should not be doing things based on a CfD that has recieved no input. You might have a case if a bunch of people had showed up agreeing that it is a recreation of deleted material, but they didn't, so you should wait for it to conclude. -Amarkov moo! 03:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Nominated for deletion and voted for deletion by... ? See discussion on user talk:Bkonrad on the warnings he has received. He is attempting to undermine wikipedia category for deletion process by giving all the more reason to delete the article. It is writen in on the template for cfd that one should not remove content from the category. Changing the template removes content vital to these Category:Cities in the UTC timezone. If Bkonrad could demonstrate what the problem specifically is we could perhaps work at fixing it! --CyclePat 03:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

The CfD is actually a side issue as far as I'm concerned. I was reverting his edits to the template because they add a meaningless redlinked category to city articles that use the template. older ≠ wiser 03:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

You shouldn't remove items from categories you nominate for deletion, no matter whether or not you think it's meaningless, because then people say "delete as unused". Discuss removing it from the template, or discuss deleting it. Don't do them both at the same time, because one affects the other. -Amarkov moo! 03:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. I did not nominate the category for deletion. I noticed a meaningless redlinked category on a city article, that happened to be very similar to the ones that CyclePat had created previously which had caused similar problems with the template. When I saw that, I reverted the edits to the template. At that time, I had no idea that the category was nominated for deletion. Am I crazy, or is it now OK to go make edits that break templates? older ≠ wiser 03:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

It is true that Bkonrad voted approx. 6 minutes after he made changes to the template. But it still does not deny the fact that you often patrol CfD's and that this article was nominated for CfD prior to you making these changes. Removing the auto-generated categories undermined the deletion process and make for an unfair deletion process. --CyclePat 04:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

So because I noticed the CfD immediately after editing the template, that somehow makes the edits that broke the template OK? Sorry, but I don't see the logic. I actually came across the CfD by checking your edit history -- you had responded to the CfD and and that is how I saw it. But how I came to to CfD is actually pretty irrelevant to the issue at hand. older ≠ wiser 04:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Please see recent revert to the template. The {{

template:infobox city}} has been reverted again. This revision undermines the deletion process of Wikipedia. To avoid a 3RR I am reporting it here. It requires another revert to avoid conflict with the CfD and I request protection until the CFD is finished. A further explanation on the template may be required (though it is already explain a little in the FAQ section). --CyclePat

03:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

No, please don't. The recents edits break the template. It should be incumbent on whomever is changing the template to be certain that it doesn't cause undesirable side effects. older ≠ wiser 03:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

That is correct. If you could explain these undesirable effects perhaps we could work together at fixing them. Currently all I know is that you are complaining because I haven't had the time to create more than 48 valid sub-categories which even have article here on wikipedia. (Ex.:

UTC-5) Instead of destroying the template, you can help by simply placing {{category:Cities in the UTC timezone}}. --CyclePat

04:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• Pat, please remember bold, revert, discuss. You did the bold, then there was the revert, now it's off to the talk page. Guy (Help!) 22:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Content / process dispute.

Dispute resolution is thataway. My suggestion: less 'doing' things, more 'talking' about things. --CBD

12:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Some users have expressed concern that the subject of this sexually-explicit image may be underage, and that therefore Wikipedia should obtain proof that he is not, lest it run afoul of the Child_Protection_and_Obscenity_Enforcement_Act and the PROTECT Act of 2003. --Atemperman 04:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

As has been discussed many times, the 2257 record keeping provisions apply only to images used commercially. As a nonprofit Wikipedia/Wikimedia is not required to maintain such records. Downstream users might have a problem, however, DOJ is presently enjoined from enforcing those provisions due to ongoing legal challenges (ones which many observers expect them to lose because DOJ wrote regulations that appear to most to be much broader than the mandate granted to them by Congress). Dragons flight 05:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be a good idea to make a template to tag images that might run afoul of these record-keeping provisions, for the sake of commercial downstream users? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo has deleted at least one image citing the possibility of it requiring 2257 record keeping. Reuse, people. 22:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you just ask the guy that uploaded it? --CyclePat 05:31, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

To be fair the uploader hasn't edited since Sep 8, 2006 [75]. Still, Dragons flight is completely correct as to the legal position. WjBscribe 05:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I was wrong about the 2257 legality, but what about him being possibly underage as some other editors pointed out. — MichaelLinnear 05:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

It really doesn't matter how many times it has been "discussed" by editors who lack a Juris Doctor, if we cannot fulfill the 2257 requirements of the Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act we need to delete the offending image posthaste. Take lead from Jimbo Wales and move along. [76] RFerreira 06:31, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Umm! I just took a look at the picture and that's not a child. If there is a specific issue from the CPOEA perhaps you could cite the area it is violating? —The preceding

unsigned comment was added by CyclePat (talk • contribs

) 07:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC).

It's a depiction of a sexual act, so cannot be used in commercial distributions without accompanying documentation of the model's age. If it can't be used in a commercial distribution, it's non-free, and it doesn't belong in Wikipedia. - Nunh-huh 07:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

If Wikipedia content is banned in China does that mean that we should remove all all our content? Is our goal to only post content that can be used commercially? I think not. --

Samuel Wantman

07:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

You're wrong. Non-commercial only content is not acceptable. It's not a debate, it's by fiat, from above: our decision, not some government's. Your example is a little confusing, as it's US law we're talking about, and we're hosted in the US, not China. - Nunh-huh 07:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

The difference is that it is a government that has made the commercial distribution illegal, not the creator of the content or us. In that respect the situation with the US government is analogous to the actions of China. --

Samuel Wantman

07:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

It's always a government that makes rules about intellectual content and rights of commercial and non-commercial reproduction. - Nunh-huh 07:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes. That is why we should post as much "free" material as we can, and leave it to individual governments to limit its use if they see fit. We should only be concerned with whether we can legally post the free material, and not whether some government might further restrict its use. --

Samuel Wantman

08:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia follows the laws of the United States and the state of Florida, and this is at present non-negotiable. We can ignore China's laws; we cannot ignore the US's. --Golbez 08:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Except we aren't breaking any laws. A reuser located in the US might be. That is where the analogy with China comes in, because only certain reusers in certain jurisdictions are at risk. (Though at present, the US law is also unenforcable due to pending legal challenges.) Dragons flight 08:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I was more responding to his earlier comment, which seemed to say "We don't do what China says, why should we do what the US says?" --Golbez 08:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. I don't know. the fact that Jimbo deleted something similar, citing 2257 issues makes me pause and makes me think that this perhaps should be deleted. Titoxd^(?!?) 07:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Really? When? Dragons flight 08:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Image:Creampiesex.jpg ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 08:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

We cannot host non-commercial only content since May of 2005 by order of Jimbo (the email is on my userpage, if you wish to see it). Pretty much, I think the problem we have here is a lack of documentation of where the image came from and if the license is correct. This is true for non-porn images. I believe in this case we need to be sure about the guys age, if the photo was taken by his request and he has authority to give it the license that he gave. I noticed he had other photos deleted before due to copyright issues, so I think this is a copyright violation. In short; delete unless we can truely say the guy is over 18 and the license is correct. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 08:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

The image isn't non-commercial in the normal sense (assumming the uploader is legitimate, which is a fair question). The image would only be restricted from commercial use in certain jurisdictions where record keeping requirements apply. Other jurisdictions could use it as is. Let's be clear here though. If we challenge anything where 2257 might apply to a reuser, that is a lot of images. Dragons flight 08:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Clearly this is something that needs to be (and eventually will) be decided at a higher level than users, so why not just kick it upstairs to the board before the interminable debate rather than after? - Nunh-huh 08:31, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

There are many images currently hosted at Commons & en.wiki which might fall under the purview of 2257 if Wikimedia is considered as a publisher instead of carrier. I have no idea of the official legal stance on the issue, so Nunh-huh's observation is probably the most sensible conclusion. But I have noticed that there is some flexibility with respect to commercial use considerations due to the apparent tolerance of photographs uploaded without release of personality rights. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 09:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd appreciate some outside people taking a look at this proposal for notability guidelines on churches. On the one hand people say it's necessary and useful because theology is an important academic field; on the other hand there's significant dissent against the proposal on grounds of

09:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• I've just noticed that the same applies to
  WP:ROYAL, only moreso; this proposal has been around for more than half a year and still has no consensus, so it's pretty obvious there's not going to be any. >Radiant<
  10:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  • These things need either tagged as 'rejected' or some new category of 'idea of some people - but obviously without any working consensus'. The problem is that if they are left as they are peopel !vote "fails
    Doc
    ^g 10:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Well, I've got no problem with tagging rejected, this is evidently not going to achieve consensus. We could also just redirect to
      WP:N, which would still preserve history, or reword it a bit (to state that this is what some people think makes churches notable) and tag as an essay. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!}
      10:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  • A Man In Black added the rejected tag, it was removed on grounds that "there is no consensus to reject". Once more, people are requested to look into this. >Radiant< 10:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

It seems that

12:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't see why, there doesn't look like anything approaching consensus for an indefinite ban at the discussion linked from

Catchpole

13:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Since community bans are supposed to be appealable to ArbCom, the question comes up how a banned user is supposed to present the appeal without violating the ban in the process. I've asked the arbitrators in a clerk note on the RfAr page how they would like this to be handled. Newyorkbrad 13:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

From the appeal process policy:

If there is disagreement then the matter will usually be escalated to the Arbitration committee to make a full ruling on the matter. You may request this by email if your editing access prevents you asking in the usual way. Editing access will usually be restored for the Arbitration pages only; abusing this by editing any other pages may result in a block which will not be lifted.

So shouldn't that section be removed and Flameviper told to email the ArbCom list? Metros232 13:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Probably, but I want to make sure that the arbitrators are in agreement with handing it that way, so I can write it into the arbitration procedures and others don't make the same mistake. Newyorkbrad 14:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Metros, where is that quote from?

Thatcher131

15:11, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

There's a similar quote in

WP:BAN#Appeals process: Bans imposed by the community may be appealed to the Arbitration Committee. Banned users should not create sockpuppets to file an appeal. Rather, contact a member of the committee or an Arbitration clerk by email and ask that a request be filed on their behalf. Generally speaking, the banned user will make the request on his or her talk page, which will be copied to WP:RFAR by a clerk. In some cases, a banned user may be unblocked for the sole purpose of making his appeal to the committee., which would seem to back up what Metros232 is saying. --ais523 15:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC

)

Well, I just wrote that

Thatcher131

15:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

It was from the "appealing a block" page. Sorry, I was teaching classes all morning so I couldn't respond/see your note but you've got it updated, good. Metros232 19:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• With regard to Newyorkbrad's quote above about Flameviper and appealing to ArbCom, isn't this a
  talk
  14:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Why don't we unprotect his old talkpage and let him appeal the ban there? That way we won't have to worry about a second account. — Moe 14:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I have unprotected

Thatcher131

15:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• He already knows the procedure is to email the arbitrators, since he used one of his other socks already - User_talk:Wiki_Duct_Tape --pgk 19:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• He's also been - er, active on the mailing list. I think he was responsible for all new subscribers going on mod. Twice. But I might be mistaken about that one, it could be some other banned editor. Guy (Help!) 22:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I wanted to approach the Admin noticeboard to review a block I have recently instated. A user who previously owned an account Yells at soup; (now known as Barry the chopper) would often be subject to userpage/user talk page vandals. I protected his userpage twice after seeing a heavy onslaught of vandals constantly targeting him. After some time I started noticing a strange pattern in the contribution history. He started inserting his own vandalism to his userpage/user talk page such as this instance (done under his new account) and frequently would make strange unconstructive edits while logged out. It came to the point that I believe he was using multiple sockpuppets to insert fake vandalism into his user page as well as other user pages when he spammed the mental health template in many circumstances: (see this, this (done under his new account), and most recently this). I feel this indicates strong evidence of what he was sneakily up to while editing Wikipedia. However, I would greatly appreciate if more experienced admins would review this. Thank you.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 20:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Just scrolling though his full contribs, I doesn't look like he's actually here to contribute to the encyclopedia --pgk 20:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Just to point out this was a rename --pgk 20:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a big target - almost too big for its own good. PR firms love control - it is their business, attempting to control information. To cut to the chase a man (Anthony) who owns a PR firm (Called Eligo) had created an elaborate and verbose article on himself, it was AfD'ed and deleted (Afd). Another article on him at a different name page was created the day after his first one was deleted - it has now been speedied. One of the contributors to that article was 81.193.124.176 (talk · contribs). The talk page contains the following from Max Kaertner (talk · contribs), -

"Anthony, a Royal Wedding (yours!) certainly merits notability! Time for Eligo to weigh-in and create a new Wiki article for HSH Princess Marie-Therese von Hohenberg! Don't forget to invite me!".

