Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive77

Thread retitled from "not sure what to make of this".

Could someone keep an eye on

19:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Thread retitled from "minor - blanking comments page by an admin".

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AReality&diff=112508879&oldid=112499121

If a stupid question is acceptable by itself, why is it unacceptable when followed by slightly more stupid answers?

Also, despite having 3000-odd linking pages, some of which are locked, this page is hard to find. You should fix that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.139.17.252 (talk • contribs) 20:22, March 4, 2007 (UTC)

Please see

WP:TPG, which explains what article discussion pages are for; succintly, they are for discussing the article, not anything else. Not sure what you want us to do about making it easier to get to — it's not even a disambiguated page, if you type "Reality" in the box on the left of every page or on the front page of Wikipedia, you get to it. There's not much else we can do. —bbatsell ¿? ✍

20:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I just realized you meant the Administrators' Noticeboard. Oops. Not sure what we can do to publicize it, either, though. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 20:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

It is linked on the

Community Portal but it's kind of down there and in the swamp of things. It's really not that important to most readers, which I supppose is why ATT/RS/NN (the "writing an encyclopedia" info) is at hte top. Hbdragon88

22:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The above entitled arbitration case is now closed and the decision may be found at the link above.

) 21:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Thread retitled from "RfC procedure violation! THIS USEFULL CATEGORY WILL BE DELETED".

I'm not sure where to go for this one. The RfC that was announced on

04:32, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

You may want to visit Category:Cities in the UTC-5 timezone. --CyclePat 04:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Changes for the removal of, what I consider a badly formated delete nomination can be found here --CyclePat 04:45, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem with the RfC is that there is no real discussion. --CyclePat 04:55, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

OKAY! Now I've had it! They're threatening to come here and they're saying my attitude is reprochable. This entire Category for discussion (CfD) is becomming a mockery of wikipedia. I trully feel that CfD needs something to improve it's discussion... because this feel more like a a CfP ... category for poll. --CyclePat 02:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

23:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I have tagged all of them without a fair use template with {{

WP:FUC. Further, the copyright here seems, well, strange. Surely these characters are the property of whoever owns the Star Trek property, and not this board game company. We should probably be using material directly from the copyright holder, unless we are talking about this particular artist's rendition of the characters. Jkelly

00:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The games are based on licenses from Paramount. The guy I emailed at ADB said they couldn't agree to a CC license even if they wanted to. And most of the images are posted on articles about the board game. Whether we should have multiple articles about the board game is another question. AlistairMcMillan 00:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Jkelly, images uploaded after 20050519 and tagged with Template:Permission are subject to be speedy deleted at any time. I would normally tag them as such, but I don't intend to get into a revert war. --Iamunknown 00:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that we are all clear on that. The point here was to give people who knew something about the subject to evaluate whether or not they met

Wikipedia:Fair use or not; I strongly suspect that they don't, but someone who knows something about this board game and about Star Trek should be taking a look at it. Jkelly

00:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I just imagined that the images would be more appropriately tagged with {{Don't know}} or {{no license}}. At least that way they won't be deleted on sight. --Iamunknown 02:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh. I think that would be strange. We know what the license is. {{

WP:CSD, but that's not going to happen automatically. Jkelly

02:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

How do these things even work, anyway? I thought that

00:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I can't imagine why we need those either. Jkelly 00:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

This seems to be malformed inasmuch as it has overwritten an earlier AfD on the same subject. I wonder if someone could take a look and disentangle it. I don't think it's been listed properly as a result. Tyrenius 03:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Cplot for some background, if you're not already aware. Is it about time to release some/all of these rangeblocks? Or should we give it some more time? I ask mainly because we still get the odd few unblock requests, every week, and I haven't heard anything from the guy, that I know of -- so either he finally got bored, or we finally blocked everything in the greater Chicago area, and it's keeping him out. Thoughts? – Luna Santin (talk) 23:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:BEANS; suggest this be addressed off-wiki. Newyorkbrad

23:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

And also discuss it with Raul654 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). —Pilotguy go around 23:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

From what I understand, Cplot used open proxies. I don't know much about IPs, but if that is the case against it. Teke ^(talk) 06:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm in favor of it. The range blocks affect *a lot* of people. Raul654 06:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Support releasing them. The federal clowns stuff doesn't bother me, and think he got bored anyway. --Aude (talk) 06:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, remove them. If he starts again, then they can always be reinstated.

(not Proto ►)

13:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Neil. Durova^Charge! 14:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

(This is, as far as this sort of disclaimers can say, half-serious.)

Since there is currently some confusion over Wikipedia administrations claiming to be what they aren't, I'm requesting some advice over my own user page. I added the following notice on top of it in January 21st (and I added the picture later:)

Now, please ignore the premise of the text for purposes of this discussion; I just added this because I wanted to make a jocular "cleanup box" one day, express the confusion inherent in the system, and hopefully, in a subtle way, say that even when we have tons of policies and guidelines, one probably doesn't need to worry about them too much. If you feel this wording is too strong either way, please contact me separately.

However, in the light of this new situation with the concerns over admin conduct and misrepresenting oneself, I'm asking if I stepped out of the line with this box. After all, it says "we wolves", referring to me. Apart of this comment, my user page does not (I think) contain any bits of information that could suggest that I am anything other than an ordinary human being, and to my knowledge, I have not publicly denied of actually, really, truly being an ordinary human being despite of occasional claims to contrary; Apart of this box it does not claim that I am in fact a cute, confused wolf, with a question mark hanging above its head. My Finnish Wikipedia user page does, however, say I'm "...this wolf-man (in Internet at least, but not in Real Life)...", a disclaimer that has (I think) persisted through the time I've been an user there.

Anyway, this box could potentially - and I say this merely as a theoretical conjecture, but knowing how real world works, it is an entirely plausible scenario - be viewed as a claim of me being something I clearly am not.

So do I need to include a disclaimer to my user page in this wiki too? --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 13:29, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:BJAODN... Obviously no one is really going to think you are a wolf, dude. Mangojuice^talk

13:39, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

There are many times while working on Wikipedia that we rely on others to tell the truth. If you are caught in a lie in such a situation then you have shown that you are untrustworthy and everything you do needs to be doua;ble-checked. Lie all you want in situations where no one is relying on the truth. Is someone counting on you being a wolf in some siuation related to making wikipedia better? WAS 4.250 13:55, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it is acceptable on your userpage to refer to yourself as a wolf, so long as you avoid committing a WP:BITE violation. Newyorkbrad 14:03, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

How punny. Natalie 15:50, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Whoa; wait. You're not a wolf? C'mon; I understand that you want your privacy, but there's no need to deceive the Wikipedia community like that. We trusted you. Now, I am appalled. -- tariqabjotu 16:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Did you use your status as a wolf to gain advantage in debate? "I happen to be a wolf, so I know exactly what they eat.", that sort of thing? ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:08, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

On a more serious angle it might be worth adding to {{

userpage}} a disclaimer that details found on user pages might be purposefully false/misleading and that any mentioned credentials should be verified. (→Netscott

) 17:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I like the idea. -- ReyBrujo 00:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the general disclaimer is enough. Frankly if you believe anything you see on Wikipedia that does not have a proper citation, then you are going to be disappointed. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I am shocked and appalled! I demand your immediate de... er, whatever de- applies here! Luigi30 (Taλk) 15:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Delupification. (SEWilco 16:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC))

23:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• Does it take an admin? ;) closed. Navou ^banter / _contribs 00:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Presumably enforcement will require admins. Anyway, do you plan to inform Miracleimpulse (talk · contribs) on his talk page? Perhaps include notices on the talk pages of the effected articles? Not a dog 00:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I was just formulating a proper notice, I have to make sure it does not sound bad but professional, not the easiest on text. Navou ^banter / _contribs 00:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Cool - just wasn't sure if that was automatic or not. Not a dog 00:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I wrote a notice myself before checking this again, and I quickly reverted it (because it wouldn't be proper for me to do so). There shouldn't be an edit conflict, but be advised. :P --

desat

00:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I think a version of your notice should be added to his talk page, since it is much more explicit as to what a "community imposed topic ban" actually means. Not a dog 02:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree, its good practice to leave a notice. I talk to much in person, and I write too much in wiki. So sometimes I take time to write on the usertalk, I have to edit my comment before I hit the save page button. Also enforcement will require an admin, but the discussion closure did not. At least I believe I have interpreted the consensus correctly in this case. As always, I am open to review. Navou ^banter / _contribs 00:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

(reduce indent)Would it be appropriate to place notices on the talk pages of the articles in question. I do not want to possibly

00:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

User talk should be sufficient for now. Also, I'll put an abbreviated version of my notice on his talk page as well, to serve as clarification. --

desat

02:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The above-named arbitration case has closed and the complete decision can be found at the link above. Andries, Wikisunn, SSS108, and Freelanceresearch are banned indefinitely from editing Sathya Sai Baba and related articles or their talk pages. Ekantik is instructed to make all future Wikipedia contributions related in any way to Sathya Sai Baba under a single username. Kkrystian is reminded that all edits must be supported by reliable sources. Editors involved at Sathya Sai Baba are encouraged to use better sources and improved citation style. The remedies in the prior decision Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba regarding poorly sourced information remain in force and apply to all editors working on Sathya Sai Baba and related articles. The Arbitration Committee reserves the right to amend these remedies as required and to issue additional remedies as necessary to provide a positive environment for collaboration on the Sathya Sai Baba article, even if no additional case is brought forward. This notice is given by a Clerk on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad 00:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Thread retitled from "Asking for help from a computer administrator".

I’m an administrator of a computer lab in Dubai, UAE that monitored the escalation of a case involving a user called Husnock. The case drew in a lot of American/military personnel because someone unfortunately bookmarked it and then posted the mark to several newsgroups. We have removed all links to this case in an effort to keep it from flaring up again and I kindly ask that Wikipedia users do the same. It came to my attention that this message was posted to your pages, calling Husnock a name and saying he was dangerous to this site and deserves no respect. From what I can gather, Husnock has been off this site for months and hasn’t disrupted it in any way. He was also a military officer deployed to a combat zone and under a lot of stress and should be given at least some leeway (not that I'm defending anything he did or did not do). Clearly, calling him names and posting negative things about him, months after the fact, helps no one. I’m sure you’ll agree. Please let sleeping dogs lie, since comments like the one above can serve no useful purpose. Thank you. -38.119.112.187 05:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The diff will stay. Short of copyright violations or personal information, we don't hide revisions. Teke ^(talk) 06:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

We will discuss removing the dif. In general, removal of difs only occurs rarely. Prior versions do not show up on web searches such as google and are thus hard to find unless one is already aware of the link. Now, to the community- I at least see no reason not to delete this dif. Unless someone else gives a very good reason to keep it, I'm going to delete it. JoshuaZ 06:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't see a reason to remove it it. Gmaxwell was expressing an opinion based on his interpretation of the ArbCom case and other whatnot. It's not a personal attack if it's based on editing patterns, it's not civil but it's surely not deletion worthy. Is this an issue of libel? I'm not sure, and this is an anonymous post and we don't know who made it. I agree it's not useful, and I see that the IP has asked Gmaxwell to remove the comment. I don't see the AN need and hold off to see if Gmaxwell removes it without this. Teke ^(talk) 06:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I would tend to keep Gmaxwell's !vote but obfuscate the name so that it doesn't show up on a google search. I'm operating on the assumption that the anon is H******, and that he is trying to keep his google profile low. Generally we respect requests like that wherever possible.

Thatcher131

06:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I'm being slow this morning, but I really don't understand the reason why we should take any action on this.

Spartaz ^Humbug!

06:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm with you on that, but I wouldn't disagree with Thatcher's proposal. Teke ^(talk) 07:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Spartaz, we do it because we are kind and courteous, even to users who have had a bit of a meltdown.

Thatcher131

15:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

There is an ongoing discussion at RFA talk about Durin's RFB (and RFB issues in general). I would consider it inappropriate to obscure the record during that conversation. Dragons flight 15:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

It occurs to me that if you are operating a military computer lab the fastest way to get this resolved would be an email from your official email address, I'm sure there would be no issue with some basic cooperation. --pgk 07:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Bear in mind that the original poster here complaining about the diff was very probably Husnock.

(not Proto ►)

12:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Some very good feedback, thank you for the good information. Removing the “diff” is not a major issue, rather the concern was for all parties involved to simple avoid repeatedly referring to that user and his case. One of the most frustrating things about all of this is that anyone posting any kind of support of Husnock is usually immediately said to be an alternate account of him. This in turn naturally upsets whoever is really making the post, who then makes further posts, and so on. Indeed, of my own post, two people stated it was really Husnock and then an ip trace was conducted against our facility (I will post a further note further down). I would establish an account, as some have suggested, but then that account too would be accused of being Husnock and probably blocked from this site. What direction do we go then? Probably to just avoid bringing any of this up and avoid antagonizing people on both sides of the conflict. I still ask that the original user who posted that Husnock is a “troll” either retract the statement or it be removed from the edit history, for no other purpose than to keep things from flaring up again and maintaining peace on both sides. Thanks again. -38.119.112.187 04:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Guys please. I implore you. Knock this crazy

this has/will result in a longer, more controversial and much more drawn out process that causes us more headaches and gets us nowhere.

Can I remind you that

WP:IAR

states (and only states):

“

If the rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore them.

”

Note, it says improving Wikipedia. I put to you that these types of moves do not improve Wikipedia. Quite the opposite in fact. Please don't. Glen 08:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• well maybe. I think closing the Essjay AfD was actually smart. More than enough input on that one to gauge the mood. Brandt? I have to say a lot of the keeps appear to be out of spite, but that is probably just my nasty suspicious nature. Guy (Help!) 09:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

My point is that these IAR actions don't work. Speedy deleting Brandt's article? Its still here. Closing Essjay's article as a delete, it too is still there. They draw out process, cause drama throughout the site and actually take us backwards. If the keeps are out of spite, then they are out of spite - but make that decision at the appropriate time. Glen 10:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The Essjay article is still there because the AfD closer didn't delete it. That's an error, not an argument for keeping the AfD open. How much more input do you need? Insisting on X days is just process wonkery. Guy (Help!) 11:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think that invoking

WP:SNOW is sensible if it leads to the process taking longer than it otherwise would have (which is pretty much inevitable in contentious cases). --ais523 12:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC

)

I agree with ais523 that in general controversially closing a contenious debate early is likely to result in a net increase in time wasted. In this particular case information is also changing too rapidly to make a rush decision (e.g. NYT article[1]). —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-05 12:27Z

If someone closes a discussion early, they have to resist the temptation to reply to every single post criticising it (as do those who agree that it was a good decision). Obviously valid concerns should be addressed, but only once, and preferably on one forum. Then, once those who want to voice their opinion for the sake of voicing it have done so and those who've turned up looking for a fight have realised there isn't going to be one, it will peter out and net time-wastage will have been successfully minimised, and the only people who wasted their time will be the ones who were determined on doing so. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 18:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Closing the Essjay AFD early was diabolical, given the external interest: one thing we (meaning Wikipedia) absolutely should not do was support any potential accusations of covering up what happened.

(not Proto ►)

12:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Diabolical? Get over yourself, will you? I would not have done it, but to call it a work of Satan is well beyond ridiculous. The thing weas massively longer than most AfDs, many tens of editors had contributed. Was the balance of opinion changing? Didn't look like it to me. When you have the answer, why not stop asking? Guy (Help!) 12:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

It's nothing to do with the balance of opinion (which I agree wouldn't have changed, much if at all) - it's to do with the appearance of propriety. It would not have killed anyone to keep it open for the full five days, and closing it early only helps perpetuate all the accusations of high-handedness and elitism amongst admins. It needs to be done exactly to standard procedure, no special case rules applied. It doesn't matter what the end result will be, as the end result is pretty clear. It's the means we reach that end that matter. Normally, I am dead set against process wonkery, but we need to recognise that this must go by the book.

(not Proto ►)

13:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course it would not have killed us toi keep it open, on the other hand it does not kill us to close it. What is there is a lengthy debate with extensive input. It's run for several days. There is no appearance of impropriety, it is clear that the Wikipeida community spent time debating it and the evidence, and several options were considered. It's equally clear that nobody's mind is changing now, most, if not all, interested parties have said their piece, and we need to get on with something a bit more productive. I would not have closed it, but neither do I see any pressing need to re-open it. It's certainly not "diabolical". It qualifies for an official "so what" as far as I'm concerned. Guy (Help!) 14:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

It was certainly the work of Beelzebub as far as I am concerned. The L in El_C probably stands for Lucifer. Okay, I'm joking, as "diabolical" was too strong a word, but I was miffed as I'd even made a big bold note saying "please do not close this early", a request echoed by many other users, and El_C promptly ignored it because "he knew better".

(not Proto ►)

14:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Fundamentally I agree - and I would go as far as "damn silly" myself - such things have a habit of causing the opposite of the correct outcome. Had Brandt been left to run I have little doubt we would now have on article, and be a better encyclopaedia for it. But I think people are really taking the whole thing way too seriously. It's a spit in the bucket, in global terms. Guy (Help!) 14:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Last weekend as soon as I heard about the AFD I rushed over to it to express my neutrality about the article and my strong desire to see the discussion run its full course. Why? I anticipated that the story would grow (as the New York Times article demonstrates) and I anticipated that some sysop would invoke IAR to close the discussion. Bad move: people want to discuss this issue. It looks like hushing things up to act too soon. And of course the tussle will continue on deletion review. I want this to be over as much as anybody, but early discussion closure isn't the way to achieve that end. Let things play themselves out. Durova^Charge! 14:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

It may be worth noting that there were a number of specific requests not to snowball this particular AfD, including one administrator, for what it's worth. If nothing else, I can see this being pretty frustrating to those individuals. They knew as well as many of us that the discussion was likely to end up cut off by

WP:SNOW in short order, but it looks like given the current situation, there's not much that can be done to help that. And I suppose that I can also see some folk seeing that as a bad thing, anti-wiki and all that. Bitnine

14:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure, but I don't think it was snowballed, I think it was just closed, on the grounds that there was plenty of input and we did not want the debate to get any more toxic. Guy (Help!) 15:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Looking back you are right. I think I got distracted by someone's motion to close as snowball no consensus. That being said, I think that between SNOW/IAR we may be at a point where it's currently very unlikely that a high-profile and contentious XfD will run for its full lifetime, even with many people wanting them to run full course. Maybe that's a good thing or maybe it's a bad thing, but it's certainly a thing and probably warrants a look towards to see if it matches community consensus. Bitnine 15:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Bitnine has a good idea about gauging community consensus. Maybe it would be a good thing to reformulate the question so that it includes high profile/controversial articles generally and put the discussion on the

WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Consistent principles would help the project. Durova^Charge!

16:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The truth is, I personally think no admin would have closed this as keep, but instead merging and redirecting, and thus we were ensured to have a DRV. Mark my words, we will have the same result for the next AFD, and an overturn in the following DRV. -- ReyBrujo 16:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I've started a community thread:

Wikipedia:Community_noticeboard#Early_closure_of_high_profile_controversial_articles. Durova^Charge!

16:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

If IAR works then you used it correctly, if it fails to work, then you used it incorrectly. HowIBecameCivil 18:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Thats a good rule of thumb for any policy/guidline on wikipedia. ---

WRE

) 18:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I personally find it unbelievable that an admin would make a unilateral decision like that then refuse to even discuss it because 'my feelings are hurt'. Maybe that's sarcasm on El_C's part but either way it speaks to the fact that either he had malicious intent in doing this when it was obvious to everyone that it would only make things worse or gross incompetence. I apologize if that's too harsh because I don't want to make it personal but it really is frustrating. Andrew831 19:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Nudge. This is a community issue so please add thoughts at the community thread. I've framed the question so it could apply to future controversies - a coherent consensus (in one place) now could be a big help later on. Durova^Charge! 19:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Glen, I may be wrong, but I don't see you complainig that the Snowball clause, an interpretation of Ignore all rules, has been applied to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Essjay. -- ReyBrujo 04:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Uh... isn't that what this thread was about? Am I missing something? —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 04:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Ummm, yep that's exactly what this thread is about. Listen, personally I'd like to see

Essjay's article wiped off the face of the planet... but unfortunately, due to the early close its now on deletion review, where, most likely the deletion will be overturned as out of process, and then we're back to another AfD. IAR is a good policy, but again, on these highly emotional more controversial issues - invoking IAR or SNOW is just crazy. It only serves to take us backwards Glen

05:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Request to remove ip address information posted on this site

I ask that ip address information, posted publicly on this site, be removed by an administrator. Shortly after I made a post from a computer lab yesterday, User:Netscott conducted an ip address trace and then posted this material for the public to see [2]. There was no reason to do this and even less reason to post it publicly. As for his suspicions about an Arab location having a US ip address, we are an American facility and user American server facilities to prevent common websites, like Hotmail, Flickr, and others, from being blocked by the Arab servers as part of their censorship measures. To prove what I’m saying is true, I have used a local server to post this address and will post from the computer lab servers one minute after. I trust that will clear it up. Please remove the ip address information since it serves no purpose on Wikipedia and could potentially be used against us by computer hackers, vandals, etc. Thank you, -195.229.242.84 04:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Um, the information was public in the first place. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 04:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

A caveat for 195.x: any hacker worth worrying about won't need our help to query the ARIN database, which can be freely queried by anyone. If your goal is to reduce your Wikipedia profile, my suggestion is to simply stop editing, in all frankness. – Luna Santin (talk) 04:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

We really can't stop people from editing this site from our labs. Our computers are used by hundreds of people each day. Here is a weblink to our site: [3]. Can the ip information simply be removed? I can't even see the purpose as to why the ip trace was done in the first place. This does not appear to be common practice amongst unregistered addresses, that they get traced and the ip info posted on Wikipedia. I'm just trying to protect our lab, here, I'm sure you understand. Thank you for your feedback. -195.229.242.84 04:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

And, as promised, from the lab servers. -38.119.112.187 04:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing preventing you from blanking the page yourself. Your explanation appears plausible and therefore I personally will not be inclined to reestablish the information. (→Netscott) 04:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

You may not be able to prevent people editing Wikipedia from your lab, but you could request that Wikipedia administrators block anonymous editing from your site. This could be done in such a way that people at your site could still register and create named accounts. They could become named contributors (under their chosen pseudonyms). ANY anonymous editing from your site will leave your IP address in publically-visible places on Wikipedia, for example in the history of this very page that we have been editing. EdJohnston 05:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

You just posted your lab IP address. You don't need to protect your lab, let IT worry about that. Mike _{(T C)} 06:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is the right place. Admin KhoiKhoi continues to revert an article to its incorrect version despite the consensus on the talk page being in opposition to his edits. If you look at the talk page for the reggaeton article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Reggaeton You will see that there are 3-1 contributors in favor of keeping the first word of the article and its spelling consistent with the actual title of the article, with an accented version of the word as an alternate. Despite pointing this out to KhoiKhoi through messages and through the talk page as well as the edit history for the reggaeton page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reggaeton He continues to revert the page back to the incorrect version and the one noncompliant with the talk page consensus, and he gives no explanation whatsoever for his actions. Now he's saying that I'm going to be blocked, because I reverted him, even though I point out repeatedly that I'm editing as per the consensus on the talk page. I need an Admin to take 1 minute to look at the reggaeton article and its talk page to see that he's simply vandalising the page and not explaining his edits. 68.155.70.91 02:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Since KhoiKhoi is not using his admin tools, it's not truly admin abuse, just a content dispute. I must confess that I find the talk page indecipherable though and don't understand the nature of the dispute. Savidan 02:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The submitter of this complaint, 68.155.70.91 (talk · contribs), has announced on his Talk page that he is planning to ignore 3RR and take the consequences, "I'll probably get blocked for following wikipedia's rules", seeing himself as impelled to carry out the Talk page consensus. KhoiKhoi has already warned him about the 3-revert rule. I see no evidence that this anon has attempted to contact KhoiKhoi directly. Normal practice suggests that a longer conversation should take place at Talk:Reggaeton, in which both KhoiKhoi and 68.155.70.91 should participate. Although it seems un-wiki, something like a 'vote' might be suggested, since even the alternatives in the debate are quite unclear. 'Consensus' is too strong a word at this point. EdJohnston 03:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I've attempted multiple times to contact KhoiKhoi on his talk page in the past with no personal attacks of any nature, and rather than respond with discussion, he immediately deleted my questions/comments and then blocked my IP address (despite me not breaking any rules), forcing me to use another computer. My comments about disregarding the 3RR on my page were the result of knowing that he has blocked users (including myself) in the past for making edits that he didn't agree with. He seems to be engaged in other edit wars on wikipedia right now that he isn't willing to offer discussion on, either. If I make a comment on his talk page five minutes from now, he's just going to delete it and block me as he has in the past. Its time that his Admin status on Wikipedia be reviewed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.155.70.91 (talk • contribs)