I brought this up on here a couple of weeks ago, and at that point identified a number of accounts that seemed to be part of a web - now we appear to have a comment suggesting that it is "Time for Eligo to weigh-in and create a new Wiki article". How many accounts do they have? Advice on what should be done with all of this is welcomed - because it looks to me that a load of rich mens club PR operators are running around the controls we have in place to stop autobiographical input as well as conflicts of interests. The contribs of the IP above, as well as Seisal (talk · contribs), Cahce (talk · contribs), Eligo (talk · contribs) are engaged in editing on themselves, their various "private clubs" and also on their clients. And the remarks about his PR firm "weighing in" to just simply create an article for his fiancée just takes the biscuit. Others thoughts welcomed. SFC9394 22:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, the behavior is certainly unfortunate, but being the great-granddaughter of Archduke Ferdinand, whose assassination started World War Ii, is probably at least a good ice-breaker at parties. Since there seems to be not much to comment on in the lives of the betrothed, it might be incorporated into a single article on the descendants of the archduke. That would be too much like genealogy for some tastes, so it too would probably have deletion problems. - Nunh-huh 03:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

User Corticopia continues to use profanity in edit summary [77] and [78]. Please take action. He was already reported for personal attacks in this same page. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Let's talk! )} 00:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll say here what I've said elsewhere. First of all: you remove content

generally to make a point. Wikipedia is not your mother, and neither am I. Corticopia

00:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

You both caused Mexico to be blocked. You both tried to make a point, and there were sources to prove both. It seems that in Mexico the consensual version included all possible versions (NPOV) and reversions stopped. But it seems this issue was moved to Mesoamerica and Middle America, and both again, are trying to make a point. --theDúnadan 01:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

This user keeps refusing me to contribute towards any articles reverts any edit I make even though all of them are fully referenced from reliable sources. Can someone please help stop this person from unilateraly deleting fully referenced information from the Great power article which is breaking Wiki policy. Userofwiki 01:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

NB - this user is a sockpuppet of

Great Power. Gsd2000

01:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

More info: user clearly isn't heeding the advice from admins the last time he tried this: [79]. Gsd2000 01:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Gsd2000 is unilateraly refusing to allow me to contribute towards any article and and never allows me to contribute anything on Wikipedia even when it is important referenced information and even if I were to correct a spelling mistake they would revert it. It's obvious they've became nothing sort of being a bully on here now and are probably doing this to many others too. Userofwiki 01:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

It is Wikipedia policy to revert all edits made by blocked users who attempt to circumvent their blocks. Corvus cornix 21:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

More administrative eyes are needed at Timothy Noah. Noah is a journalist for Slate magazine who wrote an article on February 24 about Wikipedia's notability guideline using his article as an entry point. Thereafter, Noah's article underwent an Afd (kept) and many, many edits. Today, Noah published a follow up article at Slate. The edits to Timothy Noah are increasing. There has been a large amount of discussion at talk concerning content that is being ignored by most of the drive by editors and a large amount of edit warring is going on. I'm reluctant to protect the article given that there are a lot of new users getting exposure to Wikipedia through this article. Thus, like I said, more eyes would be helpful. Thanks! · j e r s y k o talk · 01:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

See Talk:Dave Grohl#Death rumor vandalism generating bad press for Wikipedia. Could we get some more people to watch this page, please? — CharlotteWebb 01:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I think I've revived three or four people now, myself... Surprised that's generating press. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

There's been an interesting

) 01:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Interesting stuff

A break from all the abuse complaints and the usual programming: have you seen Wikipedia:Adminship survey? It's this year's version of the Admin accountability poll held last year. Comments there would be nice. Titoxd^(?!?) 02:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

It was mentioned here a few days ago - I can't be bothered to check the archive. Hbdragon88 02:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I know this is a delayed response. I'm just wondering ... Did anyone see

05:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

First, I think it should go to

Real96

05:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Looks like all the AFDs discussed have been closed already. Not sure you can canvass for something that has already been decided. ---

WRE

) 05:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, ya...I admitted it was a rather delayed response. The messages were posted before/during the deletion debates. --Iamunknown 05:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

IMO, it's a newsletter. It's to inform people. Per WP:CANVASS, it could be construed as a "friendly notice" of what's going on in the

WP:USRD world. I did not distribute this newsletter, but I would assume that it went to all those users who are listed as "participants" of the relevent projects, thus opting them in to receiving a newsletter that's considered a part of the project. And they are more than welcome to be removed from receiving the newsletters. To cite the arbitrator: "Briefly, I think a reasonable amount of communication about issues is fine." It was a newsletter provided by the main contributors of a Project to the listed participants of a Project, not to random users, that had a link to an article regarding current events. I don't think it qualifies as true canvassing. --MPD ^{T / C}

05:24, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

This is very late to be complaining about this. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 08:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

No estoy de acuerdo. Cualquier momento es buen momento para el cambio. Este es foro para todas las cosas. Creo que NPOV es muy importante para todo de nuestras obras, incluso boletines. Cuanto más ojos y opiniones se tiene, lo más bien sea los discusiones.--Pedro Almendras 10:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Odd, not sure why this individual has posted in Spanish but here is a loose translation of above line: I don't agree. Anytime is a good time for change. This forum is for all types of things. I believe that NPOV is very important for all of our work including bulletins. The more eyes and opinions we have, the better will be the discussions. (→Netscott) 10:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Quizá acabamos de necesitar para dirigir a él/ella al wiki español. (Maybe we just need to direct him/her to the Spanish wiki)--MONGO 11:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

MONGO, I doubt the U.S. Roads issue exists on Spanish Wikipedia. :-) (→Netscott) 11:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

De verdad. Me gusta contribuir a todos los Wikipedias. Cierto que mi inglés es mal, pero puede ayudarte con este wiki, como se puede ver en este caso.--Pedro Almendras 11:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

(It's true. I like contributing to *all* the Wikipedias. True, my English is bad, but I can work with this wiki, as you can see in this case.) Por favor, escribir en ingles, Pedro, hasta si su ingles es un poco mal.

►

11:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Left them a note at their talk. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 11:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I guess I should bring up at

Useenglish}} translated into some other languages. —Elipongo (Talk|contribs

) 11:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Well I sometimes leave messages in English on other language Wikis where I don't speak the language.... so to a certain extent I understand this message but still it is a bit odd to have someone writing in Spanish out of the blue on this topic (and have it be their first contributions to en.wiki). (→Netscott) 11:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

True Scott. I think Pedro needed a guidance. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 11:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Was I complaining? I noticed a newsletter which, while necessary for a wikiproject to function, seemed to be inappropriately canvassing, or rather galvanizing, and I was curious what other users thought. Remember, there is no deadline; I don't see how it is too late to talk about anything. --Iamunknown 18:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

For the record, the newsletter had little effect; there was already consensus to keep when it was sent out. It probably could have had better wording though. --NE2 11:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, first of all, AfD is not a vote, even if a hundred people voted keep and all they said was I like it and the few that said delete had valid points where it violated policy, it would still get deleted. AfD is a discussion to come to some type of consensus, it's not a democracy. Secondly, notifying other members of a WikiProject that one of the articles of said project is being nominated for deletion is good practice. I am not "watching" every article, so I may not even know an article is nominated since people that nominate articles do not post anything on the WP talk page, which I think they should be required to do. AfD is a process to improve Wikipedia, not to just get rid of articles that someone doesn't like. --Holderca1 16:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

My concern was not that members were notified, which I agree is entirely appropriate, but that users were (at least it seemed to me) galvanized. --Iamunknown 18:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Werdnabot problem?

I was checking through the page history, as a few reports I was active on seemed to have gone AWOL. Turns out the culprit is werdnabot. At 15:28 on the 25th, werdnabot supposedly "archived" this page ("Automated archival of 23 sections to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive74"). However, if you look here, it never did copy the content to the archive in question. Am I missing something? (apart from 23 sections...) yandman 12:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Huh? Thatcher131 seems to have created the archive 75 manually -- that probably confused the bot; I can't find those 23 sections either. Duja► 12:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

That was a day later, though. Strange. By the way, there seems to be a big backlog of problems being reported on Werdna's talk page. yandman 12:47,

27 February 2007 (UTC)

No one ever remembers to increment werdnabot; archive74 was over 500KB, so I manually split half of it to archive 75, and changed Werdnabot to archive 76. Did I miss something? If so, sorry. We might want to ask Essjay to put Essjaybot II on to archiving this page as it does AN/I; when the archive reaches a preset size, it autoincrements to the next archive.

Thatcher131

13:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm more than happy to do so, as long as there is agreement for it. Essjay (Talk) 13:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

You didn't cause the problem, Thatcher. Werdnabot messed up at least 10 hours before you intervened. I'd think it might be better to switch to Essjay's, at least until this is cleared up. yandman 17:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

<s>Banned</s> Blocked users requesting help

Flamviper actually has a pretty interesting suggestion on his talk page right now. He suggests the creation of a template that banned users can use to get the attention of an admin when they have a request other than unblocking.

This blocked user is requesting administrator attention.

• User:Username (block log • ipblocklist • contribs • creation log • unblock
  )

Administrators: Remove this template when finished with this request and provide an answer to the blocke user's query.

He wants to call it {{

Thatcher131

13:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Is it just me or does the combination of Flameviper and "banned using wanting attention" seem to go rather well together. What's the point? They either want to appeal a block in which case we have the unblock template and mailing list. Or they want to appeal a ban, in which case they email arbcom. What other attnetion is it that a banned user may require? If we banned them why would we want to let them continue to have influence over the project by proxy? This appears to be instruction creep and/or another way for banned users to continue disrupting the project. --pgk 13:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Looks like an invitation to trolling to me. I see no merit. And why are we discussing the suggestions of a banned user anyway?--

Doc

^g 13:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

We can treat abuse of this category the same way we treat abuse of the unblock category. We already have a subcategory of unblock: Category:Requests for username changes when blocked, I think the new category is worth a try since there are bound to be blocked users with legitimate requests to be made, and it will eliminate one more excuse people have for justifying sockpuppetry while blocked. NoSeptember 14:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Can you outline those legitimate requests which wouldn't already be covered by the {{

helpme}} templates? Why would an admin specifically be required? --pgk

14:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

How about a right to vanish request from a 3RR blocked user who is done with the project due to that edit war. Is there any reason they have to wait for the block to expire before making the request? (Whether we grant it is a separate issue) NoSeptember 14:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

They can request that through a simple unblock request for that. Or a helpme request. Or they can put the CSD template directly on their user_talk page. This seems a pretty rare/unusual scenario why create yet another process to cover it, what's wrong with the current processes and why do we need this

instruction creep? (Some people already seem to find the instructions on the block page complex already why add more?) --pgk

14:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

There is a term for this: proxying.

The banning policy is quite clear on the practice: "Wikipedians are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned user." As Pgk stated above, and as I stated on RFAR, the appropriate forum for banned users to appeal their ban (which is the only legitimate activity a banned user may take part in) is to email the Arbitration Committee or Jimbo Wales. Codifying a process for, and encouraging admins to, violate a core Wikipedia policy is a Very Bad Thing™. Essjay (Talk)

14:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

My understanding is that Flameviper is trying to get reinstated because of Yanksox's being desysopped. They're separate issues: Flameviper was banned for his actions, and Yanksox was desysopped for his actions. I agree with Essjay, this suggested template is a way to circumvent existing Wikipedia protocol, and not a good thing. --Kyoko 14:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Having this option does not mean we have to change any protocols or suffer trolling any more than we do now. Not every user can/will use email or IRC or one of the mailing lists; one more option doesn't hurt, just as the creation of the Unblock mailing list was just one more option to use for that purpose. Containing the user to his talk page is preferable to having that user create a sockpuppet and post elsewhere, which btw is what Flameviper did, causing more disruption than if he made the Arb request on his talk page. NoSeptember 14:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

We waste a disproportionate amount of time giving due process to trolls and other pests as it is. It is hard enough to get these people banned, without creating more processes to ensure the discussion is unending. What is the problem that this solution is trying to solve? What is the benefit to the project here?--

Doc

^g 14:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

"Not every user can/will use email..." - free email addresses are 10 a penny. If we've banned the user it tends to suggest that we've had plenty enough of them already, if the user is unwilling to create such an account to mail in why should we be bending over backwards to accomodate them? --pgk 14:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

You refer to a banned user, not all blocked users are banned. What about the normally productive user who gets blocked for 3RR or a one time personal attack etc? (I blame Thatcher131 for using the word banned instead of blocked in the section title ;-) NoSeptember 15:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that was stupid of me, sorry. Sent the discussion off in the wrong direction. I guess the point is, is there ever a reason that a blocked user would need help that only an admin could provide, so that {{helpme}} would be insufficient?

Thatcher131

15:24, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I can think of a situation where a blocked user would have a legitimate request that something be posted. If he's temporarily blocked while having an RfAr against him, he should have some ability to have his comments (or evidence) listed in the procedings. Not admin action, per se, but something that should only be done by someone who is sure that it wouldn't be proxying. (And, yes, there is an instance of that in an active RfAr.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

That's a separate issue. Once a case is filed, the arbitrators or clerks should be watching his talk page anyway.

Thatcher131

16:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

A small group of very busy users can easily overlook someone for quite a bit of time during a month long case. I think Arthur's example is valid, as is the right to vanish example, and I'm sure several others. NoSeptember 17:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

with the discussion having died down, I see that the situation is rare enough that {helpme} should be sufficient; if the first responder can not handle the request they can notify their favorite admin or post to ANI.

Thatcher131

02:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Although note Essjay's comment above, that banned users (as opposed to blocked users) should not even be asking for any assistance, since the only action they are permitted to take is to appeal their ban. A ban is a formal revocation of all editing privileges. --

talk

) 06:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Agree 100% with Pgk on this. Any user can use email if they have a request other than unblocking, including requesting an Arbcom case, unprotection of their talk page or right to vanish (which would seem to be the only valid requests, anything else would be a request to proxy). In this particular case I can assure everyone from experience that Flameviper is willing to use email, but the thing about email is that it only gains you the brief attention of whoever you send it to up until the point they delete it. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 10:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Can someone describe the difference between being banned, i.e. by community consensus, after an open discussion, and being indef blocked, which is often done by a single admin, acting alone?? What (if any) rights does an indef-blocked user have? - EMET-MET 16:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

See

WP:BAN, our banning policy. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)

17:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Those pages leave many questions unanswered. For example, if an account is indef-blocked, but not banned, can that person simply open a new account and continue editing? Can this new account be then blocked as reincarnation of a banned user, or can the new account continue to edit if the behavior that caused the original block is not continued? If a logged-in user edits (or appears to edit) from an open proxy -- even once -- can that user (rather than the ip address) be indef-blocked for open proxy use? Also, if a user is indef-blocked for any reason, and unblock is declined, can that user appeal to WP:ANI or elsewhere? It appears to me that indef-blocks (vs. bans, which are community reviewed) are subject to a lot of potential abuse. - EMET-MET 17:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

142.227.235.193

Could someone block this IP? I know it's a school IP, but there's always vandalism. Thanks. --Averross (u♠t♠c) 14:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Blocked by Kusma and then reblocked for longer by Clown. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 10:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Clerks of all types need to be deprecated

Please see

Wikipedia:Community_noticeboard#Clerks_of_all_types_need_to_be_deprecated --Durin

15:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Backlog

[81] —The preceding

unsigned comment was added by Hunted by A.K.G. (talk • contribs

) 22:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC).

Random article link

I'm beginning to think that the random article link in the navigation box on the left of the screen probably causes more harm than good. It makes it easy for vandals to find obscure pages to vandalize, many of which will likely stay vandalized for some time. If the link were removed, vandalism would still continue, but it would likely be much more centered around notable, carefully watched pages (e.g. George W. Bush) and be easy to revert, as opposed to obscure pages (what vandal is actually going to type "Rolls-Royce Corniche (2000)" into the search bar and hit go?) As for the benefits to having the random page link, the only one I can think of is that it's a nice little diversion for visitors, but such benefits seem small in comparison to its pretty much given encouragement of vandalism. I propose that it be removed, or at least be made a registered user-only feature.--Azer Red Si? 22:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

It's nice for readers to find new subjects! I've always used it to find bad articles and articles needing fixing as well. I'd like to see proof that this is how vandals find articles. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 22:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

It's pretty obvious that this is how they find articles on lesser-known subjects. I mean, seriously, do you think that the casual vandal actually types

Mahatma Gandhi Kashi Vidyapeeth into the search bar and clicks "go"? Heck no, they just keep clicking the random page button and vandalizing whatever article comes up. That button is a vandal's best friend, since it prevents them from actually having to think of a subject to vandalize.--Azer Red Si?

22:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but the flip side is that it's the wikignome's best friend as well. If you want to find random commas to fix, or random pages that have slipped through new page patrol and need to be speedy / prodded - a good way to do it is to sit there hitting "random" until you find something that needs fixing or tagging. (Or at least that's how I do it - others may have better methods.) --TheOtherBob 22:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd suggest either keeping it or removing it for anons; I know that it could definitely be used to find articles to fix, as TheOtherBob said. However, there is the consideration of how similar this is to protecting every page (allowing users to edit encourages vandalism!)

Veinor ^{(talk to me)}

23:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Personally I find the random link a fascinating object - you never know where you will be going next. Should the focus of wikipedia be to protect all content at all costs from vandalism - or should it be to promote content at all costs at the expense of all? Of course the reality lies in the middle - but I think the random link lies on the right side of the line. Neither of the articles you linked to have been vandalised - and a quick test by me on hitting the link and selecting obscure articles (

Sheikh Abdullah ibn Zaid Al Nahayan, James J. O'Donnell, and Norfolk Windmills Trust) show that none of them have been vandalised either. The vandals who wish to target obscure articles will do so anyway, random link or no random link - just clicking a trail through articles from well known ones can very quickly (within 3 or 4 links) deliver you to something very obscure anyway - they will always find a method. SFC9394

The Mahatma Gandhi so-and-so article was vandalized--Azer Red Si? 23:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, but going from

Mahatma Gandhi Kashi Vidyapeeth. We can't turn this encyclopedia into an online anti-vandal fortress - the easiest way to solve the vast majority of vandalism is to stop anon edits, but that isn't going to happen either! (I say that as someone who makes probably a dozen reverts a day on the day of the year articles to keep them clean of my mate billy born 1990 entries) and would be happy to see them all SP'ed, but it just isn't going to happen. SFC9394

23:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Openness and preventing vandalism are always a delicate balance. Our position has been that we'll go for openness unless things are so bad that we can't--that's why we still allow anonymous editing, despite the problems. I suspect, though, that the random article link has been indirectly responsible for much of our growth; it's the only way, in a few seconds, to get a sense of the encyclopedia's enormous breadth and range, and people (newcomers too, not just wikignomes) generally find it fascinating.

Chick Bowen

03:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that anon-editing should be disabled. I know that Wikipedia is supposed to be open, but it's supposed to be an encyclopedia first and foremost, and allowing people to vandalize on a whim like that is going to be a serious hindrance to Wikipedia's achievement of its ultimate goal, or at least what I thought was supposed to be its ultimate goal.--Azer Red Si? 23:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Fool that ruined America

Please could someone more awake than I am take a look at this ([82]) and unravel the moves and redirects. It's making me dizzy. Ta. I'm so spun by it, I can't even work out if it's vandalism. --Dweller 23:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

It seems to have been taken care of. Cbrown1023 talk 23:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

AfD heads up

novel synthesis from published sources" as far as I can tell. Several "brand new users" and discussion obscured by the odd layout. Guy (Help!

) 23:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Notice of ArbCom Injunction in Armenia-Azerbaijan case

The

Arbitration Committee has adopted a temporary injunction in the case of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan. The injunction provides: Until the conclusion of this case, all parties are restricted to one content revert per article per day, and each content revert must be accompanied by a justification on the relevant talk page. Violators may be blocked for up to 24 hours. A list of the affected parties can be found on the case page and they have been notified of the injunction on their talkpages. This notice is given by a Clerk on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad

02:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Another AfD heads up

^Talk

02:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Personal attack on user page?

This

Crossmr

03:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

"Idiotic" removed and talk page notified. Teke ^(talk) 05:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Allen Hynek edit-war

Again and again user 84.133.etc. replaces the passage that is not to be found in the given reference ("Revelations"), I read the book and especially searched for the quote, but did not find it. Moreover, what the quote says is included in the surrounding paragraphs anyway. So I don't know why 84.133.etc. replaces the wrong passage all over again, and he refuses to give his reasons, on the contrary, he is insulting me ("(Bwilcke, stubborness won't help, this just ain't right so you better shut up"). I know him, he is a German whose contributions are confined to enter or provoke edit-wars - like here - and to rare minor (mostly unreasonable) corrections. A weird fellow. He likes to insult not only me but also others (e.g. got blocked once for incredible contentions about the familiy of another user, unknown to him).

Could you help, please?

Bwilcke (forgot my password) -- 84.176.56.251 03:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOPRO

, revisited

It's about time we (re)consider dropping the prohibition against semi-protecting Today's Featured Article. The discussion on the talk page has stalled and so I have decided to bring the matter back to the forefront here. In the first five hours Aspasia has been on the Main Page, changes to the article have been – in short – minimal, with many of the constructive edits (that are not merely vandalism reverts) coming from established users. And yet we are still maintaining the idea that it is better to show people that this one particular article is open for editing rather than maintaining the integrity of what we claim is an encyclopedia. If we truly are an encyclopedia first, why are we compromising the quality of what we all flaunt as some of our best work in the hopes that, despite past experience, most newcomers will make positive contributions? Whereas the current policy is giving those small number of constructive newcomers the feeling of satisfaction, are we not lending credence to the idea that Wikipedia is unreliable by showing many others entire articles that are replaced or riddled with nonsense by vandals? -- tariqabjotu 05:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

We claim to be an openly editable encyclopedia, so protecting the most visible article goes right against that philosophy. Incidentally, the day you picked to bring this up is a day with a front page article that would have a very small amount of the public that is knowledgable on the subject, leading to fewer constructive changes. Viridae^Talk 05:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, though you'd be surprised--when

Chick Bowen

05:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

DYK kind of fills that niche with (mostly) short, new articles. Hbdragon88 05:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

True, but the rules for DYK have become stricter recently (minimum raised from 1,000 characters all included to 1,500 characters excluding references, infoboxes, and categories), so stubs and very short articles no longer have a place there. Perhaps an "article improvement of the day" on the front page may be a way to lure new editors? Take some general or popular subject without a really good article, so that many people will feel that they can contribute something useful? Articles like (just a random sample)

Fram

08:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• One question might be whether we need to advertise our openness in that way. We're quite well-known throughout the world. >Radiant< 09:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

We are first and foremost a free encyclopaedia - at least that's what it says at the top left of every page. Being freely-editable is a means to an end, of generating as much content as possible, and comes second in importance to being an encyclopaedia. The prohibition against semi-protecting today's FA is misguided because it puts editors above readers, even though the vast majority of people come to Wikipedia to read it, not to edit it. (As any rational person would expect - I don't go to McDonalds so I can grill my own burger. Or to use a non-profit analogy, people who call

The Samaritans

don't expect to be told to sort it out themselves.)

Preventing anons from starting articles, introducing the semi-protection policy, and many other measures have already gone against the philosophy of being openly editable for the sake of protecting the encyclopaedia. Semi-protecting the FA so that people new to the encyclopaedia don't see a load of penises or 'MY FREIND TOM SUCKS BALLS LOL' is another step that should be taken in this direction. I acknowledge that I'm in the minority over this at the moment, but quality is more important than quantity now, and the direction of policy is inevitably going to continue to point in the direction of safeguarding what we've got rather than fighting the

law of diminishing returns as it applies to random contributions. Featured Articles, by their nature, are going to be on the flat end of the curve anyway. --Sam Blanning^(talk)

10:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah the Most Excellent Painters and Sculptors etc... surely two of the finest would be Theodore 'Ted' Logan and Bill S.Preston Esquire who surely merit a most bodacious article! And the less we know about 'freind Tom' and his eating habits the better! :) Lemon martini 10:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• The random article feature is a Good Thing, as for
  talk
  15:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Someone may have closed their own

WP:CFD

discussion

Could an administrator please check the proposals to rename

WP:CFD. This activity simply does not look right. Dr. Submillimeter

11:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

It does look strange. I don't understand why it wasn't listed as a speedy rename. Have you asked Dr. K? I don't think this is anything to worry about. Do you? --

Samuel Wantman

11:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Looking at User talk:Tasoskessaris, it looks like this user needs to be warned about his actions mainly so that a record is made on his talk page indicating what happened. The user has a history of disruptive behavior (whether it is intentional or unintentional). Among other things, I saw a warning indicating that the user has caused category-related problems before (such as the recreation of deleted content). Dr. Submillimeter 12:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Looking further at User talk:Tasoskessaris, it does not look like the user is trying to be disruptive. However, the user does appear to make some mistakes. The user should at least be warned (preferably by an administrator) not to close his own rename discussions, although the warning should not be too harsh. Dr. Submillimeter 12:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Over 500 links to a single band

I don't know how much of this is an AN issue, but some serious, serious, serious gnomery and/or intervention is needed. Placebo (band) is one of our most linked articles. Someone has been inserting links to it everywhere. I mean everywhere, too. Go to the band page and then check "What links here." Now, the fact that the band is linked from David Bowie may be neither here nor there, but so many links inside Wikipedia might well result in some added lucre because of Google page rank boosting. If you folks want to investigate and decide it's all kosher and copacetic, fine, but it seems...excessive.

I found the band because a "biography" of their drummer (written by a drummer!) was a speedy delete that I hit while surfing Random Article. I thought, "I've never heard of this band. Is this a European thing?" I looked at the band article, verified that it has albums, and then went to "What links here." Warning: wear your goggles. Utgard Loki 13:43, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I peeked at the list, and most of them seem okay (alternative rock-related articles). There are a LOT of "trivia" type "_____ in Pop Culture" sections where the band had a song that related to the subject. I don't blame the band, I blame the crappy articles that have these meandering popculture sections. Mahalo. --Ali'i 14:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I can confirm that I have heard of Placebo, and they are not a little unheard of band, particularly in the UK and Europe.

►

14:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

No, they are one of the most popular rock bands (or alternative pop or whatever it is called nowadays) in Europe (certainly in France and Italy, but also in Belgium and I suppose a lot of other countries). I don't know what article was speedy deleted (it looks like all band members have their article for the moment, so perhaps you haven't speedy deleted it after all). A link from David Bowie to Placebo is quite normal, as they are heavily influenced by him. It has less than 500 incoming links (now, perhaps people removed some since the start of this section), so I doubt that it is one of the most linked articles (check e.g.

Fram

14:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I am just some guy with a separate comment on categorization. However, I looked at the "what links here" for Placebo (band) and saw that a large number of the pages were user pages. The band probably just has a lot of fans in Wikipedia. (However, this does not explain all of the links.) Dr. Submillimeter 20:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Buddhism

review

) - 15:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Try reporting this at

Eli Falk

15:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I don't see this kind of vandalism often, so I wasn't sure where to go. The situation's been handled by an admin. Cheers! —

review

) - 15:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Blocks for warning removal

Maybe I'm completely off base here, but we generally don't issue blocks for warning removals by an editor from their own talkpage do we? At least my understanding was that removing warnings is annoying as hell, but not expressly forbidden by any guideline or policy and a block based on warning removal from an editor's own talkpage probably isn't a very good block. Just want to clarify my understanding before I wade into a situation.--Isotope23 16:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

That's my understanding as well. | Mr. Darcy talk 16:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

If someone removes a message, we can assume they've seen it. This would be a poor reason for a block. Friday (talk) 16:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree, blanking userpage warnings shouldent warrant a block in itself. (But, i bet you wont have to look too deep to find other reasons to block, i.e. continue vandalism or spamming). -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 16:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I am testing a bot that will retro-actively create an archive from a page based off of it's revision history. That will show any thread that was removed, including warnings. I just need to make a better caching system before I roll it out. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

That is correct. We do, however, issue warnings or blocks to editors who insist on edit warring to add a warning to a talk page. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that seems to be the root problem here. There was 1 warning that the editor removed, then another editor and an admin kept adding the warning back along with additional vandal warnings to stop removing the warnings. the admin eventually blocked the editor ostensibly for violating 3RR... which never would have happened if 2 other people were not incorrectly adding the warnings there.--Isotope23 17:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Not only that, but we tend to treat a user's talk page as an exception to the 3RR. Except in unusual circumstances, an editor is allowed to remove whatever comments they want, as often as they want, from their own page. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

So, the block on

Steel

17:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll look into it. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Well now that the name has been mentioned, it does seem the reason given for blocking is not in line with policy. I have unblocked the user. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Looks like HighInBC beat me to it. I also note that the template being removed was a notification from OrphanBot. I can't imagine why someone would edit war to keep that message on a user's page in the first place. It's just a notice from a bot, for goodness' sake—it's not even a user conduct warning. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

As I understand policy, blocking is not an appropriate response to warning removal. However, I sometimes do lengthen block duration for subsequent blockable actions due to warning removal. Removal is evidence that the warning has been read - and therefore under some circumstances may be fairly interpreted as refusal to accept feedback. Durova^Charge! 22:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

my edits keep going away

i have editted two intel articles on "pentium d" and "core 2" user sarenne keeps undoing the edits.

i don't understand what is going on here and need some help. what's the point of Wikipedia if some folks just undo all of the work of other users. I did enter a comment on user's sarenne talk page -- but i doubt it makes a difference.

but from what i read the problem is much bigger than i.

this user is trying to engineer social change far beyond the mear correctness of terminology...which, by the way, i totally disagree with.

so someone needs to explain this binary terminology religious ferver to me and what it has to do with Wikipedia.

Or maybe you won't have to "block" me. I will just go away and use/contribute somewhere else where it is valued.

Thanks.

Rman2000 17:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

This is a conflict over

Veinor ^{(talk to me)}

17:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

It has been explained to this user why his edits have been reverted and he has been directed to the correct page to take up his issue with the current policy. This is a hotly contested policy, but has withstood many challenges thus far. There have been a string of IP users recently who show up solely for the purpose of removing the correct usage of these prefixes and causing a fuss when their changes are reverted. -- mattb @ 2007-02-28T17:51Z

It doesn't matter how hotly contested this issue is or what the past has held. In this case these articles are about products designed and built by Intel. The inventor/manufacturer does NOT use this terminology. So I don't think that Wikipedia consensus (and since the entire community didn't vote, the importance of this isn't clear either) is really the guiding factor in these articles. They should be true to the rightful inventor/owner terminology. It is clearly confusing to see one terminology in Wikipedia and a different one from the manufacturer: web pages, documentation, packaging etc.