If you think that the accenting of 'Reggaeton' is a vital issue, worthy of heavyweight administrative procedures, would it be too much to ask you to create an account, or to log in here with a previous account if you have one? Anyone who spends time looking into this may be concerned that you wound up very quickly at WP:AN after your first edit as 68.155.70.91 on 2 March. EdJohnston 20:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

If there's really a consensus and he "keeps reverting", then surely he's in violation of 3RR himself? But anyway, an edit war not involving tools (i.e. he hasn't protected his version) is not generally (as far as I know) grounds for desysoping. If he violates 3RR, he should be blocked, and if he unblocks himself _that_ is the point at which it becomes admin abuse. --Random832 13:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

In an exchange with a well-known and highly respected contributor over a related issue, said contributor expressed concern that the edits of

) 12:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

TedFrank stated here a couple of weeks ago that he would be taking a few days off Wikipedia after the prior situation referred to. I haven't seen a case for a block at this time (if there is one, some diffs/links would be good), but if/when he returns, I will try to keep an eye on things including watching out for any POV editing, as he edits mostly in areas I know something about. Newyorkbrad 16:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

One problem is that the

WP:NPOV. Unless there's been some dispute resolution on this issue in the past, I would recommend some friendly warnings prior to blocks. I doubt I can do as good a job as Brad, but I'll try to keep an eye on Ted once he returns. TheronJ

15:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

One administrator who I have been discussing this via email has encouraged me to respond on-wiki; another has told me I'm "walking on a tightrope" because of my employer, which I find troubling, since other editors in similar circumstances are permitted to edit articles within their areas of expertise.

1. I fully intend to comply with

WP:COI and would appreciate guidance on how best to do so. In articles such as medical malpractice and asbestos and the law

I've made additions to the talk page identifying problems with the existing POV of the articles; other editors have approved of my comments, and invited me to make edits consistent with my proposal. I have not made those changes; I'll be happy to work with any editor on the question.

In other articles, such as Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, I corrected some misstatements of law and replaced a mischaracterization of one side's position with the actual position taken at the time in an effort to improve an article that did not comply with NPOV standards. I don't think it should be any more controversial than my corrections to the articles on removal jurisdiction and diversity jurisdiction.

When I created the Baron & Budd Script Memo controversy article, I added a POV tag and self-nominated it for deletion so that it would come immediately to the attention of editors that I created that article. I did try very hard to make that article NPOV, including multiple cites to authors I disagree with on the subject, and believe that the article does so comply.

If on other edits, such as

Stan Chesley or Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants

, I've inadvertently overstepped a line, I apologize for doing so, and again would appreciate guidance on how best to promote NPOV at Wikipedia within the COI guidelines. I call attention to those articles now so that if there is an NPOV problem with them, it can be corrected, though I believe my edits to those articles do comply with NPOV.

2. I do object to the characterization that I am "paid to propagandize." This falsely implies academic dishonesty, and would arguably violate

WP:BLP if it were included in a biographical article. (Indeed, I see a note on the community noticeboard

citing precisely this accusation made against someone else as evidence of lack of civility.) Nor am I paid to "promote things," as another administrator accused me in an email. I hold an academic position at a nonpartisan nonprofit thinktank, and am forbidden by law from lobbying or taking partisan positions on behalf of the thinktank. (And as for pay, I make far less money than I would make if I were willing to sacrifice my academic independence for paying clients; whatever motivation I have for my current job, it's not a paycheck a third of my AGI the last full calendar year I was in private practice.) I do not edit Wikipedia on behalf of my employer, or even on behalf of myself, given that I have made edits adding cites to articles or academics I disagree with, such as Charles Silver or Sam Issacharoff. I'm not making edits any differently than I would make them if I took a position at a law school instead of one that didn't require me to grade papers; in either case, I would seek WP:NPOV compliance. I just want to see NPOV adhered to in the civil-justice-related articles, and again, would appreciate guidance on how that can best be achieved, given that there was a systematic POV-pushing campaign of thousands of edits in the past year that has slanted numerous articles in the area.

3. I apologize for the messiness with Jance that pollutes my contributions page. I didn't ask to be attacked by her on multiple pages or off of Wikipedia, and hope that her harassment doesn't achieve the hecklers' veto she sought. I would hope that Wikipedia views an editor with aspirations to NPOV who is trying to act in good faith to comply with Wikipedia policies differently than an editor who hid her affiliations and edit-warred with and otherwise harassed anyone who contradicted her preferred view of the world; it would seem to be counterproductive to the Wikipedia mission if the latter can have more influence on Wikipedia pages than the former.

4. As a precedent and an aspiration, I'd like to cite the example of

TedFrank

23:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I have not reviewed

TedFrank's edits yet, but I thought I'd mention that I've met him; he's both very knowledgeable and is, in my opinion, the sort of person who would be a fair and accurate editor. Unless there's evidence of poor judgement in edits, I would not block him. --Zippy

00:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

As long as a Wikipedia editor follows the rules, working for a think tank should not be an issue--no matter what the political or ideological POV of the think tank. What matters is that the edits are accurate and NPOV and the editor, on balance, strives to edit collectively. I (in real life) work for a think tank that has criticized the think tank where

TedFrank (in real life) works. We should be judged here by different criteria than that reserved for private POV opinions concerning our employers.--Cberlet

02:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I have some experience with this editor on Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants. Although he might have an agenda in his job, I think he has a better grasp of Wikipedia policies than he might have in the past. He demonstrates legal expertise and cites sources. We allow many trollish POV warriors to edit unmolested, and I don't think Ted Frank belongs in that bin. Cool Hand Luke 13:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Can someone take a look at this? There's a protected edit request followed by a 4-page explanation about how we're all activists trying to call them gay or something. Luigi30 (Taλk) 15:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The page was fully protected, I dropped it down to semi-protected because and asked them to behave. Majorly then decided to reprotect it fully as few days ago, without any sort of message on the talk page of the article. The entire talk page is a bunch of people from some caving club in Australia using the talk page of the article as a message board. I am not entirely convinced the club is even notable, and am surprised it made it through an AFD. All the references are from their own websites (www.caveclan.org, www.urbanadventure.org) barring one reference, which is a fact unrelated to the Cave Clan (the reference is about some Australian drain builder).

(not Proto ►)

15:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

nb, it's now unprotected.

(not Proto ►)

16:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The group has received significant print media attention here in Australia. They're one of a couple of large caver groups in the country, which are all quite notorious for arguing incessantly with each other. --

talk

) 11:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I was just over at the German Wikipedia, looking at Letzte änderungen (Recent Changes). I hid edits from users with accounts, leaving only anonymous edits visible. The last fifty anonymous edits on the German Wikipedia took place over a period of one hour and sixteen minutes. By comparison, the same number of anonymous edits on the English Wikipedia took place in about 90 seconds. It would appear that the English Wikipedia is the only place where RC patrol is a viable career... This isn't really a message for admins, but I was floored by this difference in activity. It's not like it's a ridiculous time in Germany, at the moment, it's a quarter past eight in the morning on a Tuesday. I know that's hardly an active wiki-time, but for the German Wikipedia, which is one third our size, to be forty times less active (at least in this one measure) seems very strange to me. Thoughts? RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 06:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

A possible explanation: .de keeps many more pages at some level of protection, so opportunities for anons is much less than here. This, casual editors are more often forced into deciding between not editing and getting an account. JoshuaZ 06:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd guess that their ratio of regular users to casual ones is not much different than ours, but their regular users are just more productive than ours. Maybe there is a lower burnout rate. — CharlotteWebb 07:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

As of about now, the time for the last 500 anon edits is about 45 minutes (11:19 to 12:06 UTC). Here, the last 500 anon edits covered 20 mins (11:48 to 12:08 UTC). Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

An other possible explanation: English Wikipedia is more active. the ratio above seems to show that we have approx. 2 1/4 times as many anon edits as they do. Does this represent the number of edits made by users with accounts?

Eli Falk

14:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

It's roughly proportional to the number of articles, which was RyanGerbil10's original assumption. The number of edits (to about 14:20 CET) by registered editors is in about the same proportion, 14 minutes for 500 edits on de and 5 minutes here. I don't think there's anything mysterious about the number of edits being in some way related to the number of articles. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The above entitled arbitration case has closed, and the final decision has been published at the link shown. The Arbitration Committee has found that

12:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I notice there wasn't a ruling as to whether the question, sans link, qualified as "The addition of links to or material derived from Encyclopedia Dramatica into Wikipedia". Anyone know which direction the committee was leaning towards on this? --Random832 14:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Look at the voting record on

Thatcher131

14:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, some definite division on the issue right on through. It's understandable, as it isn't an entirely clear issue. Are questions in a RfA supposed to be limited to those factually based and supportable, or do they include addressing community questions and concerns (even those that do not have direct factual or verifiable support)? Does it matter if the question doesn't assert questionable information or is meant to dispel an untrue concern? And at what point is the distinction made between a genuine concern and someone just bringing up baseless mud? I am unsure that there exist easy to find cut-and-dry answers to those questions. Bitnine 15:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The

and its subsidiaries are copying text verbatim from wikipedia without bothering to give ANY attribution.

For example: this article on Satyajit Ray is taken verbatim from Satyajit Ray#Film craft

User:Blnguyen also reported that many of the Cricketer biographies he wrote have been copied by Times of India. His user page has a list of the plagiarisms he detected.

Also, another user reported in the

is taking photos, articles directly from Wikipedia without any attribution.

I request

or others to look into this, and stop this plagiarism.

Thanks. --Ragib 01:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Seeing as Jimbo was in Delhi last week, I did pop him a mail and a talk page message wondering if he would pop in to the ToI's Delhi headquarters and have a chat! I'm not sure if he thought I was joking though, or perhaps the issue of the week consumed all of his time. Blnguyen (bananabucket)

And I should look more carefully because there are more plagiarised bits that I didn't check (from the cricket writings of other wikipedians). Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

So the ToI copied our articles? Hmm...I think there is not much what we can do, other than documenting the pages affected (which are doing well). It is in the hands of OFFICE and let them deal with it (btw, Jimbo has left India, so I do not think he can do much now). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 01:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Consider writing a Letter to the Editor about it -- not to the Times of India, but to their main competitor. Raymond Arritt 01:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Or Slashdotting ;) --Ragib 01:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear God. When it was just the cricket it was plausibly the work of a single bad reporter. This is systematic and Not Good. JoshuaZ 01:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Find the first blog that, well, blogs about this, and let post that to Slashdot and Digg. They like controversies. Oh, and if we add an Everywhere Girl image in one of the articles, we can get The Inquirer to post about it as well :-P -- ReyBrujo 01:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the autograph! Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I remember reading Wikimedia would do nothing about these cases, but any editor who had contributed to those articles can begin a legal process to force them acknowledge the license (much like what gpl-violations.org does). -- ReyBrujo 02:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps a letter to

The Pioneer (daily), will do the job.Bakaman

02:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Regarding exploitation without attribution, there is an entire wiki website, the Rajputwiki, which has been created by lifting verbatim from our Rajput page and its numerous sub-pages. If you look into the page-history of each individual page on that wiki, you will find that each page has been seeded verbatim from our pages. Not one word of attribution, and I wrote nearly all of those pages! What is most paradoxical and sad is that I had a harrowing time last year ensuring that this version remained on Wikipedia and was not washed away by the infamous Rajput Troll but it was neatly lifted on to that other website, and used without ado! ImpuMozhi 02:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Well make sure it's noted on the article talk page that it's been used as a source! Maybe we need a project page where this kind of usage can be documented and kept on record. It's quite a compliment actually. Tyrenius 03:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

As I noted on my userpage, they also plagisraised my newbie OR violations and some rather farfetched crystal balling.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. I'd be curious to see what would happen if someone seeded one of the articles they're plagiarizing with some obvious errors, to check how indiscriminately they're cutting and pasting. No, we shouldn't really do that (see

WP:POINT among others) but still it would be an interesting experiment. Raymond Arritt

05:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

They did copy them verbatim in large sections, errors and all, as I noted in my userpage report. They also copied in some editor's POV, even when the POV is not even mainstream, including some I did as a newbie. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

) 06:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• I have a feeling this came to OTRS as well,m and was referred to Brad. I could be wrong. Copying is fine by
  GFDL, I believe, as long as there is attribution. Guy (Help!
  ) 09:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

  Copying a GFDL work, among other things, requires that you attach a copy of the licence (see WP:GFDL section 2), and considering the length of the licence that would be somewhat impractical for a newspaper. If you copy a GFDL work in quantity, you also have to provide a machine-readable version (maybe less impractical, as it can be hosted on their website, I think, but still annoying for the newspaper; see section 3 of the GFDL). GFDL isn't a very good licence to use if you want newspapers to be able to copy your work (this is one of the reasons why dual-licencing with CC-by-sa is encouraged for images on Commons). --ais523 10:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• The main issue here is that the Times of India is doing this completely without ANY attribution. If they just mentioned Wikipedia as the source, it would have been somewhat acceptable. But the newspaper is completely plagiarizing content without any attribution. From the notes above, it seems like this is a common practice for them, and not just an isolated incident. --Ragib 10:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• Sure. I seem to recall it was raised in OTRS and escalated to Brad, but I could be wrong. Guy (Help!) 14:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I can't help but say this about the Times of India: that's just not cricket. Go ahead and write letters, but the fair thing would be to write directly to that newspaper first. Durova^Charge! 14:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

This is going on Indian Blogosphere... we've considerable influence with Indian media y'know! Amey Aryan DaBrood^© 21:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is supposed to be a free encyclopedia, which means the contents are free to be used. As such many sites mirror Wikipedia articles unchanged. So, I don't see the that point of crying over this issue of

Times of India plagiarism. Someone please explain me, what wrong have they done? --Pinaki ghosh

12:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

The admin:user ratio drops yet again

We're at 1:3257 now.[4] That's down from 1:3069 on 4 February when I last updated. It was 1:2216 last November 1 when I started tracking the trend. We've gotta coach more people into adminship. Durova^Charge! 04:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

At the current time, RFA is like walking on hot coals. Your entire past gets scrutinized, and you have to have a certain amount of edits here, certain amount of edits there...Oh, this user doesn't need the tools, he/she has never edited an XFD and so on and so forth. Maybe, if the process wasn't so, er, scary, more people would request adminship. This is just more evidence that RFA is seriously screwed up. PTO 05:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The process isn't screwed up. It's just that some people are judging candidates using ridiculous criteria. Don't blame the system for the users' ineptitudes. Note I'm not pointing fingers at anyone. And isn't this discussion more suited for

WT:RFA? --²¹⁰physicq (c

) 05:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I reckon this graph would be skewed by all the inactive user accounts. Think of all the single-edit accounts, throwaway sockpuppet accounts, and accounts of people who got over Wikipedia after a hundred edits. Think of the rate at which such accounts are being created. I'm prepared to believe that a graph of active editors versus active admins would be reasonably linear. Hesperian 05:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, wouldn't that be natural? We get around 10 new accounts per minute. To keep a regular ratio of 1, we would need to (I think) promote 1 admin per minute, or 1500 admins per day. It is late and maths give me headache, but I think that is about right. -- ReyBrujo 05:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Uhhh ... yeah, you might want to check that math again. --Cyde Weys 06:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The same pattern holds even if you compare admins as a fraction of active accounts (e.g. those with at least 5 edits per month). Dragons flight 05:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

That is still very low activity. Users that make 5 edits a month do not contribute to any problems or backlogs that require administrative intervention, and that low activity still includes some vandal throwaway accounts. What is the number of edits per month where the relationship becomes rather linear? —Centrx→talk • 07:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Pattern is the same for > 100 edits per month. As for when it becomes linear, maybe never. Over time, the number of users with at least X edits need not be linearly related to the number of admins for any number of reasons. The easiest being that adminship requirements could change significantly over time. Really trying to see if it does become linear for some X is a question not easily answered with existing statistics. Dragons flight 07:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the admin/user ratio as very relevant, the admin/article ratio is probably more important, since the articles are the locus of activity and disputes. The admin/article ration seems to be stable. Guy (Help!) 11:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Surely the line that represents the edits would not be effected by throw away accounts, and thus less skewed. HowIBecameCivil 05:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure wikipedia is gaining a lot popularity. We need to promote more admins since they can be desysopped quite easily nowadays if they're not doing a good job. Since admins are wanted, I definitely want to be one.--Certified.Gangsta 05:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I've seen several people make the claim that admins can be desysopped easily. In very dramatic cases, sure; but if they're not doing a good job on a smaller scale, I don't think that this is true at all. It's certainly not a good reason to promote indiscriminately. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 05:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I draw a direct correlation between the declining admin:user ratio and the collapse of the

05:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with insufficient admins; the current admins are not working on these pages because they don't care to. If less than 1/100 admins care to do anything with these pages, adding 100 more admins is not going to solve the problem. The sky is not falling. —Centrx→talk • 07:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Oooo...that sounds serious.

WP:NA has a whole mess of potential well qualified admins to be nominated (except for the crossed out ones), so I guess we can start from there. I guess people are bit shy and way too humble to nominate themselves. Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct

07:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

This is meaningless. Most "users" are throwaway accounts. The ratio of admins to user accounts will always approach 0; the ratio of established users to user accounts will also approach 0. It means nothing except that creating accounts on Wikipedia is really easy. —Centrx→talk • 07:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Note, for example, that the ratio of articles to admins on en.wp is better than on any other major Wikipedia. —Centrx→talk • 07:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I guess in the future, working on these pages should be essentials for admins. Saying "I don't care to" is ireespoinsible. When you apply for adminship, you're making a commitment.--Certified.Gangsta 07:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

No you're not. —Centrx→talk • 07:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• I did my own stats on user creations, more intended in relation to username blocking but covering some basics. Typically about 8000 or so accounts created per day, 25% of which actually edited with the first 2 weeks. About 6.5% who achieved more than 5 edits, 1% or so more than 25 (within that 2 week timeframe). I might take a look later and try and get a picture of numers of active editors within certain periods. --pgk 07:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I resign... NOT! El_C 09:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• Resign? Resign? Get a grip! Don't be ridiculous! Eat your chicken soup! Bishonen | talk 09:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC).

• Fuck that! What's the point of being one if I'm no longer liked. SS was right (and possibly, also correct) about the free drugs and all that jazz! El_C 11:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

guys, these statistics need a lot of work before they become meaninful. Admin load is related to the number of disruptive editors, not the number of editors. Experienced non-admin editors reduce admin workload, inactive accounts do not affect it. Thus, we might need to tally the number of admins wrt the number of account creations. Admins sit at the first derivative of WP as it were. It is interesting, still, how the number of accounts fits the number of edits, while the number of admins fits the number of articles. Now establish how well the number of admins fits the increase in the number of edits. Another thing I'd like to see would be the incidence of anonymous edits wrt admin population, and wrt to rollback edits.

12:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Measuring something is easy. Knowing exactly what it is you are measuring is the hard part. JoeSmack ^Talk 13:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

How exactly do experienced non-admin editors who tag articles for deletion, report vandals and request protection reduce admin workloads other than applying for adminship themselves?

Catchpole

13:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

by solving problems themselves? Warning users, catching vandalism, recognizing socks, merging articles (90% of non-speedy deletions could be solved by a merge), explaining policy to people, creating an atmosphere of collaboration and good faith.

dab (𒁳)

16:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

These statistics are useful but it would also help to know something about administrative backlogs -- how often they occur, how long they last, and so on. If those statistics aren't available then maybe a reasonable proxy could be the average time from a report requiring admin action to its resolution. An example could be average time from a report to AIV until its clearance. Raymond Arritt 13:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

My original solution to the problem was to volunteer myself. Both PAIN and RFI were backlogged when I applied for adminship, so I promised to spend time there. The reaction was puzzlement: RFA voters appeared to be so used to sysopping people based on RC patrol and AFD participation that this sort of priority didn't appear on their radar screen. I got through anyway, but I had waited longer than most before asking for a mop. Fact is, I couldn't keep those boards running. Those pages had a few very dedicated people but just not enough to keep up with the inflow. So now I'm devoting more time to admin coaching and mentoring good editors who have an interest in complex investigations. My belief is that disputes and complex vandalism increase at roughly the same rate as the site grows so we really need to make a priority of mopifying sleuths. Early intervention with follow through can defuse situations that would otherwise fester until ArbCom has to handle them.

Not many admins specialize in this work and there's been a high burnout rate among the ones who do - anyone who's a regular at this board knows the history. So these days I'm building a team of Wikisleuths who can work together and share the load. In the long run I hope the community revives

WP:RFI, once we have enough dedicated sleuths. In the interim I'm considering starting a WikiProject for complex investigations. You won't measure our efforts by our edit counts, but now and then we'll bag an elephant. Somebody needs to track down the sneaky vandals. Durova^Charge!

15:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Requesting admin warning to 216.56.38.94 for repeated vandalism

Resolved

User 216.56.38.94 (Talk page) has repeatedly vandalized the article

).

I don't want to get in an edit war over vandalism. Maybe an admin can give a warning/block?

--JDCMAN 15:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry,

WP:TT. I've warned the user, so consider this issue resolved. alphachimp

16:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

At the same time you were warning the user I was blocking him b/c there have been repeated warnings to stop the vandalism. Best, --Alabamaboy 16:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Could an admin please move Benutzer:ASM/quickedit.js to User:ASM/quickedit.js? It's meant to be a user-protected JS page, but because the wrong namespace has been used ('Benutzer' is German for 'User') it's in the article namespace and not JS-protected. Because the target name is JS-protected, an admin is required to make the move. Thanks! --ais523 18:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Done. Explained on user's talk page too; I'm assuming from the comments in his JS file that he speaks English. If not, someone may need to translate. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 18:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• Moved to

  Wikipedia:Community noticeboard § The ArbCom and the Essjay business

In the wake of the Essjay shebang, I've kicked off a discussion at CN on the lack of - as I perceive it - community influence over the Arbitration Committee. Please feel free to tell me I'm being stupid. Best, Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 18:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

(Reply by

User:Chick Bowen moved to WP:CN

)

Requesting block on 207.63.63.204 for repeated vandalism (12 incidents in the past 4 hours)

Resolved

The user is being abusive and is repeatedly vandalizing pages without warning. Can an admin block? He's a repeat vandal, he hasn't received a final warning since his last block though.