This isn't just editting of a page here or there but these MiB/KiB folks are out to change the world. They are clearly monitoring Wikipedia for just sunch changes and changing them back...it's like the binary number police at work. When in this case, they are simply wrong on every front. If they want to write original articles and use obscure terminology known only to .00001% of the population, then fine. I appauld them for living in their own private world. But I live in this world and it doesn't use MiB or KiB ... anywhere else.

The forced imposition of standards is a political event and should be handled in a suitable political forum. If they want to "suggest" certain changes to authors...well why not. But they are forcing every page in Wikipedia to bare their particular nomenclature stamp when it is not the desire of the subject community. What is "correct" is not the forced change of every occurance of MB to MiB etc. They must have a BOT that checks all pages in Wikipedia for "violations" of their form of "correctness" given the speed with which my edits were removed. This is really the George Orwell "1984" nightmare incarnate.

And the slight above about IP users is just more snobbery about the topic. I didn't sign on because I didn't even think about it at the time. And I don't think others are trying to hide from the changes. Only from the overwhelming pressure of the binary zealots that are taking over Wikipedia.

Read what they said. The words on vandalism and blocking are threats pure and simple. You don't leave it the way we want it and you will be "eliminated"....almost "resistence is futile" sound about it. I don't think that I and other users respond to threats very well.

Wikipedia's value is deeply rooted in it's openness. This kind of "bully" editing runs clearly against the grain. These folks, whoever they are, don't own every technical page in Wikipedia...at least I don't think that they do (correct me if I am wrong). And I don't think it serves Wikipedia to have "policemen" of any type forcing everyone to walk on the "right" side of the street.

But I am concerned about these pages where the terminology is being corrupted in the name of "standards" and made inconsitent with the common practice of engineers, programmers, users and manufactures as represented in their own writings, web sites and packaging. Rman2000 19:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

In this case, the marketing people at the companies you mention are using the wrong prefix because they don't want to confuse the customers. Wikipedia shouldn't adhere to marketing talk, it should keep to standards and in this case MiB is the correct use of prefixes when referring to 1024 bytes. --Strangnet 19:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

In any event... this is a content dispute, not something requiring admin action.--Isotope23 19:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Wonder what admins are for then? I am just a simple user and everytime I make a change the MiB police change it back. I don't have the power or time necessary to keep making the changes over and over again. If the admins are in support of "editting police" then it's a sad day for Wikipedia. If and until the "issue" is settled, I think that they should not be able to "purify" all technical articles to their own beliefs and wishes. This isn't a dialog that can happen on a single article or two. And it doesn't appear to me that they are winning on the merits of their argument either. They are winning by brute force. Multiply this behavior many times and it will be the death of Wikipedia. Sure you want it to start here?Rman2000 20:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Admins are janitors here, not police. What I said isn't in any way "support of editing police". The only things an admin can do that any other editor cannot is delete articles, protect pages from editing, and block editors for vandalism. Other than that that, we are all simple editors. Deletion, protection, and blocking are not warranted here so there really is nothing that requires an administrator to intervene. There are numerous mechanisms open to you at

dispute resolution--Isotope23

20:43, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict of the same thing, but I typed it so I'm posting it, dammit!) Administrators are regular editors like everyone else, but with access to a couple technical features to aid in maintaining the project (block, deletion, protection and MediaWiki). We may offer advice from experience, but a single administrator does not have the authority to rewrite the manual of style. Administrators are not the Wikipedia jack-booted police. Some users may have jack-boots, some may be police, some may be jack-booted police, but as a whole our function is not dispute resolution. That door is right around the corner.. Teke ^(talk) 20:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

If it is any consolation, I like your explanation better; you worked in "jack-booted"...--Isotope23 21:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

First of all, it isn't just the "marketing" people using a terminology. The technical programmers and engineers who invent, design, build, test and ship all (almost all) technical products don't use MiB or KiB. The computer technical community has been using MB, KB, for what, sixty years now give or take. And they are all "wrong" and you are the only one who is right? My my, it must be special to know that only you have it right and everyone else has it wrong. But it is also the "confusion" of the "customers" that should concern Wikipedia the most as Wikipedia doesn't just exist to fulfill the whims of a hand full of MiB zealots. Rman2000 20:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

For the last time. If you have an issue with this policy, take it up in the appropriate place:

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). Neither the administrator notice board nor revert summaries nor user talk pages are correct places to get this policy changed. I suggest you first read up on the five or so previous times this has come up, been discussed thorougly, and still maintained significant consensus to keep. Believe it or not, there are a lot of valid reasons for using IEC prefixes. Irregardless, please do not revert articles to your liking until such a time as the current MOS guideline changes. You can drop the persecution complex. Nobody has bullied you, it's you who is demanding that your opinion is more valid than that of the users who established and have maintained this particular policy. There are other users who disagree with the policy, if you have anything to add to the lengthy discussion, by all means do so in the appropriate place. -- mattb

@ 2007-02-28T20:27Z

Admin power abuse by Dbachmann

I would like to request a review by an independent Admin of the abuse of admin power by DBachmann. In a content dispute, he blocked my id. I requested an independent review as a part of Unblock. Dab unblocked my id, so that the independent review would not happen. So I am requesting the review here. To provide some details, Dab is adding all kind of original research to the Indigenous Aryan Theory article. I have been asking for citation of controversial claims since Feb 13th. Yesterday since no citation was provided, I added verifiable and relevent content with proper citation and removed OR. Dab removed the properly citied material and replaced with OR. One place where he did provide citation, he misrepresented the main content of article. When I corrected the content based on the article, he charged me with reverting and blocked me for 48 hours (he is the one doing reverting). I requested him to discuss on talk page. WP:OR states that any further analysis of authors position is original research. Dab as an admin should be upholding WP policies and not abusing them. I can provide history going back about 4 months where he has provided OR, removed properly referenced material, and provided fictitious citations. Please see here for other editors complaints. [[83]]Sbhushan 20:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

see

dab (𒁳)

20:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Spam blacklist question

Is there a way for administrators on individual wikis to circumvent the m:Spam blacklist on Meta? I won't be vague — I'm specifically referring to external links related to Daniel Brandt. --- RockMFR 21:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

See MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

For the love of Wiki, please don't continue the Brandt dispute. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 21:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

What is going on with that weird disclaimer on the Daniel Brandt article, at the top of the page? Corvus cornix 22:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know, I don't want to know, and I'm not touching it with a ten foot pole. Anything that gets Jimbo upset enough to start desysopping multiple people is something I'm staying miles away from. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 22:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

See the article's talk page. WAS 4.250 23:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Wow, Brandt's birth year is finally removed. Not that it was important anyway - I saw it flucate from two different years, on-and-off, and clearly it wasn't very reliably sourced if it kept changing. Hbdragon88 22:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Out of Order

I would like to complain about

User:Mr. Darcy. His approach and attitude towards other editors who come to Wiki and work diligently is unacceptable. A review of his contributions/comments/Talk pages should demonstrate this. He often appears to act in unison with User:Tyrenius. Regardless of how many barnstars and merits accumulated by such people, opiniated power seems to be running amuck here. One email I received from another User about Mr Darcy described him as "Arrogant, rude, hasty, overweening, opinionated, biased and power-hungry." If Wiki is supposed to be a forum for consensus and civility towards each other it is not being demonstrated here. David Lauder

09:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

To be perfectly and truly honest, mentioning a "cabal" never helps your case. I briefly considered taking a look at this case until I reached the word "cabal". Ral315 » 09:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I am asking here for intelligent consideration of this matter. Saying you will not consider it because you don't like a single solitary word is fairly ridiculous, is it not? I have changed that now. David Lauder 10:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I have had my run ins with Mr.Darcy (infact he blocked me last week (which was later overturned)) and generally find him pretty harsh - harsh but generally fair, fair and knowledgeable in fact. If you are going to throw around accusations of acting in a "cabal", then maybe the old adage of "those who live in glasshouses, should not throw stones" could apply.--Vintagekits 10:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

If I were an unseasoned observer I would say that you were more friendly with Mr Darcy than not. He has supported you absolutely in appalling decisions before. Maybe the block was just a ruse to indicate his "independence"? David Lauder 10:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

So you make a complaint about Mr. Darcy, but when someone speaks up for him, they are in cahoots with Mr. Darcy in some diabolical ruse? I am disinclined to give much attention to your complaint at this juncture. Please provide

►

11:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your contribution. I feel that I have been clear enough. David Lauder 12:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Saying that someone is being bad will not cause anyone to immediately dig through every one of the user's contributions looking for bad stuff. Saying what they've actually done wrong is a bare minimum, evidence is highly desirable if you want anyone to take action. With regard to this posting I hereby swear that I am not a member of any cabal, conspiracy or secret 'NO GURLS' clubhouse. I am not privy to the secret codes, the secret handshake, the secret decoder ring or the super secret secret squirrel. I am not nor have I ever been a member of the Communist Party, nor have I been party to the Communist Party parties, although this one time I went to a Socialist Party but it was a total sausage-fest full of nerds in pullovers so the next time I was invited I was all like look I'd like to but the neo-conservatives already invited me to theirs and after a few drinks one of the girls usually starts a game of Strip and Awe so... --Sam Blanning^(talk) 12:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

WOW! I didn't know you could do that! GOD, I LOVE WIKIPEDIA. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 12:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

If an Editor has a complaint, properly expressed, it seems to me that you should make an effort to treat it with some respect instead of trying to belittle it through ad hominem abuse. Your post says more about you than you realise.--Major Bonkers 14:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The trouble is that the complaint is not properly expressed. There's no evidence, just vague allegations about power-hungry admins and insinuations of some kind of underhanded subterfuge.

►

14:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

It still reads like some inadequate wanking his ego.--Major Bonkers 12:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Thats the best I can do. It is easy enought to spend five minutes looking through the contributions if you're really interested. I do not have the knowledge to direct you otherwise. David Lauder 14:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

If it was easy enough, you could have spent that five minutes yourself scaring up some actual diffs with actual evidence instead of saying that you couldn't be bothered to do so. Why should anyone else be interested if you aren't yourself? --Calton | Talk 15:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

You are extremely rude. David Lauder 09:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

User Account Problem

Hi! I have problems with my user account Bwilcke. Something is wrong with my original password, and when I ask for a new password, I get no answer.

Maybe a did not give my e-mail address: [email protected]. Can you help?

-- 84.176.56.251 15:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Check your junk folder; if you didn't get an email when you asked for a new password to be issued, it's very possible that you did not set that email address to the account. See

►

10:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Cabal like Page Move discussion at Talk:Voodoo Kin Mafia

First, a question, if band changed their name, would the article name change with it? How about if the band changed name a few months ago, should the article reflect its current name? Or should it use their older more established name?

There's a page move discussion at

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/to do

, a behind the scenes wrestling page. It has taken a month just to get 6 support votes from editors engrained within the wikiproject, and absolutely lacks any outside comment.

I'm afraid that these guys will just get an admin to go "Look! Support! Move it back!" without letting them know the whole picture. Is such a move discussion even valid? 82.19.126.78 19:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

While it's true I cannot find a posting to

requested moves, that would have garnered little other interest than a closing admin to end the discussion. You aren't going to like the results, but I'm moving the article to their most common found name, New Age Outlaws. Your comments in opposition are credited, but there is persuasive points towards to application of a couple naming conventions to move the article. I'm assuming the questions that you started with are rhetorical, as there is no one right answer to any of them. Thanks for brigging this to administrative attention, though! Teke ^(talk

) 03:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I actually did file a request at

WP:RM on February 3: Wikipedia:Requested_moves&diff=105458803&oldid=105458684. TJ Spyke

08:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Instantnood and Huaiwei

Following a complaint at

WP:AE documenting extensive edit warring between Instantnood and Huaiwei on various articles, the following remedies are enacted under the terms of their previous arbitration case. [84]

1. Instantnood (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned for one month for persistent edit warring, violating his 1RR parole, and wikistalking of Huaiwei's edits.
2. Instantnood is banned from editing any category page related to China, including but not limited to its history, culture, territories and disputed territories.
3. Instantnood is banned from adding or removing any category related to China from any article related to China. He may be blocked without further warning for up to a week for each violation.
4. Huaiwei (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned for one week for edit warring.
5. Huaiwei is also banned from editing any category page related to China, and from adding or removing any category related to China from any article related to China. Huaiwei may be blocked for up to one week per violation without further warning.
   Thatcher131
   01:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Another Gap

I'm sure most people here are aware of the "gap" between admins and non-admins, by which I mean that several people perceive a wide difference between the two groups (regardless of whether such a difference actually exists) and tend to distrust the other group. We appear to be getting another "gap" between clerks and non-clerks. There is some discussion

here where someone suggested deprecating the position and was vigorously attacked for his opinion. Now deprecation is probably not such a good idea, but perhaps we can do something to lessen this perceived gap and its resultant distrust and strife? >Radiant<

08:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Harassment of Faculty and involving the police over a sockpuppet report

Adrian Sfarti has been contacting faculty members at UIUC regarding a recent sockpuppet report Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Ati3414. He has also been sending emails slurring a student and even trying to involve the campus police all because of this report and delusions that he keeps getting banned at sites, not because of his actions that warranted the bans, but because it is somehow everyone else's fault and we should fix everything for him. His behavior is unacceptable, but furthermore I am disappointed in Wikipedia administrators. Yes ultimately these are the faults of Adrian Sfarti's actions and he clearly has problems, both in the inability to look at himself critically and accepting the consequences of his actions, but also the notion that he can possibly believe this makes him look like anything but more of a crank is beyond me.

However, it is outrageous that Wikipedia administrators allow this to keep recurring. Yes, that is right, Adrian Sfarti has done this in the past. This should never have been allowed to happen again, for he should not have been allowed to even get back into situations like this. You have IP records of everyone coming on here and at the very least you should have a mechanism to flag someone as heavily using IP's that a banned individual used. From the sockpuppet report it is even apparent that a user recognized one of his edits and labeled it as "Sfarti spam" back in mid December, and yet Adrian Sfarti was allowed to continue on. People like Mr. Sfarti should immediately be removed. To keep letting them get their foot in the door again and again, and then to drag out the process of removing them each time, only leads to more of this nonsense.