User talk:207.63.63.204 Contributions

--JDCMAN 19:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Done. He had received a bv, then came back two hours later and vandalized the same article. In the future, these reports can go on

WP:AIV. Thanks, —bbatsell ¿? ✍

19:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks. --JDCMAN 19:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Two strange account creation sprees are going on at the moment. I'm not sure what to make of them. The first involves

). The usernames do not bode well.
The second, unrelated, account creation spree involves someone who apparently loves Roger Federer: R Fed Fan (talk · contribs), Federer's Fan (talk · contribs), Roger Fan (talk · contribs), Roger Federer's Big Fan (talk · contribs), Roger Federer's Fan (talk · contribs), Roger Federer Fan (talk · contribs) and perhaps Rog123 (talk · contribs). Aecis^Brievenbus 00:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I've indef block the 5 additional accounts created by Beast88 Gnangarra 00:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

08:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to give it a try, but where are the instructions on how to properly close TfDs? (OK, they may be around somewhere, but it's been a while since I read

WP:DP and associated pages.) Sandstein

17:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion process. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-07 03:47Z

Thanks! Sandstein 05:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Moved to /Kat Walsh's statement to prevent the discussion from overwhelming this page.

• Empty reply so this gets archived in two days time (subpage is one month old and hasn't been edited for six days).
  Fram
  10:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Thread retitled from "Show some interwiki love!".

If this notice is inappropriate for this board, feel free to remove it. I placed this here as it concerns an action that only admins would know how to do. I am an admin at the Simple English Wikipedia, and I have a couple of selective restorations that I need to do. My question is this: is it possible to select all of the checkboxes except one or two with a single click, or do I have to click every box individually? Cheers, PTO 23:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Depends on your browser. Firefox lets you check the first box, hold shift, then check the last box, then you can selectively uncheck. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 23:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah, thank you! This'll save a lot of time. PTO 23:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you frickin kidding me? Man, I wish I had known that for the last two months ... --BigDT 05:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah; all newer browsers (i.e. IE 6 and 7, Firefox 1.0+, etc.) should work as long as javascript is enabled. Older browsers should work as well (any browser that supports basic javascript, but I couldn't say that with any degree of certainty. Ral315 » 07:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Just FYI, you lost move protection when you did that, deleting a page unprotects it. Prodego ^talk 12:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

A user, User:REdmondson, vandalised Heswall on a number of occasions this morning with the same kind of vandaklism: making a,personal attack on some named person. The user had also vandalised other articles, was reported as being a vandal-only account, and was indefinitely suspended. Now, a different user has suddenlty appeared: User:B3nj1b01, who only has one adit, to Heswall which vandalises it in an identical way to the now indefinitely banned User:REdmondson. Whilst this new user has only one edit to their name, it seems to me taht they have responded to the ban by creating a new user account so that they can continue the same kind of vandalism. It seems to me that they should be treated as if they were simply the same as User:REdmondson, and that they are attempting to evade the indefinite ban. Since the vandalism is of a potentially libellous nature towards some named individual, it seems that prompt action may be required here. What should be done about this?  DDStretch  (talk) 15:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

B3nj1b01 (talk · contribs) blocked indefinitely. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-08 09:46Z

Please can someone look at the recent edits to the following articles by

15:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Reverted and warned. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-08 08:45Z

Daniel Brandt 13th AfD nomination - The Daniel Brandt article now is going through an unprecedented 13th Article for Deletion (AfD) nomination. There were significant issues brought up in the article deletion review following the 12th AfD nomination that may eventually need to be resolved. If past actions related to this article are any indication, this matter may involve disputes among administrators (in addition to the usual troubles). Please consider participating in the present AfD nomination in addition to keeping a watchlist eye on the article, the article talk page, and any process that this topic goes through. -- Jreferee 17:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, it broke the GNAA's record. Luigi30 (Taλk) 17:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

No it didn't -

(not Proto ►)

18:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I would like to request edits to

21:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

desat

22:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Done. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-08 09:32Z

Please ban for POV pushing, etc... Completely ignoring the talk page, this user does nothing but edit the

08:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

My reading of the situation is as follows: This is not really a banning situation yet. At issue is how to characterise Condoleeza Rice's popularity based on opinion polls (which raises obvious

single purpose account, editing that article only. I'd support a brief block of Ohioan1 to stop him editwarring and make him re-engage in discussion on the talk page. Thoughts? Sandstein

17:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and for next time, this belongs on

WP:ANI. Sandstein

17:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

A few points of clarification. It is clear that short attacks are effective in creating confusion.

Mgunn asserts that I have edited nothing but edit the

Condoleeza Rice

page. This is false, I have reviewed many others and edited one other.

Mgunn’s assertion that I have attempted to place information in the lead that does not belong there is not the whole story. I have attempted to move the poll details to a separate section and this has been blocked repeatedly; others have commented that the lead does not summarize what is in the article and the proposed move would rectify that. Mgunn has stated that he does not have a problem with the finding, but that it should not be in the lead. So, the lead continues to carry many detailed statements, footnotes and all, and Mgunn blocks addition of pertinent, new, information. So it is a Catch 22: the lead contains many detailed statements and Mgunn blocks an updated statement on the basis that it is detailed. The result is the lead statements are unbalanced and POV.

Mgunn asserts that “You are obviously not a new editor to Wikipedia” and that “This user is extremely familiar with Wikipedia rules.” These assertions are false, and also at odds with Mgunn’s assertion that I might be a random Middle School student. If I were extremely familiar with Wikipedia rules, I would have been able to find this ANI page earlier—Mgunn kindly referred to it but did not provide a link; I found the link only when I searched his talk page. Further, I would not have made some new-be judgement errors that I made in my earlier edits.

Mgunn criticizes my focus on the Rice page as evidence of wrongdoing. However, I understand that technical writers focus add value by studying a topic in depth and adding relevant content. If you research my history, you will see that I have added several well documented and accepted contributions to the page. I do not cruise a collection of political pages as some others have, with the principal edits being blocks.

Mgunn asserts that I have not used the talk pages. This is odd, because Mgunn has not responded to recent discussion I posted regarding the very statements to which Mgunn objects.

Sincerely, Ohioan1 03:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Could an admin be bothered to transfer to

§ 03:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Gracenotes^T

§ 03:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Thread retitled from "Annoying User".

the user Perfect 138 has changed the info pretaining to the Darth Maul page has been screwed with a couple of times and after delting his edits he puts them back. Revansrangers 06:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Content dispute over whether Darth Maul is more awesome or Darth Raven is more awesome. Doesn't require immediate attention; use the talk page, please. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-08 10:30Z

Apparently changing your username frees up the old username for reregistration and potential abuse. See [5], [6]. Also, if any Checkusers would like to look into this, I'd be interested in finding out who it was who wanted my old username so badly... Shii (tock) formerly Ashibaka 20:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• Hmph, nobody I recognized. Mackensen (talk) 21:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I just tried to register my old user name (User:Proto), so nobody could pinch it, and it said it was too similar to

(not Proto ►)

10:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Admins can register a user despite the too-similar blocker; go to Special:Userlogin while logged in, and you'll find that you can create a doppelganger account no matter what the name is (as long as it isn't exactly the same as an existing account). This is good practice for creating doppelgangers anyway, as the log entry for account creation will have your name on it (I used this process when creating my bot, so that it wouldn't be blocked for username; see the bottom row of [7]). --ais523 16:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Is it acceptable to remove a section on another editor's userpage if it's a personal attack? Touching other people's userspace is sort of taboo...but then again, it's fine to remove personal attacks from talk pages.

If it's fine, can someone please go do something about the "Wikipedians who suck" section on User:Unknown Dragon's userpage? I don't really want to touch it myself, i'm really not all that keen to deal with this editor again, but i really would like his personal attack against me removed.

Also, is having song lyrics on userpages fine? I would have thought it's a copyright problem (like having copyrighted/fair use pictures on userpages). If it isn't, then the "Theme Song(s)" section on his userpage needs to go as well.

Thanks --`/aksha 10:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The personal attack section is not good; I've removed it, and let the user know why. The song lyrics are fine, he is only using an excerpt, not the full lyrics, and there are many many Wikipedians do so (quotes, lyrics, poems, etc).

(not Proto ►)

10:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. --`/aksha 10:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

(Moved here from

) As principal of a Junior High in Texas, one of our students was caught editing a page over Albert Einstein. He has been dealt with and will be banned from internet use for the remainder of the school year. Please accept my deepest apologies as this behavior is not tolerated in our school district, and will be deemed a serious event. Thank you. —The preceding

unsigned comment was added by 216.213.238.157 (talk

) 14:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC).

Request for opinions on screenshot image of Essjay's now-deleted user page

This is a fairly minor footnote to the Essjay saga, but I'd like the opinions of administrators on whether something would be an appropriate use of admin tools. Looking at Essjay controversy last night, I noticed that there was a gallery of four screenshots of the Google cache of the now-deleted User:Essjay/History1. (These images can be seen at Image:Essjay History1 - 1 of 4.jpg, Image:Essjay History1 - 2 of 4.jpg, Image:Essjay History1 - 3 of 4.jpg and Image:Essjay History1 - 4 of 4.jpg.) I have a little application called SnapWeb, which can take a single image of a web page, so I used that to create a single image of the Google cache to replace the four split images. However, the Google cache is of a vandalized version of the page (it has a caption saying "Yes, I'm not a professor"). It occurred to me that I could make a screenshot of an unvandalized version of the page, using my admin ability to view deleted pages. But I was decidedly unsure of whether this would be appropriate or not.

Now, obviously, it's up to the editors at

) 19:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

From one point of view, I would say that the images, coming from google and possibly altered, are unreliable. That articles should not be self-referential and that Wikipedia itself is an unreliable source. That Essjay's user page was made by transcluding a dozen or more subpages so they would all have to be undeleted to get an accurate image. And that if an external reliable source is found that says "Essjay's page used to claim that he was German shepherd" then you cite the source. There is no need to see the actual page. From another point of view, I am past caring. There has not been even a hint that Essjay used his false credentials to insert false information into articles, which is after all our core purpose here (and yet that is apparently what at least one British tabloid is claiming--reliable my ass). This is a 9-days' wonder at best, yet we will now have to live with

Thatcher131

21:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Thatcher. Newyorkbrad 21:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

As do I. Guy (Help!) 21:58, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Me too. ElinorD (talk) 22:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Plus, you cannot verify the reliability of screenshots from a deleted page on wikia.--

Doc

^g 22:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

But you can verify that they are google's cache of the pages. So really, this is just arguing about semantics. We've been discussing this all day at Talk:Essjay_controversy. -- Kendrick7^talk 22:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes I agree, this is merely semantics. Because you can't possibly deny this is indeed a snapshot of google's cache, and it will be of benefit to readers to see what the past history used to look like. Because currently that has been deleted away, of what was on wikipedia. Mathmo ^Talk 05:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Hm? I thought that recreating deleted content in a format that masks contribution histories (a snapshot or cut-and-paste) was verboten under the license. Or did I miss something? Bitnine 05:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Starting to feel rather sick at the moment... so excuse me if I'm not giving a perfect example here (I know it isn't): but imagine you took a photo of a McD's building. The photo wouldn't automatically be owned by McD's, obviously. Likewise this has smilarities, which hopefully you can see the gist of. Though I really should have came up with a better example than that. Oh, might be more a "problem" (which if you think about it, is not there at all) with being a copy of google than related to GFDL. Mathmo ^Talk 09:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that technically speaking the image wouldn't fulfil the GFDL (history isn't available), but if it were deemed sufficiently important for the article and there was a decent fair-use rationale it would be acceptable as fair use per the

WP:FUC. However, until/unless such an image is published in the press, it would be original research (using Special:Undelete to get an image of a deleted page is definitely original research). --ais523 09:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC

)

Ok, don't feel well enough to consider an argument regarding using Special:Undelete. However... that point totally doesn't matter, because as I just said it was made using google cache. Therefore using it from the google cache I believe almost certainly would come under fair use. Mathmo ^Talk 09:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

(Undent) Honestly, taking a moment to divorce the question from the article's subject, I have no idea how a cached Google version of a Wikipedia page can possibly be said to even come close to the minimum standards of attribution and verification in order to warrant inclusion. Such a source so grossly fails to even approach the threshold for inclusion that I'm actually surprised that it even got beyond that to the questions of licensing, self-reference and appropriateness. A screenshot of a Google cache of a Wikipedia page is so flagrantly unreliable that it would make an excellent textbook example of Things to Never Use in Any Wikipedia Article Ever.