Please give serious consideration to improving your user identification mechanisms. It is clear he will continue this cycle for as long as you allow him and I do not want to ever have to deal with this individual again. AnnoyedInIllinois 06:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

You might not want to deal with him, but unless he has been

banned by the community here, he is free to edit. From what I see Sfarti was never banned here and If I'm missing something, point me to the editor name he was banned under or the community ban discussion. Most of the stuff you are referring to here is happening off Wikipedia and isn't relevant here. We generally don't block underlying IPs unless there is serious vandalism or personal attacks happening, and I don't see that right now (diffs would be helpful). So... I'm not sure what you are expecting to happen here.--Isotope23

14:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

HI AnnoyedInIllinois... we have alot of concerns to balance here. First of all, your concept is a good one (flagging users who are using the same IP address of someone who has been troublesome) but unfortunately it can't be done in a way that is effective. In many cases IP addresses aren't stable. Some even switch every page-load. In other cases (schools are a good example) a single IP address might be shared by hundreds/thousands of editors. In a few notable cases entire nations share a single IP address. Another concern is that of privacy. I realize that IP addresses arn't very secure, but atleast when I speak here I can do so with confidence that some irate vandal isn't going to call my boss and try to get me in some kind of trouble. ---

WRE

) 18:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, for starters, I propose a ban on Sfarti. Any objections? JoshuaZ 04:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Can we have some links or diffs to the prior incidents? Newyorkbrad 04:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I am the student referred to above. Here are some links for you regarding prior incidents:

* Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive34#Urgent_need_for_consensus:_Police_contacted

* Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive128#User:Ati3414_Threatenning_to_call_the_police_(again)

Knowing what I know now, I'm amazed in the oldest report that I actually pleaded that everyone be lenient on Sfarti. -- Gregory9 10:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Unexpected Request By User:212.219.247.229

This user has requested to be blocked.

1. I can't handle this
2. Why would someone ask this?
3. Is that even allowed?
   
   Guy
   15:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

It would appear to be an educational institution (registered to a council, connecting via ja.net). So it's likely to be very shared. Such IPs are normally blocked as anon-only, account creation blocked when they vandalise heavily, but in this case I'm not sure if they should be blocked merely on a request (because one person requesting an IP to be blocked would cause other people using that IP also to be blocked). --ais523 16:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I have heard of blocking anonymous editing from a school IP, at the request of school officials. But the guy making the request on that page hardly looks like an official. He may just be a student trying to annoy his friends. EdJohnston 17:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, this is way over me to say anything at all to him / her, but now he / she has replaced their talk page with "BLOCK OUR IP. NOW. OR VANDALISM. CHOOSE.". I really need help with this.

Guy

15:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I've given them a {{

schoolblock}}, which would seem reasonable enough even if they hadn't asked for it themselves. Incidentally, that's the second school in 212.219.*.* I've blocked today. If anyone can figure out which specific school this one is, please correct the tag on the talk page. —Ilmari Karonen (talk

) 15:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Slashdot again

We've made Slashdot's front page again. Prepare for vandalism to User:Essjay, User:Essjay/Letter, and User:Essjay/History1. Why does Slashdot know these things before I do? I blame the Cabal. Luigi30 (Taλk) 13:58, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I've protected all three pages; I'll let Essjay know.

►

15:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

The amount of vandalism that follows Slashdot is pretty minimal these days.Geni 17:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Trolling, on the other hand, is at new heights (or lows) ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 18:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. The Slashdot trolls are already trickling onto Essjay's talk page. PTO 18:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Please note: per "Do not, under any circumstances, remove posts from this page without my permission. Non-vandalism posts, regardless of merit, should not be removed or reverted; anyone observing the removal of information from this page by anyone other than myself should blanket revert on sight." at the top of User talk:Essjay any trolling should be left on his page unless Essjay says otherwise. (→Netscott) 18:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, trolling and vandalism aren't necessarily the same thing.

►

19:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

School spammers hate me!

I blocked some accounts and IPs using talk pages as chat rooms, then vandalising my userpage after I left warnings on their talk pages. Now they're reverting my warnings and leaving attacks in their places. Do I protect their talkpage or is that bad form? An example is User_talk:170.177.11.93. Luigi30 (Taλk) 17:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't for a single instance of talk page vandalism, but it seems appropriate in instances of repeat problem. -- Infrogmation 18:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

We will not take this injustice

recently my page was vandlized by bad people and then deleted by admins this was not fair and when I tryed to remake the page I was acused of remaking deleted materiial and was temmperally banned. this was not fair Citizensunitedforwiki 17:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

What page? Luigi30 (Taλk) 17:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Unless you have another ID, you have not been blocked from editing at any point. --

Spartaz ^Humbug!

17:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe the article in question was titled Corrupt wiki users. -- zzuuzz^(talk) 17:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Not, I take it, about the flacks who offer to write puff-piece Wiki-articles for money? -- Ben 18:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

You should all be ashamed of yourselves for not allowing articles about non-notable Gears of War game clans. For shame. 8P--Isotope23 18:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I've indef blocked the editor who started this thread, who confesses to being a ban-evading sockpuppet. Durova^Charge! 20:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Backlog at Special:BrokenRedirects

There is another backlog at Special:BrokenRedirects that I do not have the time to take on. I need to leave soon to go to a school co-op orientation, so I cannot sit around and mark most of these with {{Db-redirnone}} or fix the few fixable redirects. Jesse Viviano 18:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

By the way, is there anywhere I can post an {{

Adminbacklog}} tag to report this backlog? That page is not editable, and I do not want to clog this noticeboard anymore than necessary. Jesse Viviano

18:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Until they appear in

Wikipedia:Special:Lonelypages. -- zzuuzz^(talk)

18:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Cleared anyway. I like clearing out Broken Redirects, as you can whizz through it.

►

18:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I can't put a backlog tag there. It is protected, and I am not an administrator. It is an administrative backlog because it requires deletion of redirects. Using {{Db-redirnone}} just transfers the backlog to the speedy deletion backlog one redirect at a time. Jesse Viviano 19:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

The best place to put {{

adminbacklog}} in this case is probably Wikipedia talk:Special:BrokenRedirects. --ais523 13:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC

)

It's not really a backlog. Every few days a new report is generated and usually shows around 300-400 broken redirects. Then within a day or two one or more admins notices that and clears it out before the next report is generated. I've rarely seen this get up to 500+ when the previous report wasn't cleared, but it's never more than a week's worth of pages. --CBD 13:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Need two AFD discussions merged

I started

desat

19:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, I'm not sure it's appropriate with the main AfD so far underway and the first person commenting in the canon AfD that he thought the other three article should be kept, but favors deleting the "canon only" one. I would suggest doing a procedural close on the canon AfD and reopening it when the other one finishes, with the hope being that the result will be consistent with the main AfD. It's the nearest thing I can think of in lieu of combining.--

T

20:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I've procedurally withdrawn the nomination, but there's a delete argument, so it can't be speedily kept. I'll contact the first commenter. --

desat

23:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

AFD has been closed for now. --

desat

00:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Could you review block of User:Gen._von_Klinkerhoffen?

Could you review block of Gen. von Klinkerhoffen, please? I have been blocked indefinitely without real reason, my talk page has been protected without real reason. From

WP:BLOCK: "(Blocks) should not be used as a punitive measure.". Thanks. GenVonKlink Hoffen

01:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

BTW - check carefully all dates and histories, because Ryulong likes doing some reverts like eg. this one... GenVonKlink Hoffen 01:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

First of all, creating a 2nd account to get around your indefblock doesn't help your case (you can always email the unblock-l list if your talk page is protected). Looking at the # of warnings you've received in a short amount of time doesn't exactly fill me with confidence either, ther is being

Bold, but if you are reverted, do not continue to fight over the link, but instead take it to the article's talk page. I'm not an admin, but I think you're looking at an uphill fight here. SirFozzie

01:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Read talk page (with very extensive archive). There was no consensus to keep this image in the article, especially inline. Check also history of the article -- this image was constantly removed since the beginning (i.e. since it has appeared in the article). GenVonKlink Hoffen 01:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Anyway -- one 3RR violation doesn't warrant indefinite block, AFAIK. GenVonKlink Hoffen 01:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Using sockpuppets to avoid 3RR is taken very seriously:

Donald Albury

01:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I haven't used sockpuppets "to avoid 3RR"! Check histories and dates, please. And I will "stick with" one user account with pleasure -- but my first user account on English Wikipedia is blocked indefinitely by Ryulong, unjustly IMO. GenVonKlink Hoffen 02:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked

Donald Albury

02:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Perfectly reasonable. I've declined an unblock request. Picaroon 02:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

What really gripes me is that I would like to see that image removed or at least linked rather than in-line. There's been a lot of discussion demonstrating divided opinions on what to do with the image. Klink in his various manifestations is poisoning the well with these deletions. --

Donald Albury

02:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

What really gripes me is that HoffenKlink Gen Von Klinken Hoff hasn't given up already. I've told him why I blocked him, because of the use of "For Bryan Peppers" in two of his removals. And now he just keeps coming back.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Essjay's talk page

Essjay could use some help over there, with comments like this, and this. I personally think it was correct to remove them, and that they should not be re-added, but I am asking your opinons. Quite an NPA bonanza over there. Prodego ^talk 01:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I think they're best removed, but I don't want to touch that cesspit. –

Steel

01:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Essjay is getting the living shit beaten out of him by random new users and anons. Some admin backup would really be nice (i.e. semi-protection). I'm starting to hand out {{

npa}} warnings. PTO

01:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

His talk page specifically says "Do not, under any circumstances, remove posts from this page without my permission. Non-vandalism posts, regardless of merit, should not be removed or reverted; anyone observing the removal of information from this page by anyone other than myself should blanket revert on sight." —Centrx→talk • 01:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I left a big yellow box on the talk page earlier today informing people about that statement, but people are still reverting the troll edits. Oh well. PTO 01:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, unfortunately this removal was not reverted AFAIK... Oh well... GenKlinker von Hoffen 02:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Short of Essjay choosing to protect his talk page, I'd leave it alone and let him sort it out later. For those out of the loop, on February 5, Essjay edited his /me template to add his personal information. Turns out he's not a catholic scholar in his 30's as the userpage claimed before. However, he cites privacy concerns as his reason for masking his real identity and personally I don't care about the whole thing. End result was that yesterday he was slashdotted as though it was breaking news even though it's a month old, and this is where the trolling comes from. Let him handle it as he chooses. Teke ^(talk) 02:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Can't lock it down without censoring legit debate can't really do much about the tone untill Essjay commens again. Rock meet hard place.Geni 02:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:VAND includes attacks as vandalism. Essjay only said not to revert non-vandlism edits, so... :) Prodego ^talk

02:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I have started a thread about these developments. Please see:

Wikipedia:Community noticeboard#Essjay-The New Yorker community discussion. (→Netscott

) 04:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Evading sock block

I just blocked T2BN93 (talk · contribs) indefinitely and a block evading sockpuppet of Perdy80 (talk · contribs). I didn't request a checkuser, but T2BN93 has nearly the same userboxes as Perdy80, the account was conveniently created the same day that Perdy80 was issued a 1 month block, and T2BN93 just blanked Perdy80's userpage.--Isotope23 02:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Discussion forum leaders needed

I am in the final planning stages for a web-based discussion forum to supplement wikien-l and related mailing lists. The purpose is to provide an independent, carefully hosted venue for discussion about Wikipedia that works well for high-traffic threaded discussions. If you wish to be involved as a forum host when the site goes public, please drop a note here or on my talk page. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 03:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Aren't there already many fora? Or is this intended to replace some of them? —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-02 04:25Z

There aren't, so far as I am aware, any web-based forums organized on a threaded discussion model. At least, there aren't any that are frequented by respected Wikipedians. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 04:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I think Wiki talk pages, mailing lists, and IRC channels are enough fora; it's just technical issues that might make wiki or mailing lists less preferable to a webforum. Personally I prefer both mailing lists and wiki to a webforum, for threaded discussion. Perhaps you've already discussed it on some other forum -- that's the problem with having too many fora :-) —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-02 07:14Z

Article probation in 2004 election

Hi, I've been trying (with the uncoordinated help of a few other editors) to clear the backlog of articles to be merged for the last few days. There was a backlog that went back to February 2006, but now I've run into

2004 U.S. presidential election controversy and irregularities. To be honest I'm not sure what to do with them exactly; there is not much discussion of the merge on the talk pages. However there is a ArbCom warning not to make any "disruptive" changes. I assume merging, redirecting, etc. would qualify as dramatic if not disruptive. So, I'm not really sure how to proceed. Thanks, Selket ^Talk

05:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Consider submitting all three articles to Wikipedia:Peer review, to get a list of suggestions. The last of the three looks the most like a real article. I wonder if it could become the master article and the others somehow converted into subarticles. Excess detail might be dropped but you'd need a lot of consensus. Consider reading the Arbcom Election case, the 2 AfD debates for the third article and at least skim all the Talk pages. Perhaps you could leave a note for a member of Arbcom. Isn't this a fun assignment? EdJohnston 06:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

User:193.35.248.11 editing while it should be unable to

I came here from User_talk:193.35.248.11, which carries a notice that no editing activity should come from that IP, and requesting anyone to report edits here. The user has made several edits recently, the latest of which to Public limited company. --Anna512 (talk) 11:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

The whois data says this belongs to a UK company so I'm removing the {{

M. Salleh

14:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Block on political grounds?

I would like to ask for an admin who is not involved in editing Middle East related artciles and does not suffer from

a conflict of interrests to review this [85] block of User:Tiamut. Please note also her comments on her talk page. Thanks ابو علي

She added the phrase "their indigeneity has been challenged" or equivalent here, here, here, and here. Yes, the wording was changed, and other aspects of the relevant paragraph were changing around her edits as she made them, but the repeated insertion is pretty clearly a violation of 3RR. Note that I have absolutely no knowledge of the context; I'm responding on technical grounds here.