If you do

honestly believe that the information benefits the article, I would suggest trying to find a reliable source or a summary that can be supported with citations. Bitnine

15:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I have to disagree with the other users here. Images are not subject to nearly the same level of verification as article content. That's why for example, users can upload pictures they've taken of animals and locations and the only say so needed is that the uploader says that it is what they say it is. I'm not convinced these images add much to the article, but there isn't any

WP:V issue. JoshuaZ

16:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

However, you can't get around attribution by uploading an image of a paragraph. In fact, if you read the above, the picture would in fact include misattributable vandalism. While you could add a caption stating that the article of vandalism was not posted by the user in question, that caption itself would be unverifiable. I could, though I certainly

won't, edit another user's page such that "they" admit to killing Abraham Lincoln and time it such that I grab an image of a Google cache. Even if they were notable enough to have an article (say for vandalizing the hall of presidents), my posting of this image would be inherently problematic for the same reasons. Bitnine

16:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Advice to a fellow admin?

Is this the proper place for one fairly inexperienced admin to ask for advice from the larger community? I can't seem to find anything more appropriate, and I've bugged User:Prodego enough already :-) Maury 21:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't really know, but I don't think anyone will kick you out. :) Hit us. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 21:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. Block review requests, protection review requests, etc., are par for the course both here and at

WP:AN/I. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak)

21:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks! Well the reason I'm here is an editor has asked me to look into a minor ongoing problem. I had earlier seen some name-calling in the thread in question and had warned the user, but since then avoided looking at it because I was a little burned out. I returned to find a number of questionable posts.

Would you mind taking a look over the edit history here going back to March 1 and commenting? There's what appears to be a case of wikistalking going on; all of the talk pages being hit are ones that the other editor worked on some time in the past. There's accusations of sockpuppettry flying, odd images being posted about trolls, and continuing minor name calling (including mine).

In the past I have avoided all but the most obvious admin duites (rving vandalism, blocks on obvious vandal accounts, etc) and I can't say I really understand what admining, if any, to apply when the issue is not so black and white. This isn't a content dispute really (only peripherally, regardless of the claims otherwise), so I'm out of my depth. I have to say, it all seems pretty minor to me, but it might not to the other people involved. In your opinion, is this something that anything should be "done about"? Maury 22:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, who exactly is Opuscalgary wikistalking? Nishkid64 00:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, just coming back on now. I believe he is wikistalking User:Bzuk ("Bill" in the many posts). I believe this is the case because Bzuk and I have worked on several articles in the past, so these are active in my watchlist along with the talk pages and some users in common. I saw a continuous dribble of posts onto these pages, and that's when I got the message from Bzuk asking for help. I looked over Opus' edit list and found many more examples, ones I would normally not see because I had not had dealings with those articles/users. But this is not actually my main concern (nor Bzuk's it seems), my primary concern is the constant stream of "abusive" messages -- but are they abusive? And if they are, abusive enough to do something? And if so, what? Like I said, I'm pretty new to this particular shade of grey, and I'm really just curious about whether or not this sort of behavior is considered bad, or just par for the wiki course? Maury 13:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

That's still pretty vague. You want a link to a specific edit diff, or series of diffs. Otherwise, just by directing someone to a whole contribution history, you will get people -- like me -- finding things like this, which implies that Opuscalgary and Bzuk had a fine relationship just 2 days ago. In general, for an admin to make actual blocks due to personal attacks, they need to be pretty blatant. (Unfortunately, that's not rare :-( ) Otherwise just general advice and encouragement to civility is usually better. Remind them they are all in this to write an encyclopedia, surely they can come to a peaceful compromise. It also seems the issue is an article about

a Canadian aircraft? Not abortion rights, or the Arab-Israeli wars or something as heated as that? Then this shouldn't be impossible to find a compromise on. If in doubt, list all views with good references. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak)

17:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I guess I'm explaining my question poorly. The issue isn't about the article. Its about what happened after the article was RVed, namely a series of hundreds of posts to people all over the wiki. There's been over 50 posts to over a dozen pages since I posted about it here a day ago, and it shows no signs of slowing. Thus my question: is lots of posts to lots of people a problem in of itself?

I take your point about the specifics though, so I guess a little cut-n-paste is in order. It starts on my page where he tells me to "get professional help" (like I said, its mild). I told him to knock off the PA and left it at that. But here he blanks a post on BillCJ's talk page and adds some sort of spamming accusation to the checkin log. When someone reverted this and mentioned it was considered vandalism, he followed it with this post back to Chrislk02 where he again accuses BillCJ of spamming, something that I can find no support of in Bill's edit list. I think he's confusing BillCJ and Bzuk, because in this edit he seems to be implying that BillCJ is Bzuk (although it's hard to be sure). Here he accuses Bzuk of spamming.

Then a series of edits starts where he posts a sort of "form letter" to a number of user's pages, including Emt147, Evil Merlin, Red Sunset, Karl Dickman, MilborneOne and Trevor MacInnis, among others. It's this series that looks like wikistalking to me, the only connection between these users is that Bzuk asked them for help on the page, or in other cases simply edited an article in common in the past (some times, long in the past).

Sorry for the lengthy thread!

Maury 18:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello,

I would like to completely overhaul, enhance, rewritte an existing article. As a result, when my work is done, I would like to propose the newly written page as an "article of quality" or something like that.

What is the regular procedure to do that ? I've already seen some templates on pages which are redefined and rewritten. My problem is that I would prefer an "agreement" from the previous authors of the page: I will not destroy their work, or I don't want to appear as doing so, but I would rather insert it into a much more general and profound setting.

Thanks,

TwoHorned 13:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

If you plan on completely rewriting an article, a good way to start is to begin writing the article on your own userspace. So, for instance, you could start writing the article at

help desk.↔NMajdan•talk

14:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Take it to the article's discussion page, link to where you're working, and encourage them to help with the rewrite. Just make it known, and remember that you don't

own the new and improved article. I look forward to reading it. Teke ^(talk

) 15:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that those wishing to correspond on this use e-mail. this is not an administrative matter than needs discussed in public.--

^g 16:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know where to alert you all about this (I hope this isn't kapu), but there is a copyvio on Anderson County, South Carolina. I think it was put in there on this edit. The text is largely cribbed from The Official Website.

For further reference is there some place that I can report (or something I can do) if I find copyvios in the future? Mahalo. --Ali'i 17:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

You can go to Wikipedia:Copyright problems. There are instructions on how to proceed there. -- ReyBrujo 18:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Special:Linksearch now has a namespace selector! Who did that? Was it Werdna again? A big thumbs-up whoever it was, anyway. Guy (Help!) 18:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Can be found at User:Jimbo Wales/Credential Verification. The community should probably comment on it. (there, not here) pschemp | talk 03:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

This is a Wired article mentioning this. I would not comment on the "scandal" but I reckon someone should clarify that an

arbitrator do not enforce content as it is suggested. This salt-in-the-sore criticism goes far beyond attacking the actions of a particular member of the community and damages Wikipedia as a whole. I believe that an easy-to-follow press pack, describing the different functions and responsibilities should be put together. This would need to be written in simple English and avoiding any wikislang. Regards, --Asterion^talk

06:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• Moved to User talk:Jimbo Wales/Credential Verification

I'd really like to see more comment by admins, or anyone there, especially because Jimbo has already announced to the press that we are doing this. pschemp | talk 20:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

That's... unfortunate. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 20:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Garbage is being continually added by

) 14:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

He's a pretty surly character too. JoeSmack ^Talk 14:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

That's nothing coming from the man who said he'd kill Kyanka's daughter. Luigi30 (Taλk) 14:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• Um. We can sprotect the article, but the last few edits were mainly removing stuff, some of which did not appear at first glance to be cited. Also the picture i that article is scarcely what one would expect in a
  WP:BLP article. Guy (Help!
  ) 14:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I've been in contact with him regarding the article and its inaccuracies, he didn't say a word about the picture. Luigi30 (Taλk) 14:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• How does this not merit a block? JuJube 20:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, noting that

05:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I need a TS root to grab a root archive sometime...... if Essjay doesn't care if we continue to use his code -- Tawker 05:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

A potential problem may be his now-blocked archival bots, namely EssjayBot, EssjayBot II, EssjayBot III, etc. Unless they have been replaced by other bots... --²¹⁰physicq (c) 05:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

That is being worked on. I am currently requesting a toolserver account to run those bots. (in addition to a bot of my own programming) ——

Need help?

06:12, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

We miss Essay, of course : (, but the

Mediation Committee does have a new chair, ^demon. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail

) 18:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

We're still down a checkuser though. Luigi30 (Taλk) 15:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you insist, I suppose I.. ;) The other checkusers can handle it, there have been quite a few active lately. Essjay's activity there was down quite a bit from where it was previously, with UninvitedCompany, Jpgordon, and Mackensen handling most requests. Prodego ^talk 12:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm willing and available to do check user, if I have the necessary community trust. --kingboyk 13:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The entrusted users step up when someone is gone. Essjay was gone for three months last fall and Redux (and others) did a bang up job at changing usernames. We aren't going to have a b-crat backlog. Teke ^(talk) 04:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

His talk page

• Now, I don't doubt he has left. There is some ridiculous trolling going on. Is there a need to keep his talk page open? Seriously? – Chacor 12:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks like it's been protected. – Chacor 12:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Could admins please refrain from adding content to that protected page? It seems to be becoming an admin-only personal messaging board to say goodbye to Essjay. I certainly don't object to anyone saying goodbye to him but to continue editing a protected page for any but the most essential of reasons seems to be contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia. We've had enough discussions of a perceived divide between administrators and regular editors that I don't think I need to repeat the main points in that discussion. --ElKevbo 18:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Essjay/Letter

One of the user subpages deleted per Essjay's request was User:Essjay/Letter, which has been fairly central to the whole situation and has been linked from a number of external sites, many of them (like Slashdot) widely read. Under the circumstances, I felt that its deletion just now — and especially the fact that, to a casual user visiting the site, it seems to have "vanished without a trace of ever existing" — may create an impression, however inaccurate, of a "cover-up" in the minds of at least some people stumbling upon links to it.

After discussing ther matter with the deleting admin, I've restored the page for now. I'd appreciate feedback on whether this was the appropriate thing to do, and will attempt to contact Essjay himself to ask whether he actually intended his request to apply to that specific page and what he would like us to do with it.

This is a complicated issue, and I certainly have no wish to hurt Essjay any more than he has been hurt already, nor to override his personal wishes willy-nilly for no good reason. Even so, I just don't think simple deletion is the right decision here. In particular, if the page is deleted, and perhaps even if it isn't, I believe placing some sort of notice there with a link to Essjay's request would be appropriate, and would alleviate any potential concerns that we are trying to make the page "disappear". —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 16:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Here is a clash with the right to vanish everyone of us has. Maybe it can be transwikied to Wikisource, although I would prefer to keep it deleted. -- ReyBrujo 16:18, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The right to vanish does not allow for the retraction of the GFDL license you give all text you contribute here. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The right to vanish applies to user space. If Essjay had put this letter into project space, on a noticeboard or an article talk page, it would be here forever. But it's in his space, let it go. I don't normally wear my religion on my sleeve, but I just got back from church, and the message this morning was the latest in a series on

Thatcher131

17:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

As a matter of convenience to people visiting from off-site we should put up a short explanation as to why the page doesn't exist any more (users right to vanish, etc). ---

WRE

) 17:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I tried to create as neutral of an explanation as possible. I'll keep an eye on the page and protect it if it starts to get vandalized. ---

WRE

) 17:42, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Ilmari, thank you. That looks right to me.