Chick Bowen

23:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

But this leaves out the context of the edit war, with 40 reversions by 12 different editors, in the course of three days. Please see the discussions at User talk:Tiamut#3RR block and Talk:Arab citizens of Israel#indigenous, and the page history and edit summaries for Arab citizens of Israel. Tiamut was the unlucky editor to fall into a trap baited by other editors, and is being unfairly punished. RolandR 00:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it does leave out the context, as I said above. This is part of the problem with

Chick Bowen

00:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The suggstion that a well respected vetern editor blocked this user (for what is perfectly obvious is a violation of 3RR) out of political motivation, and the canvassing of editors with langauge that similarily suggests a politcal motivation (here, and here) is such a blatant violation of

WP:AGF that it should earn you a block. Isarig

00:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

While I agree with the block, it is hard for me to see why one would block someone for failing to AGF. Canvassing is bad, they've stopped canvassing. The user should not canvass again. JoshuaZ 01:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

You might want to check

WP:BLOCK: "A user may be blocked when his/her conduct severely disrupts the project — his/her conduct is inconsistent with a civil, collegial atmosphere and interferes with the process of editors working together harmoniously to create an encyclopedia." Isarig

03:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Shalom Isarig, Do you really think that your own conduct is really "consistent with a civil, collegial atmosphere and interferes with the process of editors working together harmoniously to create an encyclopedia"? ابو علي 14:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

If you have a complaint against me - feel free to use this page to make your case. Until then, please read

Tu Quoque. Isarig

20:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

sorry, I don't do complainst:-) ابو علي 12:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Abu Ali, this isn't the first time you've made bad-faith allegations against administrators when you disagree with their actions. Please give it a rest. As for Tiamut, I've offered to unblock her if she stays away from that article and any related page she's edit warring on, if any, for 24 hours, but she hasn't responded yet. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

proabaly because the offere was made around midnight Israel time. good that the offer to unblock was made. but better late then never. ابو علي 09:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) I received a request at my user talk to review this block and it does look like a solid application of 3RR policy.

WP:ANI. Durova^Charge!

21:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Another question,

conflict of interrest? Thanks ابو علي

11:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The appropriate response would be to ask SlimVirgin which edits of yours she considers to be personal attacks. Durova^Charge! 22:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll do thatابو علي 10:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I left a query on her talk page, but she declined to respond. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 00:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I would just like to note that following the lifting of my block, SlimVirgin posted comments at my talk page and the talk pages of others, that I consider to be inappropriate. I posted this response to her talk page : "No doubt this [87] will be cited as a diff, the next time a reason is found for me to be cited for a violation of some kind. Thanks for the warning and for considering me to be so special as to warrant extra disciplinary action, attention, and follow-up - with personalized notes left for me on the talk pages of other people [88] right after I’ve posted there. And just after your controversial block of me too[89]! I also appreciated how you went digging about for a diff that proves I did something wrong and produce this, [90] as evidence of my having lied in the 3RR. I think I explained myself well there in response to you. And honestly, too. What’s up SlimVirgin? Wikistalking and harassment is not the way to respond to decisions you do not agree with. Can’t you just accept that I blocked you? Oh I'm sorry, it was the other way around. My mistake. (sarcasm, please forgive.) So can I ask what the h-ll you are doing following me around? Thanks, Tiamut 19:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)" I realize that the sarcasm and indignation might be a little much, but considering that the block was controversial and I was considering filing a review of her actions, and considering that I have done nothing to provoke SlimVirgin into communicating with me since, nor have I violated any Wikipedia policies and have even avoided returning to the Arab citizens of Israel article despite ridiculous edits there since my block was instituted, (though I did revert one edit [91] that has since been readded despite its factual inaccuracy) I would like to state for the record that I find her behaviour in this regard to be very disturbing. Tiamut 10:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Tiamut, you clearly violated 3RR, no-one else did, and it's rather tiring to have wade through this continuous conspiracy-mongering by you and

WP:COI accusations before, as well as about your labelling others as "Zionists" and "Israelis", so consider this your last warning. Jayjg ^(talk)

18:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your input Jayjg. I would have, however, appreciated it if you mentioned your own editing of the article that I was blocked for editing. In fact, if I recall correctly, you deleted the word "indigenous" in an earlier edit war, the content I was blocked for trying to reinsert in this edit war. See here: [92] [93]. With respect. Tiamut 18:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you still going on about this? Stop. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

You know Jayjg, I really don't understand your tone. Or the implication in your first posting that I am a "conspiracy theorist". In fact, strangely enough, the only two people here that have ever made such an accusation against me are you and SlimVirgin. You above, and SlimVirgin twice in the last three days, most recently at User:Mackan79's talk page [94]. I didn't respond to your accusation above, because I didn't want to escalate the situation any further. I thought I would merely point out that for purposes of disclosure, it might have been nice if you had mentioned that you had a direct stake in the matter, since you had been involved in an earlier version of the same editing war. That you are trying to make me out to be unreasonable based on my restrained response to your accusations, is really totally unfair. Thanks for your input again. With respect, Tiamut 19:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

If you violate the 3RR and are blocked for it, it's safe to assume that it's your conduct that got you blocked. We admins aren't required to have no political opinions in order to use admin abilities. If you believe you are being persecuted for religious or political reasons, your best bet is to have exemplary conduct. If you are no longer blocked after that, then it probably wasn't your political views that got you in trouble. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 18:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Quadell. I don't think that admins shouldn't have political opinions. (In fact, that would be quite ridiculous. Everybody has political opinions and biases that inform their editing and interaction, no matter how "objective" they claim to be). And I may note, in my defense, that since the block I have reflected on my editing behaviour and taken a much more collaborative approach. I invite anyone to take a look at my extensive participation in the talk pages of this RfC that I opened [95] to discuss edits I would like to make to the

List of indigenous peoples article and to review my user history in general since the block. Thanks for your advice Quadell. See you around. Tiamut

18:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I would appreciate some community input as to whether Jayjg's declararion of intent to block me for [96] is justified? I personally think it is an attempt to use adminstrator privilage to intimidate editors with an opposing POV to his own. And if my questions regarding

WP:COI are unfounded, why are they answered with such a sharp response? Thanks ابو علي (Abu Ali)

20:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with

List of indigenous peoples as evidence : [97][98][99]. These are directly related to the issue raised by User:Abu ali and to the discussion above. If there is an impartial administrator out there willing to take a fresh look at the discussion above, and the diffs provided in this entry, I would very much appreciate it. I submit that both Jayjg and SlimVirgin have, even over the course of this discussion, used their administrative clout to intimidate people whose personal POVs conflict with their own, and with whom they have been involved in edit wars. (Further evidence on SlimVirgin provided here: [100]) Using one's administrative clout in this way should at the very least be discouraged. (Notice, I say "clout" and not "tools" - I leave it to others to decide if there are any such violations in that regard.) With respect. Tiamut

02:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

New templates rfarb, rfcuser, rfcn, and listuser

As a timesaver for several frequently used types of links, I've created:

{{rfarb}}

• links to
  WP:RFARB
  arbitration page on a topic or user, if it exists
• enter topic, else defaults to basepagename, e.g. article/user of a talk page
• enter linklabel, else defaults to descriptive label

Example 1: {{rfarb|Waldorf education}} → WP:RFARB page on "Waldorf education"

Example 2: {{rfarb|Waldorf education|Steiner schools issue}} → Steiner schools issue (same link)

Example 3: {{rfarb|Jimbo Wales}} →

There is no WP:RFARB page on "Jimbo Wales"

Example 4: {{rfarb}} →

WP:RFARB page on "Example"

{{rfcuser}}

• links to
  WP:RFC/USER
  page on a user's conduct, if it exists
• enter username, else defaults to basepagename, e.g. username of a user page or user talk page
• enter linklabel, else defaults to descriptive label
• enter RFC number, else defaults to highest (standard-format) RFC found, up to 20

Example 1: {{rfcuser|Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington}} → WP:RFC/USER page on "Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington" (links to latest RFC, #Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington)

Example 2: {{rfcuser|Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington|Nick's RFC}} → Nick's RFC (same link)

Example 3: {{rfcuser|Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington|number=1}} → There is no WP:RFC/USER page on "Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington" (links to first RFC, unnumbered)

Example 4: {{rfcuser|Jimbo Wales}} → WP:RFC/USER page on "Jimbo Wales"

Example 5: {{rfcuser}} → There is no WP:RFC/USER page on "Example"

{{rfcn}}

• links to
  WP:RFC/NAME
  section on a username, or the page top if no such section exists
• enter username, else defaults to basepagename, e.g. username of a user page or user talk page
• enter linklabel, else defaults to descriptive label
• enter archive (oldid) number, else defaults to current page

Example 1: {{rfcn|DeveloperDan}} →

Current WP:RFC/NAME on "DeveloperDan"

(closed topic)

Example 2: {{rfcn|DeveloperDan|oldid=111584225}} → Archived WP:RFC/NAME on "DeveloperDan"

Example 3: {{rfcn|DeveloperDan|here|oldid=111584225}} → here (same link)

Example 4: {{rfcn}} →

Current WP:RFC/NAME on "Administrators' noticeboard"

{{listuser}}

• links to Special:Listusers listing for a username (or next one if that one doesn't exist), confirming or disproving the account's existence (whether or not there's a user page or user talk page); listing also shows "(Administrator)" if account holds that status
• enter username, else defaults to basepagename, e.g. username of a user page or user talk page
• enter linklabel, else defaults to descriptive label
• enter number of entries to show as limit, else defaults to 1 (one)

Example 1: {{listuser|Essjay}} → Essjay

Example 2: {{listuser|Essjay|limit=12}} → 12-username list starting at: Essjay

Example 3: {{listuser|Essjay|a jury of peers?|limit=12}} → a jury of peers? (same link)

Example 4: {{listuser}} → Example

More documentation at each template. I hope these help! -- Ben 21:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Is "templatecruft" a word? –

Steel

00:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Definitely. — CharlotteWebb 00:58, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Try dealing with lots and lots of the same sorts of hardcoded URLs, whose texts you could hand-type full-length half-asleep, except for pain and/or slow loss of fine control in your hands; you'll be happy for anything that reduces keystrokes. -- Ben 01:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Is there an RFCU equivalent? I like these templates. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I haven't done one for RFCU (request-for-check-user) yet, only because I'm not as familiar with that area, and don't know what are the frequently-used reference links. I've been working on RFC (requests-for-comment) pages, which only share their first 3 initials with RFCU. What sort of template would be helpful over there? -- Ben 06:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

It would be similar to {{rfcuser}}, except that it would link to Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/USERNAME. At Checkuser, all requests for a single user go onto a single subpage, even if there are multiple requests on a user, so it seems like the template code would be straightforward. --Akhilleus (talk) 07:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, done:

New template rfcu

{{rfcu}}

• links to WP:RFCU (checkuser) page on a user, if it exists
• enter username, else defaults to basepagename, e.g. username of a user page or user talk page
• enter linklabel, else defaults to descriptive label

Example 1: {{rfcu|American Brit}} → WP:RFCU page on "American Brit"

Example 2: {{rfcu|American Brit|Brit's RFCU}} → Brit's RFCU (same link)

Example 3: {{rfcu|Jimbo Wales}} → There is no WP:RFCU page on "Jimbo Wales"

Example 4: {{rfcu}} → WP:RFCU page on "Example"

Thanks for the pointer, Akhilleus! -- Ben 10:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for making it. It will come in handy. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

New template usercheck, addition suggested to user5

{{usercheck}}

• Looks for same pages as {{userblock}}, plus three of the above new page-check templates (plus new {{ssp}}, see next §)

Example: {{Usercheck|Monicasdude}} →

rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks

)

Suggested {{rfcu}} be added to the end of {{user5}}, thus:

Example: {{User5|Jimbo Wales}} → Jimbo Wales (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log • rfcu)

Since {{User5}} is used extensively at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets, it could be very helpful to have that link at the end finding any checkuser pages that exist for the users listed. -- Ben 04:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

That addition has been made. Thanks, Proto! -- Ben 12:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

New template ssp

{{ssp}}

• links to
  WP:SSP
  (suspected sock puppet) page on a user, if it exists
• enter username, else defaults to basepagename, e.g. username of a user page or user talk page
• enter linklabel, else defaults to descriptive label

Example 1: {{ssp|Mykungfu}} → WP:SSP page on "Mykungfu"

Example 2: {{ssp|Mykungfu|Mykungfu's latest SSP}} → Mykungfu's latest SSP (same link)

Example 3: {{ssp|Jimbo Wales}} → There is no WP:SSP page on "Jimbo Wales"

Example 4: {{ssp}} → WP:SSP page on "Example"

-- Ben 23:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Blocking of Good User in Order to Get an Account.

What do you all think about blocking

Real96

06:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Uh, hell no? It's his choice if he doesn't want to register; why should we enforce registration upon him? -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 06:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Wtf? Of course not. If he wants to register, he will. If he doesn't, he won't. It's entirely up to him. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 06:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I see your points.

Real96

06:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't block him. A better idea would be to nominate him for adminship—the first anon admin.  :-) With a year and a half on that IP and nearly 18,000 edits, he might make it even without an account. —Doug Bell ^talk 06:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

It is technically impossible to promote an IP. Dragons flight 07:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Well dammit, that's what developers are for, sofixit! —Doug Bell ^talk 07:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

A user wishes to make good edits without logging in? Sounds like their choice, and not a problem. Leave the user be. Sheesh. -- Infrogmation 07:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that's ridiculous. Also, your use of {{

IPvandal}} isn't too smart. – Chacor

07:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention, blocking is supposed to be preventative. What would blocking him/her prevent? There are several prolific IP accounts; leave them alone. If they wanted to create accounts, they could very easily do so; forcing someone to do something on a volunteer project is never a good idea, no matter how lofty the goal. Firsfron of Ronchester 07:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Let him/her continue editing as an IP, and if he wants to be an admin as well, let him/her create an account as well. A few crossposts to confirm that the IP and the account are the same, and (if everything goes well) we could have the first admin with less than a few hundred edits on that account in a very long time. But definitely leave the IP continuing as it is.

Fram

09:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:What adminship is not (an essay) makes it clear that adminship is optional. There's nothing wrong with letting an anon know that you would nominate them to become an admin if they got an account, but the anon should be able to make up their own mind about whether to get an account and whether they want to run for adminship. Sysopping an IP, by the way, would be a bad idea even if it were possible, due to the risk that the IP will become assigned to a different person whilst still sysopped (in 68.39.174.238's case, that seems unlikely, but it's still technically possible). --ais523 09:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

No way.

M. Salleh

10:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

(trolling removed)--Boy, that was hard 10:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

No trolling, please.

►

11:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Removed, totally inappropriate remark. (And note edit summary) [101]

M. Salleh

11:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

(reduce indent) Sorry about the {{

Real96

20:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I use it and regular vandal whenever I need to have their links because I remember when it WAS the name of the template.

68.39.174.238

01:18, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Public in-store computers - 192.22.123.0/24

Thread title changed from "Thousands of Possibilities" —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-02 07:15Z

Through trying to deal with several bouts of vandalism tonight, I came upon 198.22.123.107 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). This IP (and the entire /24) is registered to Best Buy and is a public in-store computer. Seeing as no one should really be editing Wikipedia at Best Buy, would it be wrong to treat the Best Buy range as open proxies?—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Discussing this with Jpgordon, he has suggested that I block the range. Which I have.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Good find. Teke ^(talk) 06:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Since when did we block IPs indefinitely for being public computers? Would that also include schools, libraries, hotel rooms, coffee shops, and computer labs of any other kind? If there is vandalism, the IPs should be blocked for an appropriate length of time, taking into account that the IP is shared. I think a permanent block (unless requested by an authority greater than or equal to the store manager) sets a bad precedent (see m:foundation issues: anyone can edit"). Consider that not everyone has internet access at home, and that many users edit from their place of business, particularly those working in retail. Please consider allowing registered non-vandal users to continue editing. — CharlotteWebb 07:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

The computers are essentially open proxies. Unlike libraries, schools, etc., a Best Buy computer is open to anyone who goes into the store, and a post on the IP's talk page stated "THIS IS A PUBLIC COMPUTER AT BEST BUY" until it was removed by a later editor from the same IP. I would mention more about why this was blocked, but I only know what Jpgordon discussed with me (we found this IP through a checkuser of accounts used to harass myself and CSCWEM).—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I concur. At least with a schools/public libraries/university public terminals there is some level of access control and responsibility.

Thatcher131

12:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Right... with a school or library, at least you can contact the netadmin. In this case I imagine the only recourse would be to call up the specific BestBuy store and say "Hi, can you go smack the kid testing out the Compaqs at your kiosk? He's vandalizing Wikipedia."--Isotope23 18:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd bet it's an employee rather then a random customer...-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I bet your right... In my experiance it's rare for the laptops/desktops to be connected. Then again, store policy might differ from location to location. ---

WRE

) 23:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Some are connected; I've used some to check reviews on a product on the Circuit City website before I buy something at a Best Buy. However, these computers are not public computers. They are computers owned by Best Buy, for the use of I'm imagining buying things on bestbuy.com and signing up for Best Buy credit cards. Best Buy doesn't advertise that it has computers for internet use in its stores, and in my experience, public computers usually require some sort of agreement form to be signed. If it is an employee, he shouldn't really be editing Wikipedia while on the clock. What's done is done though. --MPD ^{T / C} 01:29, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Cross-namespace

This is an automatically-generated list of cross-namespace redirects, copied from

here

. XNRs are generally considered to be not a good idea, although there are some exceptions if they are useful. So most of the XNRs on this list should probably be deleted.

Since this list is rather long, dropping all of them on RFD is probably not the most productive approach. Instead, let's take a leaf out of

WP:PROD. I am going to advertise this list widely and leave it in place for two weeks. During those weeks, anyone who objects to a redirect's deletion should remove it from the list below (and optionally, list it on RFD for further discussion). After two weeks, the remainder could be deleted. >Radiant<

09:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

• I was worried this was going to be an attempt to get rid of the handy shortcuts (such as
  ►
  09:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Even though I use of these on a regular basis, these are shortcuts that absolutely should not exist. Raul654 09:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC) (And the one I used regularly was one of the first ones I deleted)
    • Why? Kusma (討論) 09:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Yes, what benefit do we gain from making the website harder to navigate?
        Catchpole
        10:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
        • Um, thirded. Raul, why should the very handy and intuitive shortcuts such as
          ►
          10:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
          • A quick glance over Raul's deletion log seems to indicate he was responding to me, rather than Proto, and hasn't been nuking shortcuts. >Radiant< 10:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
        • That isn't really the aim here :) Generally XNRs tend to confuse people, and make things appear to be in article space when they aren't articles; on
          WP:RFD, XNRs are almost always deleted (with, yes, some exceptions for the few that are actually useful). >Radiant<
          10:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
          • Personally, I think RFD is fairly dumb about this. Cross-namespace redirects can make the encyclopedia easier to use. For example, if I type "wikien-l" into the search box I ought to get to Wikipedia:Mailing lists. But no, since that would be cross-namespace, it was deleted and subsequently recreated with a link to our article on the concept of mailing lists in general. Of course that's not a very helpful result if you want wikien-l. But not to worry, someone added Wikipedia:Mailing lists as a top link on mailing list because having cross namespace links at the top of articles is somehow more acceptable than having the crossnamespace redirect. Sigh. Dragons flight 10:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
            • Please pay closer attention to the use of the {{
              selfref}} template in the headnote. Uncle G
              16:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
              • Huh? So what? People interested in learning about Wikipedia specific items still shouldn't have to take circuitous routes. Dragons flight 16:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
                • The template's talk page explains "so what". Please read it. Uncle G 17:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
                  • I have. I don't consider the existance of an easy way to remove self-references as any kind of a legitimate justification for making the encyclopedia harder to use. The fact remains that someone interested in wikien-l would still have to follow an complicated route, regardless of whether that template exists. If all we cared about was making things easy to remove, then we should simply tell reusers to run: "DELETE FROM page, pagelinks USING page, pagelinks WHERE page_is_redirect=1 AND page_id = pl_from AND pl_namespace != 0 AND page_namespace = 0" and all cross namespace redirects from article space will vanish, simple. Dragons flight 00:30, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
• Quite a few of these seem to be redirects to a category where the redirect is a plausible search term, so changing it to target the main article for the category may be more appropriate than deletion. --
  talk
  10:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Good, {{sofixit}} :) >Radiant< 10:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
    • [102] --
      talk
      10:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Thank you! >Radiant< 11:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
        • There's loads that could just be redirected elsewhere - I've just done 15, will do some more over the next 2 weeks.
          ►
          14:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Straw poll on Essjay's access

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.

---

A

straw poll on Essjay's access has been created as an obscure subpage of a newly-created (and low-ish traffic) noticeboard. I'm posting a notice here for more exposure. For the Truth On Wikipedia Committee, Cyde Weys

15:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

This won't be a trainwreck, no sir. For the Cabal On Wikipedia Committee, Luigi30 (Taλk) 17:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I put an mfd tag on the straw poll as an inappropriate personal attack page, and not only has the MfD discussion been speedy closed multiple times by an anon who is making threats to me, the tag was removed by

User:FCYTravis without so much as an edit summary to that effect, after he had made threats to me. Corvus cornix

18:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

And now FCYTravis is trying to speedy close the discussion on the grounds "I am an admin" and what I say goes." Isn't that what caused the wheel war over the Daniel Brandt article? Corvus cornix 19:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Do we really have to have these things weekly now? ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 19:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

And now User:Mackensen has speedy closed the discussion yet again. What is wrong with letting discussions run their course? Corvus cornix 19:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

And you see nothing wrong with submitting a 78kb discussion for deletion. Don't even play that game. Mackensen (talk) 19:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, Corvus cornix, what is wrong with letting discussions run their course? --Cyde Weys 19:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Discussions? Nothing. Hopefully the votes can be deleted and we can have a discussion. Guy (Help!) 22:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I have also closed the deletion discussion. An MfD at this stage is inappropriate. Mackensen (talk) 19:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Closure was again reverted. This is getting silly. Trebor 19:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I've stopped trying to keep the mfd discussion open, since I'm being ganged up on by admins. Have we learned nothing from the Daniel Brandt debacle of last week? Apparently admins are "above the rules". Who will be the first to block me to shut me up since I seem to be one of the few voices who are coming to Essjay's defense in this gang bang. Corvus cornix 19:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Stop trolling for a block. --Cyde Weys 19:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Uhuh. Just what I expected. Corvus cornix 19:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

The motto of the Brandt debacle was to allow discussion to run its course. Stifling discussion doesn't allow editors to share their views, and leads to confusion and bad feelings. So I'd suggest making your objections on the discussion page, rather than hoping for it to be deleted. Trebor 19:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

These pages allow the community to do a catharsis: give out their opinions, release tensions and accept the matter. We have had similar ones when Carnildo was promoted, when Raul promoted Ryulong with little less than 70% support, when the Fair use policy was tightened, etc, etc, etc. Leaving these discussions open allow wounds to close faster. -- ReyBrujo 19:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

And don't forget the time Ed Poor deleted VfD. :) I still think Ed got off light on that one. A Train ^{take the} 19:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

He would have been just fine if he hadn't deleted the RfC on his deletion of VfD. --Carnildo 20:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and FCYTravis's edits at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Community noticeboard/Essjay make it clear what his position is in regards to Essjay, and he should not be closing things in which he has a vested interest. Corvus cornix 19:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

There is a world of difference between a discussion and voting on a series of sanctions. Discussion, fine. Voting, evil. Burn that page with fire or refactor into an actual discussion. Guy (Help!) 21:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

It seems that the straw poll has already been deleted and replaced with a more RFC style discussion. PTO 22:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

It is in fact being redirected to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Essjay. Discussion is continued there. --Edokter (Talk) 11:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

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

Category:Wikipedia protected edit requests

CAT:PER has managed to creep up to 24 entries (excessively high for an immediate-request category), and has been backlogged for quite a while. --ais523 (UTC

) 16:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Posting block notices on talk pages for blocked IP's / vandalism only accounts

Ligulem

23:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Derek Smart

This arbitration case has closed. For a period of six months, no single-purpose account may revert any edit made to the Derek Smart article. This article is referred to the Wikipedia editing community for clean-up, evaluation of sources, and adherence to NPOV. Any user may fully apply the principles of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons to this article. Supreme Cmdr is banned from Wikipedia for one year. Supreme Cmdr and other surrogates of Derek Smart are also banned from editing Derek Smart, but may edit the talkpage. This is a summary of the remedy provisions of the decision. Administrators and and editors should review the complete text of the decision before taking any action. This notice is given by a Clerk on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad 23:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Indexing

WP:RFAR

Hi, Following up on this suggestion, comments are invited on

User:BenAveling/RFA index. Regards, Ben Aveling

05:30, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Backlog at

WP:SSP

--admin attention requested

There's a backlog at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets, with some of the cases being older than a month. I've been trying to address the backlog by closing cases where all the accounts are already blocked. I don't have the mop, so I'm obviously unable to take action when blocks are needed, and I'm reluctant to close the cases where I think no action is required. So I'd like to request some admin help over there. I've made comments on about half of the cases indicating what I think should be done, here's a summary:

block(s) needed--WP:SSP page on "Bradles 01", WP:SSP page on "Kzrulzuall36", WP:SSP page on "FuckTheJewFaggots", WP:SSP page on "Rsbj66", WP:SSP page on "Siege898", WP:SSP page on "Quade999", WP:SSP page on "Alejandrozamora", WP:SSP page on "Terryfilene22"

possible, Checkuser or other investigation needed--WP:SSP page on "MacRusgail", WP:SSP page on "Opp2"

unlikely, could be closed with no action--WP:SSP page on "Edificia", WP:SSP page on "UKJ17", WP:SSP page on "Pejman47", WP:SSP page on "Demonesque", WP:SSP page on "SColbertFan"

combination of named account + IP account(s) used for spamming, unsure what action is needed--WP:SSP page on "Belsey", WP:SSP page on "Gizlio"

In addition, I closed two cases because it seemed like the appropriate action had already been taken, but I'd appreciate a second opinion: WP:SSP page on "Animesouth" and WP:SSP page on "Damir Mišić". Thanks! --Akhilleus (talk) 18:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Somebody please check my work

Resolved

 – Good job. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-17 05:26Z

I just protected the usertalk page of indef blocked Apple-Hater 1138 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), because he/she keeps redirecting the pages to mainspace and Wikipedia space. Can some more experienced person check to make sure I did this right? I couldn't find a lot of info in the Wikipedia:Protection policy. Thanks. Natalie 22:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

You did the right thing, no problems there (nor with the original block).

(not Proto ►)

22:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Yup, looks good. The user wasn't here to contribute... he was here to cause trouble. ---

WRE

) 14:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Autoblock locating tool

When I try to use the autoblock locating tool, I get:

Warning: mysql_connect() [function.mysql-connect]: Lost connection to MySQL server at 'reading initial communication packet', system error: 111 in /home/pgk/public_html/dbstuff.php on line 31
Couldn't connect to database: Lost connection to MySQL server at 'reading initial communication packet', system error: 111

Can someone please kick it, or at least prod it gently? --Yamla 15:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I am no expert, but I think it lost connection to the MySQL server while reading the initial communication packet. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah, a 111 system error, I think they call it.

Bubba hotep

15:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Teddy.Coughlin

arb · rfc · lta · sockssuspected

)

This new user is adding a bunch of nonsense and false info to car articles, morover, those relating to Saturn Corporation and its vehicles. He added info on the Saturn Aura saying it is sold as the Saturn Fuga in Taiwain, but I looked it up, and no such thing as the Saturn Fuga. He is pretty much just going around messing up a bunch of car articles providing unsoured false info, and I would like if proper action could be taken. Karrmann 14:38, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest saying something to him first. If you're 100% sure that he's adding a hoax, you can put {{

subst:verror1}}. Patstuart^talk·edits

14:52, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Persistant attack page creation

Resolved

 – Rlevse

There is a persistent vandal creating multiple usernames to re-create a particularly nasty attack page about a Wikipedia editor (see my deletion log for details). I'm going to bed right now, if someone can keep an eye out to make sure that link stays red that would be great. I've blocked them several times but to no avail. VegaDark 10:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

The thing to do here is prevent the page from being recreated. I was going to do this for you but some other admin already did. I have notes on how to do this at: User:Rlevse/Tools#prevent_page_recreation. Rlevse 11:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah, thanks, I've been wondering how to do that. Although there are

several things they could do to get around that when simply creating attack pages, so mentioning it here seems reasonable. VegaDark

18:53, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Shortcut Requests for Speedy

Resolved

Good afternoon (

here. This is as a result of consensus achieved here

.

This includes all the pages in each subsection, down to

#Misc

.

Kind regards,

talk

] 13:35, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

• OK, I'm on it. I have expressed concern before that much of what the so-called "sandboxians" do is social networking, this is a good example. Guy (Help!) 14:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
• Right, done. We really ought to do something about Wikipedia:Sandbox/Storytelling - "Welcome to the Storytelling area where you can write stories and fan-fictions." This positively encourages the development of skills we do not want exercised here. Guy (Help!) 14:57, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I think we need to crack down on

WP:NOT violations around here. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me}

) 15:06, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Policy inquiry: Users for the webspace, not the articles

I hate to sound negative, but I've run across a few people lately that, well, aren't really using Wikipedia for the articles, but rather the webspace. I've stalked this board for a while and seen other cases where actions have been taken, but I can't remember when they were so I can't look them up. I found these two through recent changes and category cleaning.