Thatcher131

17:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

A good 'solution' to this seems to me to include a link from User:Essjay/Letter to somewhere else that includes the text. Otherwise we are still at some level giving the impression to people who are merely coming in for a peak that we are "hiding something". Mathmo ^Talk 04:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I have discussed this individual before.

Sockpuppeteer and vanity spammer Lee Nysted (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) was unblocked. Since then he has done nothing to benefit the encyclopaedia, but he has done some things to disrupt it, for example removing sock tags and disputing CheckUser results for Somelight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Symphonic Flight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 12.35.96.66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), Billybobsteak (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Chicago60607 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). He asserts that Smdewart (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is an employee of Clear Channel and not a sock, but Smdewart has no contribs outside of the Nysted vanity spam articles Lee Nysted (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Nysted Music (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), The Lee Nysted Experience (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

He's now arguing with Pilotguy [8] over refusal to unblock Nysted's "girlfriend" who also edited from the same IP, Huntress829 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and posting a soapbox on his user Talk, also to Jimbo's talk, about the "misguided" CheckUser system (in the sense that it found a lot of accounts editing from his IP< clearly a ne definition of misgiuded), implicitly arguing for his vanity articles back. Most importantly, he has made no edits to mainspace at all outside of his deleted vanity articles. Not one. The protestation that Wikipedia, should be "the source," of all information...for us, and our children. "THE SOURCE," that does more additions than subtractions; a source with verified proof of facts and the integrity to show it combined with the assertion that he was using my real name from the beginning (and other implications that the "facts" and "integrity" apply to him posting his vanity article) can only really be read in one way.

How long do we put up with this? Guy (Help!) 12:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Yesterday. Support indefinite community ban of main account and (as identifed) likely socks. ++Lar: t/c 13:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Yep, support indef. Been far too long and too lenient I feel. – Chacor 13:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Not Nysted again. I see from this that he's still agitating to try to get his spamvertisement on WP because he claims he is "covered" in reliable sources like music directories and Google, in spite of the fact that this matter has already been decided multiple times by the community. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 20:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Irredeemable conflict of interest. Let's be done with him. Friday (talk) 20:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Should this be brought up over at WP:CN? Sounds like we're talking Community Ban here, although it just might be an indefblock.... SirFozzie 21:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

As I understand it, in practice there seem to be multiple processes that can result in a block. In this case, he was originally blocked for disruption surrounding his vanity. He was unblocked on a promise of good behavior; a promise he has not kept.ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 00:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked him indefinitely. JoshuaZ 00:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Did anyone else get an email from him saying something about how he's contacted Jimmy? – Chacor 04:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The Fisheaters site owner is bitching again about her site being blacklisted (she really really wants those inbound links - and has demanded them often enough that I'm almost inclined to consider that justification enough for blacklisting on its own). Apparently she finds it very stressful being blacklisted. She emailed Jimbo and told him so. Again. One might suggest not keep coming back and reopening the argument as a way of managing that stress, but there you go. Sordid details, as ever, at User:JzG/Fisheaters and at m:Talk:Spam blacklist and several of its archives.

Her recurrent theme these days is the chabad.org website. She may have a point: if you look at this linksearch you will see that there are nearly 640 links to the Chabad website in main space. She has a point: that is far in excess of what one might expect given that

) 01:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Nod. The answer to "but Timmy gets to do X" is to go find Timmy and stop him from doing X... not to let Suzie do X too (as you well know, since you and I both have kids :) )... thank her for bringing these to our attention and ask for help here to weed them down... ++Lar: t/c 02:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

This image is under constant vandal attack. They either blank the image description or add sexual comments or reverting the image to older versions and back again. Would it be possible to protect the image to at least Semi-block? (to get rid of vandalizing IP and newly created vandal-only accounts). Maybe someone would be able to clean out the 30+ image revisions, it seems there are only two diferent images reverted over and over. --Denniss 02:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I see only 2 vandalisms in the last 8 days, no need to protect unless it gets worse, just keep it on your watch list. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 02:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Um. I just deleted 50+ "Reverted to previous versions", mostly by SPAs. You might want to keep an eye on it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah, they are deleted, that would be why I missed them. In that case, I think a semi protection would be in order, I will give it 5 days. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 04:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

There is a massive spam problem that forced me to semi-protect Sathya Sai Baba. I do not know how to report backlogs at Meta, so I thought that I would report it here. There are seven proposed additions that need to be acted on at meta:Talk:Spam blacklist. If there is a place on Meta to report backlogs, please reply to this message. Jesse Viviano 03:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The user Shelbyyoung has requested that an image she uploaded be removed from Wikipedia. It doesn't fit any of the criteria for image deletion that I can see. Can someone help here? If you look to User talk:Shelbyyoung, you'll see what I'm talking about. Thanks.

Ispy1981 04:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Author request falls under G7, which means that it can apply to images as well as articles. This is a privacy issue as well, so there shouldn't be an objection. Hbdragon88 04:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Done, image deleted. IronGargoyle 04:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Would an admin please review

11:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

If no one disagrees, I am going to remove this section about Wikipedians. NeoFreak apparently has the need to make personal attacks and make comments next to well known Wikipedians. I am removing it unless anyone disagrees. — Moe 23:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I can support some degree of comments at userpages, but such personal attacks are not tolerated on Wikipedia. You might as well add a note on the user's talk page about it (if you haven't done so already). Nishkid64 00:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I added a short reminder about it on his talk page. — Moe 00:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, that's perfectly fine, Moe. If there is any trouble in the future, please contact me. Nishkid64 02:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I've replaced the listing I had before with a version that lacks the comments I've added next to the names. I'm a pretty good humored guy and I don't have any actual mailce towards anyone here (or anyone that I meet on the internet) and I'm sorry if I've caused offense. Sometimes I forget that tone doesn't tranlate well on the internet. I was quite irritated when Moe came over and removed the listing (instead of just removing anything that he deemed to be a violation of

WP:NPA

but I'll continue with assuming good faith and not jumping to the conclusion that he took such offense only because on my list I called him out on pretending to be in the military.

I see value in linking to other wikipedians and helping establish a real sense of community but if anybody has any problems with me adding the list back in I'm sure that I'll hear about it again. As far as I know my page meets the guidline of

WP:USER but if this is not correct I would appreciate a mention of the fact on my talk page so I can fix the issue myself. NeoFreak

15:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

This arbitration case has been closed.

• Yanksox (talk · contribs) has been formally desysopped
• Gaillimh (talk · contribs) is banned from editing for a period of ten days
• Geni (talk · contribs) has been formally desysopped
• Mailer diablo (talk · contribs
  ) are strongly cautioned regarding involvement in repeated deletion/undeletion of pages.
• Freakofnurture (talk · contribs)'s administrator privileges, having been removed for a brief period consonant with his offense, have been restored.

For the arbitration committee. --Tony Sidaway 20:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Are these permanent desysoppings, or can they be renominated immediately , or after a particular period of time? Corvus cornix 21:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Go to the arbcom page and read the final decision, it explains it in detail. Yanksox 21:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Generally, when users are desysopped, they can be resysopped via RfA. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 07:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

This is just a summary of the decision (and a slightly briefer summary than I would have given). As Yanksox indicates, the full decision is available at the link (and colloquy about how the arbitrators arrived at the decision is on the /Proposed decision page). Newyorkbrad 16:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

11:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Now at 565 items... MER-C 12:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

unsigned comment was added by Luigi30 (talk • contribs

) 13:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC).

Stupid bot adds my sig faster than I do! Luigi30 (Taλk) 13:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

200 items! My hand hurts. Luigi30 (Taλk) 14:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I would like some feedback on the block I issued on

15:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Good block. I might have put a {{

repeatvandal}} tag at the top of the IP's talk page. Apart from that it looks 100% fine to me and just what I would have done. Gwernol

18:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

User:82.111.128.3 edit/revert warring

moved to WP:AN/I (Retaining this subject preserve links to this headline.) / edgarde 16:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I decided to post this down here, as the discussion several messags above called Reverting removal of vandalism warnings by the vandal -- is it vandalism? will soon be archived. This message here is not spam or an advertisement; it is simply notice to say that I've written a suggested policy at User: Acalamari/Warning Removals. I believe that Pschemp provided a link here to a policy as well. The policy that I've suggested will likely be controversial, but it's best that it's discussed on it's own talk page and not here, please. If I have made an error in posting this message here, please let me know. Acalamari 18:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Over the last few days I've seen a bunch of users spamming talk pages of other users asking them to come sign autograph pages. Look at the contributions for Special:Contributions/Smartie960 and Special:Contributions/ANNAfoxlover. In addition, many users are starting to include "SIGN MY BOOK!" type links within their signature. It feels like this is starting to get out of hand. What's the opinion on such actions? The signature aspect doesn't bother me as much as the spamming of user talk pages does. A bunch of users are complaining about being spammed, especially when they don't know the user doing the spamming. Also see discussion at ANNAfoxlover's talk page. Metros232 23:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I've warned both users. There's nothing wrong with maintaining signature book, but the spamming is absurd and getting completely out of hand. Also note that Smartie960 has only 3 edits in mainspace. If they continue, I'll issue another warning and block for disruption. alphachimp 00:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted all of the Smartie960 spam. alphachimp 00:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the above. It's okay if Wikipedia tolerates low-key activities that don't clearly help improve the encyclopedia, but doing that in combination with talk page spamming should be strongly discouraged. --

Interiot

00:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I also agree it should be discouraged. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 00:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, absolutely. Signature page promotion should only be tolerated in very small quantities, provided the user even attempts to contribute to the encyclopedia. alphachimp 00:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I dont think there should be any posts with the intent to explicitly ask for a signing. I dont mind if they exist, and if an editor meanders there way there, that is ok. Spamming talk pages just does not seem like a good idea to me. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 00:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Just to note the severity of this problem, I just reverted over 100 talk page solicitations by ANNAfoxlover (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) alphachimp 00:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

A MFD on one autograph book was kept because it does no harm to the wikipedia, I'm a fan of delete them all, doesn't help the encyclopedia at all

^{wat's sup}

00:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I've come across many users with autograph books, and wondered at the purpose. I realize that obtaining someone's real signature might have some value, perhaps only as memorabilia, but digital signatures? No handwriting, just wikicode. I don't see the point, and I would just as soon that all the users canvassing for signatures stop doing so (a small link in their signature should be fine, like my "Review me!" link; same idea); spamming talk pages is kind of like spamming email. It's useless information. I'm surprised at the number of solicitations you've found, alphachimp. Over 100 just in the past little while? *cough* problem out of hand *cough* :) —

Improve me

] 00:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• I posted this to the AN/I; as I was unaware of the discussion here:

A user, ANNAfoxlover, has been mass-spamming users to get them to sign the user's own autograph page. Despite several warnings from other users 1 2, including administrators, the user continues to spam others (see the contributions 3). On the opposite side of the board, about a hundred other users have actually signed this users autograph page.

The user also tried to force HighInBC to sign their autograph page 4, after he had said many times to the user that he was not going to sign it. The user appeared to stop when I intervened by saying that trying to force HighInBC could be seen as harassment.

I do not believe this user has bad intentions, but the mass spamming is a serious issue, and failure to acknowledge the warnings makes this situation even worse.