• NEMS Enrichment Science Classes (talk · contribs): A user hosting stuff on Wikipedia for a class. No other contributions, no response to a talk page message.
• MEJenkins (talk · contribs): Around since December 2006, this user has performed 0 edits to article space and provided no response to a query on his talk page. No edits since December 22nd. His userspace contains two articles that appear to be parts of a company brochure or product plan.

So, what's the policy on things like this? Logical2u_{Review me!} 13:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Well,

WP:USER. _└^Jared_┘^┌_talk

^┐  13:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Usually just propose deletion per

Addhoc

13:56, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Please delete script!

winc('User:Zocky/wysawygEd.js'); located User:Darkest Hour/monobook.js is causing issues with my editing, I cannot edit even to remove it and I can't do it editing from my IP. Thank you, Darkest Hour

I've deleted that section, but I've messed up the format of it and can't revert myself for some reason,might want to take a look at it but hopefully you should get back on Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 19:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I restored it. We should confirm that is Darkest Hour before doing anything. Anyway, I instructed the IP to disable javascript and remove the code him/herself. P.S. There is nothing wrong with the code Ryanpostlethwaite, just the formatting. It works fine, and looks normal for everyone else. Click here to make it look regular for you. Prodego ^talk 19:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

User_talk:WikiLoco

Persistant vandal, infrequent edits. Plethora of warnings. Please comment (first two AN posts had no comments). McKay 14:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm seeing useful edits: [103] and what could be well-intentioned but poorly thought out edits, in addition to some patently unacceptable behavior. Some of the edits that he was given vandalism warnings about (1, 2) might well have been good faith. Given the subject matter that the user is focusing on, and the mild severity of his disruptions, I propose that this user be adopted by a more experienced editor. Maybe mentorship would turn WikiLoco around. My go-to guy for this kind of thing in the past has been Ryanpostlethwaite. Thoughts? A Train ^{take the} 14:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Reform is always better then exile.. ---

WRE

) 14:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

While I agree, He doesn't reply to comments on his talk pages, or on comments placed on the talk pages of the pages he's viewing. I would not be opposed if he reformed, but Right now, I can't trust anything he puts on the page. Sure, some of his edits are constructive, and those are easy enough to determine, but it's the unsourced, probably incorrect edits that is causing the trouble. McKay 15:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Let's see if a) Ryan is willing to take him under his wing and b) if WikiLoco is amenable to being mentored. If not, then let's consider a different route. A Train ^{take the} 15:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey guys, sorry for the late resonse here, lets just say I'm ill. Just left a note on WikiLoco's talk page, explaining the situation and offering mentoship. I'll keep everyone posted on the response, cheers Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 21:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Just though I would comment. He frequently posts unsourced and speculated dates for games at

List of Virtual Console games (North America). He adds release dates that are just speculation on his part and has been doing this for several weeks. I want to assume good faith, but he does this every week. TJ Spyke

00:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

On a very similar note, he keeps changing the japanese release date on the

Animal Crossing (Wii) article to "TBA" when it has been announced as 2007 (and cited within the article) as of nearly a month ago. Yet he continues to delete the release date and cited information nearly every day for no reason. I'd love to see the guy reformed, but he's currently being kind of a large annoyance. Thores

06:30, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppet? WikiManiac64 (talk · contribs). I've seen a few of his edits be very similar to WikiLocos. McKay 16:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I've created a SSP for WikiLoco. Strangely enough, though he (and his 2 suspected socks) have edited, they haven't commented here or there. McKay 14:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

So, where are we with this? He hasn't responded to Ryan's comments. Does this mean we think about a community ban? There's now a problem with the same kinds of things with User:WikiManiac64. I think they're sockpuppets, but I don't know. What do I do? McKay 19:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Right now, I've run out of edits to keep the

Naruto: Saikyou Ninja Daikesshu 4 page reliable. Maybe I'm in the wrong here? because I'm fighting 2 vs 1? McKay

20:01, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Closing a no-hope FAC

Further to

WP:AN#Spot_the_difference, a certain amount of ill feeling had spilt over to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sonoma County, California

. I cautioned both parties, one of whom responded very graciously, and archived the discussion since the FAC has no chance of succeeding. I used the archive templates as a temporary measure so that Raul or somebody else with more knowledge of the procedure can close it properly.

However, another admin, BrianSmithson (talk · contribs) has been reverting me, claiming I don't have the authority to close a FAC. He declined my invitation to challenge my action here, and the FAC remains open. I see, however, that he has posted on Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates#Closing_FACs where Raul claims only he has the authority to close a FAC. This seems to contradict slightly previous actions noted at Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates/archive20#Failing_FACs, and seems to me to against Wikipedia culture where good admins take decisions like this all the time.

Do we really have one man ownership of the FA system to the extent that I can't close a FAC which has no chance of success and where it's causing ill feeling which has spilt over to this noticeboard? Comments please. --kingboyk 13:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates seems pretty clear: "the Featured Article Director (currently Raul654) determines whether there is consensus. If, after sufficient time, objections considered actionable by the Featured Article Director have not been resolved or consensus for promotion has not been reached, a nomination will be removed from the list and archived. The FA Director determines the timing of the process for each nomination." That may need to be changed, but hasn't been yet. I would agree with you that the proposal currently has no chance, with 3 complaint notices, 1 inline reference, and being composed mostly of lists, but technically BS is correct. Have you asked Raul654 to administer the coup de grace to cease further pain? He's pretty active. User talk:Raul654--AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. I'm aware of what it says, but I am of course referring to a hopeless case which I wanted closed and stamped out immediately. The big ugly archive boxes ought to have alerted Raul when he next came online and of course he does now know about it. My point is simply that whatever the instructions say, I challenge the assertion that an admin in good standing can't

WP:BAG but I wouldn't object if you closed a bot application from Willy on Wheels! :) --kingboyk

14:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Eh. You've got a good point, and I personally wouldn't have objected to you closing it per Wikipedia:Ignore all rules, but now that another admin did object, we really shouldn't war over it; the idea is to reduce further argument after all. How about seeing if we can convince the nominator to agree to withdraw the nomination? That's not strictly in the WP:FAC rules either, but it has been done before, and I imagine BS wouldn't object. I'll go comment to that effect. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Alright, cheers. --kingboyk 14:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Just curious: why is there only one person as the featured article director? And, how did he or she become the director? --Iamunknown 04:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Raul654 saw a job needing to be done, started doing it, & did it well enough that no one else wants to take it away from him. If you think that another voice is needed, volunteer to help him: I'm sure he'd welcome the help. -- llywrch 18:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

There was a "vote" on his status a few years back. What happened was that the Featured Article was being changed at seemingly random times, Raul654 offered to do so on a daily basis, and everyone let him. A few months later, someone asked for a vote to confirm it, and he was officially given the job. Ral315 » 19:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

So your point is that the community made an active decision to give him the job, rather than let him assume the duty? Just curious. -- llywrch 19:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Brad Patrick resigns too

Placing this in its own section since he says it is unrelated to Danny's resignation, but just a heads up for those who don't regularly read Foundation-l.

Resignation letter. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 19:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

You just beat me to posting here :). On the matter of the resignation, however, I have to say how sad I am to see two valued WMF employees, who have helped to keep this webstie running by doing all the work in the background have taken the decision to leave us. I, for one, wish them the best of luck in their future endeavours, both on and off WP.

inp23

19:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll miss Brad too, I found him very approachable. Guy (Help!) 20:01, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Backlog at

CAT:CSD

There are three pages of stuff there. I'm on a slow wireless connection in class and won't be able to delete them all. But I'm trying! Someone help? ♠

MC

♠ 19:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Blatant vandals and indef blocking

Is there a guideline for using the This is a vandalism-only account and has been indef blocked... template? Luigi30 (Taλk) 12:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• At a wild guess, we use it on vandalism-only accounts that have been indef blocked? >Radiant< 13:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  • If a user has never contributed anything good, and has only vandalized, they are not a benefit to the community, that template comes in handy then. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 13:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• I would suggest two:

  Don't make a big production out of blocking vandals.

  If the block log entry says all that needs to be said, then don't slap templates all over the place.

  Don't use templates as substitutes for writing talk page messages in your own words.

  "Per ruling of administrators." isn't anywhere near as illuminating, for a third party, as a message giving the actual reason for the block.

• Uncle G 13:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

It is worth making sure that talk pages clearly indicate the block. I recently wasted my time and others' by reporting

WP:RFCN when he was already indef blocked, but there was nothing to show it on the talk page. In future, I'll check blocklogs before reporting there (my bit of learning from the experience!) but blocking admins would help out anyone who might otherwise mistake an indef blocked account for an active user if they did make it clear on the talk page. --Dweller

13:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

As a possible sidenote, I've unblocked and reblocked the Jeremy Clarkson account as a vandal. He has two interesting uploads that I'm about to delete.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:50, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

It's a bit of a split debate, the block log is the fixed record. Normally I'd suggest looking at logs, even if people do paste block messages there is no way around you seeing the page just after they were blocked and before the message was posted or that they were deleted/blanked after being placed. Generally I'd agree with Uncle G plastering templates everywhere is frequently a wasted exercise and just makes a bigger deal of vandalism than it actually is. --pgk 07:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Copyvios and bad application of fair use at

List of University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee people

Please have a look at

this article, where Miaers (Wnivk on Commons) keeps reinserting images which are obvious copyright violations and supposed fair use images without no fair use rationale despite numerous objections from multiple users. 3RR has been reached. —LX (talk, contribs

) 21:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

There is a fair use rationale for the Phil Katz photo. There was a discussion about this in

the talk page. The rationale for other photos are under construction. You have no reasons to remove all of them. They are already tagged as missing fair use rationale. As for the photo from the Commons, the administrators will decide whether it is a vio or not. And you already made a request for investigation. Please stop wasting other people's time. Miaers

21:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair use does not include illustrating lists of which the subject is a member. Find free images or do without. See

WP:C. Oh, and one of them is due to be deleted from Commons as a blatant copyright violation. Guy (Help!

) 22:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, I don't see there is such rule in those links you provided. Also it is not just a simple list. It is an article about UW-Milwaukee's alumni. Phil Katz is illustrated as a programmer and inventor who graduated from this school. Isn't that fair used enough? Miaers 22:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Can someone reply this question? Otherwise, I'll consider it a fairely used photo and add it back. Miaers 23:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• Fair use allows the image only in an article specifically about Katz, and only if no free image can realistically be obtained. I think you have been told this before. And threatening to reinsert the image if nobody answers less than an hour after asking a question is also unacceptable; some of us have work to do. Guy (Help!) 23:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

For clarification: to say that an image is being "fairly used" is misapplication of the term "fair use." The term "

Wikipedia:Fair use" or some other statement like that. --Iamunknown

23:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

While I agree that an adverbial phrase like "fairly used" is probably a bad idea with respect to a

Wikipedia:Fair use". I'm sorry for the hair-splitting, but I don't want anyone to misinterpret Iamunknown's remarks as asserting that there is a class of works that qualify for fair use and a class that does not. --MCB

00:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Even more: a proper fair use rationale (which is mandatory per

Wikipedia:Fair use because...(follow well-phrased, cogent reasons based on Wikipedia:Fair use)". --Iamunknown

00:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

If you think the wording is not perfect, please help changing it. Miaers 03:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• I't clear enough, I think. Try reading it again. Guy (Help!) 10:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

User: Benbenbenben: Spammer?

I'm not really sure what make the adding of external links spamming. Is this spamming? --Future Fun Jumper (TIC) 11:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• Hell yes. Guy (Help!) 11:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Matt Sanchez

It seems that

WP:BLP issues. I have to go to sleep, so I can't deal keep an eye on the situation for now, but some other admins might want to watchlist the article. Cheers, and goodnight. -GTBacchus^(talk

) 05:56, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Can someone please kill the user page User:ThongWearer as a massive copyvio from [104]? Why is Bluemarine creating another user's user page, anyway? Hbdragon88 06:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I deleted the copyvio userpage, but cannot commit to watching the article. Natalie 07:05, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I posted a note to Bluemarine regarding

conflict of interest. -- John Broughton (♫♫)

16:39, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Christopher Hopkins meme

User:Lobsterkins has been using Wikipedia to attempt to spread some sort of meme. I've had to SALT the Christopher Hopkins meme article and talk page, and Lobsterkins then took his/her campaign to other pages, as well as my talk page. I've indef blocked the user for the mean time, as every one of their edits from yesterday and today involved this particular meme. Block review welcomed. Natalie 04:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Vandals get blocked, this vandal got blocked, good riddance. There's my concise review. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:11, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Coming from unblock review patrol, they now say they've seen the error of their ways and won't do it again. Granting an unblock for another chance might be appropriate here, if they can tell us in what way they would like to contribute productively to Wikipedia. Sandstein 08:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

This guy isn't going to do anything other than disrupt. [105] GeeCee 08:23, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

In light of that thread, block endorsed. Patstuart^talk·edits 08:34, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Grrr. I knew there had to be some internet forum involved. Keep an eye out for this spreading to other places. Natalie 15:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

No, it was an idiot on an internet forum, you may note that the forum itself yelled at him and eventually banned him. Idiots are universal. --Golbez 15:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) Sorry, I should clarify - I didn't mean to suggest that this had the sanction of some internet forum. But the meme page was being used for conversation by a variety of IP addresses from different ranges, so I assumed that this had been advertised on an internet forum and attracted some of those universal idiots. Natalie 15:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Jeff Knotts (talk · contribs)

Sorry, this probably won't take long, but I've got to go somewhere! This user seems to be spending a lot of time creating what appears to be hoax music articles. I have managed to delete some of them, but there are still a few left to consider (including his userpage). There is at least one unlicensed image there and an article on an AC/DC album that nobody seems to know about (redirected to band article for now). None of the articles are sourced and seem to have spurious claims about sales attached to them. Would deal with myself, but have to run.

Bubba hotep

11:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for posting. Good catch. I've indef blocked as a vandalism only account and blanked the user page per

WP:NOT. Go ahead and put up everything for speedy deletion including that redirect. Durova^Charge!

14:02, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

PRC

Since admins have powers to (un)semi-protect, can someone add a template to this effect on

China?martianlostinspace

17:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Please make your request at the

request for page protection noticeboard including the reason why you want it protected. We don't protect pages unless there is a compelling reason to do so. Thanks, Gwernol

17:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)