As you can see, I have provided some extra links to follow. Acalamari 00:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

She has been blocked for 48 hours. All of her spam is now reverted. alphachimp 00:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I must say it is "very annoying"; and has anyone noticed the huge increase in accounts that practically just started out with "autograph books"; it is very odd...and I don't like it. ~ Arjun 00:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree Arjun. It's beginning to remind me of the teenaged users from several months back whose only contributions were to hold chats between each other in the user space... Metros232 00:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you both there. I've been here nearly a year, and I have just started to create subpages, much less started an autograph "book". I have no intention of making one, and (as stated above) I don't see the point. Good job, alphachimp! It bugs me, too, the number of users that have basically all their edits as asking for signatures. There are still users that sign up and use Wikipedia as a chat service, too. Argh! —

Improve me

] 00:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

This whole thing just seems incredibly juvenile. I'd agree with Jaranda about simply deleting the autograph pages of those who don't contribute. Would any other admins support nuking User:Smartie960/Autographs? alphachimp 00:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

You don't need to ask me twice. --Cyde Weys 00:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes! A good deletion, Cyde. :) —

Improve me

] 00:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I think these should be banned and deleted on sight. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 00:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

It looks like it's now turned into a competition of who can get the most autographs, and these people are bringing their friends along for the ride (who are not contributing to the encyclopedia at all). I tried to warn you guys of this a few months ago when I wanted to delete all of these things, but nooooo ... God forbid we have another userbox situation at hand. --Cyde Weys 00:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Anyone else think a MFD on Autograph books in general should be held? — Moe 00:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

No MFD, just speedy them. If people want to "collect signatures," then start an archive of your talk page. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 00:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Then here you go, I found a couple: User:Qmwnebrvtcyxuz/signatures, User:SonicBoom95/Signatures. — Moe 00:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Found another:

Improve me

] 00:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Moe: I would personally vote delete; they are very annoying. Many users complain that it is not harming Wikipedia; I feel that it does since it wastes users time by deleting the "spam" from their talk pages, it also encourages the "prettiness" of sigs. And all of these new user accounts are bothersome. And most of all in dealing with all of this it makes it seem as though the encyclopedia comes second...which is disturbing. ~ Arjun 00:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I've already had discussions with Qmwnebrvtcyxuz, he hasn't edited a single article since October 2006 but has hundreds of edits to his user page, signature pages, and such since then. Clearly not here to help, but just to hang, Metros232 00:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

In agreement with you both. I would personally vote a strong delete; I have observed more spamming about autograph books. How about writing a new Wikipedia policy for WP:USER discouraging this kind of thing? —

Improve me

] 00:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Going to propose the change of

WP:USER at it's talk page. — Moe

00:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Great! Maybe we can put a stop to this with new policy... —

Improve me

] 00:54, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh my. [9] This is huge. Hbdragon88 00:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Someones may want to take care of these:

• User:Walter_Humala/Signatures
• User:ViolinGirl#Autograph Book
• User:AndonicO/My Autograph Book
• User:Tennis Dynamite/My Autograph Book
• User:Mac Davis#Sign here
• User:Mc hammerutime/guestbook
• User:Why1991/Signature's
• User:Tohru Honda13/Autograph Book
• User:Randfan/Autographs
• User:FF7Freakzorz/Sig Book
• User:AxG/Autograph Book
• User:Sharkface217/My Autograph Book
• User:Sd31415/Signature Book
• User:Renesis13/Autograph Book
• User:DarknessLord/Autograph Book
• User:Reywas92/Autograph Book
• User:Ac1983fan/sigbook
• User:Smcafirst/Guestbook
• User:Eugene2x/Autographs
• User:Poetic Decay/Autograph Book
• User:Kathzzzz/MyAutographBook
• User:The Runescape Junkie/Autograph Book
• User:Littleghostboo/Signatures
• User:Teh tennisman/Signature Book
• User:Deon555/Signhere
• User:CattleGirl/Autograph Book
• User:Miriam The Bat/Autograph Book
• User:Randalllin/signhere
• User:Kamope/Signatures
• User:Nimbusjdf
• User:RyGuy/ Signature Book
• User:Captain panda/Autograph Book
• User:Timclare/Autographs
• User:Leor Natanov/Autograph Book
• User:HaloPwnage/SigBook
• User talk:Brian0918/Guestbook
• User:Mikedk9109/Autographs
• User:Tbone55/autograph_book
• User:Nirajrm/Signhere
• User:Lachiester
• User:GravityFong/GuestBook
• User:AstroHurricane001/Sigs
• User:Hiddenhearts/SigBook
• User:TomasBat/Autographs
• User:GeneralIroh/Guest Book
• User:Jaseemum/Signatures
• User:Zombieninja101
• User:TomasBat/Universal Autographs
• User:Cremepuff222/Autograph Book
• User:Nirajrm/Signhere
• User:Mrug2/signatures
• User:Freiddy/Sigs

Thank you very much. — Moe 01:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

All those? If ANNAfoxlover's was deleted, so should all of those. Acalamari 01:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

We should mfd all of those in a group, and speedy those who creator doesn't do article writing.

^{wat's sup}

01:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I take offense to an article writing requirement. There must be some better thing. -Amarkov moo! 01:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Amarkov, remind yourself what Wikipedia is. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 01:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I've long since given up arguing with people on that. -Amarkov moo! 01:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I have come across some signature pages that are rather tasteful. I'm thinking of one in particular where the user collects signatures and is rather active on a few noticeboards. Soliciting and social networking, however, is totally inappropriate. --Iamunknown 01:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with deleting all of those pages. Some people, like

Tohru and I, don't advertise and spam talk pages like ANNA. // DecaimientoPoético

01:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Nope: if one goes, they all go. It's unfair to keep some and remove others. Acalamari 01:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I just created my own autograph book

^{wat's sup}

01:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Why? If it becomes policy that autograph books are banned, it will get deleted. I believe these autograph books are wrong. I admit, I do have subpages, but mine well within Wikipedia rules, and I don't spend loads of time working on them. No autograph books should be allowed. Acalamari 01:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Autograph books are OK, it is just the fact that people spam to try to get people to sign them. If you stop the spamming, then we won't have this problem. Nol888_(Talk) 01:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

And tell me, how do they improve the encyclopedia? — Moe 01:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Just out of curiousity, didn't Jimbo himself say that he approves of autograph books? // DecaimientoPoético 01:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I would like to see a link to it.. — Moe 01:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I recall he said they can help build community. --Deskana (talk) (review me please) 01:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Here you are, Moe. --Deskana (talk) (review me please) 01:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah, close enough. Thanks, Deskana. // DecaimientoPoético 01:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

He said they could be friendly and inviting (I think thats what he said, I have to re-read it). How is spamming these across the talkspaces of users and annoying them accomplish that though. — Moe 01:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to note that I undeleted ANNAfoxlover's autograph page since she promised not to spam it everywhere anymore, which was the original reason for the deletion. --Deskana (talk) (review me please) 01:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Whoa there... You can't be serious about deleting all signature pages! Remember that Wikipedia is being built and maintainted by a community. I see these pages as nothing more then then a healthy way of building a community. If you are seriously contemplating deleting these pages, you are in effect breking down one of the pillars of Wikipedia. Besides, signature pages hardly make the servers break a sweat. Sure, this isn't MySpace, and spamming should be discouraged. But we are a community. Don't destroy it... build it! --Edokter (Talk) 01:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, deleting individual ones is certainly acceptable if people are spamming links to them all over the place. I'm not so sure about deleting every single one. --Deskana (talk) (review me please) 01:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

How are we breaking down a pillar of Wikipedia by deleting all the autograph books? The autograph books are of no use to anyone. Acalamari 01:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Edokter, Wikipedia editors make up this community, not Autograph books, which give nothing positive back to the community. — Moe 01:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

A community needs to communicate. Signature pages is just one way of communicating. Where else can one go just to say "hello"? --Edokter (Talk) 02:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Uh.. the user's talk page? —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 02:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Wheel warring over autograph books is far more damaging that the existence of them of them in the first place. I've created an alternative wiki purely for guestbooks, for people who would rather focus on these than working on the encyclopedia. Angela. 02:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Does

02:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:LAME might deter some people from engaging in edit warring. But the biggest difference between pages like BJADON and DOF and DAFT is that you don't have to participate. When users are actively spamming links to their autograph books, including harassment of one user (AnnaFOX repeatedly asked HighinBC to aign her book after he refused), then it becomes a major problem, and one better gone. Hbdragon88 02:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree, that's certainly problematic. But this looks like a user problem to me, not a.. well, autograph-book problem. When someone is going to spam people with their favourite

WP:BJADON joke, are we going to delete the page or warn the user? --Conti|✉

02:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, well, look at it this way. There are only two users that have ever spammed talk pages because of these books. The solution, in my opinion, is not to delete them, is to inform them, and everyone else, that use of autograph books should be very limited, so spamming does not occur. Just look at most of these users' contribs, mine for example. You will see that most of them not only involve themselves in activities other than signatures, but even make constructive edits to mainspace. For most users, the books are not the centre of their edits. If they centralize it too much, all they need is a warning against spamming and nonencyclopedic edits, and that they should help improving wikipedia more than their books. They should not be deleted,thisproblem iseasily solved. Simply make them promise they will stop spamming. This has been done for one user already. We need to remember that this is a community, and the books are just a minor part of the community. It's about saying hello, so if anyone is making way too many edits about the books, they should be simply told to stop, and to work on improving the wiki for a while. This way, we wouldn't have to delete everything, so we could encourage users to make constructive edits. How about making a rule on WP:USER so that these books are allowed as long as there is no spamming, and that the edits involving these booksare kept minimal compared to constructive edits. Please and thank you.

ricane001^{(Talk+Contribs+Ubx}

) 00:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Autograph arbitrary break

I think a middle path is best for this issue: allow autograph subpages, provided the user actually contributes to the encyclopedia in some way (writing, vandal fighting, spellchecking, whatever) and refrains from spamming anyone. The desire for social networking and other forms of humanity seems really understandable, considering how easy it is to get lost among the thousands of active users. But spamming in anyway is unacceptable, and having an account solely for the purpose of having an autograph book falls under the category of using Wikipedia as a social networking site or free web host, IMO. Natalie 02:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Totally agree with Natalie here. There's a big difference between user sub "autograph" pages where editors are actively seeking other editors to sign a guestbook and what amounts to an image gallery of signatures formulated by the user themself (particularly if the user is an esteemed contributor). (→Netscott) 02:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a social networking site; the only "networking" we do is working with other users. Everyone here in this discussion is "networking" only to improve Wikipedia. Autograph/signature pages are nothing more than nonsense and a waste of space on Wikipedia. I myself spent only a bit of time on my own subpages. Acalamari

02:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't these: 1 2 3 4 mean anything to anyone? Spamming talk pages for signatures is obviously bad, and maintaining an account that appears to be "only" for collectiving signatures is probably bad, but so is speedy deleting books whose owner is doing no harm. -- Renesis (talk) 03:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Well that sounds pretty

"Jimbo said.."ish but that first diff expresses my own view about the humanity of signatures and signature galleries. (→Netscott

) 03:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Just a comment on the nature of these autograph books. Looking over some of these, you find that many are somewhat incestous - the editors who sign these are those with autograph books, and they leave links to their own books. It means that a platoon of editors sign a book, making these pages near-copies. - AMP'd 03:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, we should just create a single Wikipedia:Autograph book and then set protected redirects from all of these individual books. --Cyde Weys 03:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

That's the old userbox deletionist Cyde Weys talking there. Yes that'd really do a lot for sentiments of good faith in the community. (→Netscott) 03:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

It's funny, bringing that up actually hurts your case, because we "userbox deletionists" were right. --Cyde Weys 03:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I see while we're at it why don't we get rid of another unecessary gallery (warning NSFW) or two? Asking you in the role of a Devil's advocate: How is a gallery like that helping the project? Besides were you really "right" about userboxes? (→Netscott) 03:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Most of them have been migrated to userspace and new ones are usually deleted quite rapidly. You don't call that a victory for the deletionists? Also, a similar gallery - User:Markaci/Nudity - has been nominated twice and resulted in no consensus, so...those are debated. Hbdragon88 05:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

In response to above comment (

03:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I understand your point. Acalamari 03:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I've also noticed the rise in autograph book messages. I agree that they should all be sent to MfD - however this may pose a problem as any dicision would affect a large quantity of people. I can foresee there would be a million miles of talk page thread of meaningless discussion &

04:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• Tell me, if users want an "autograph book," why don't they simply set one up on their own userpage? Why waste space creating nonsense subpages when you can use your own userpage to make an autograph book? Acalamari 03:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

They both are in the same general category, so to speak. — Moe 04:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:USER

I have written a proposal on things that should be discouraged (regarding guestbooks) and I would like some feedback on the talk page of

04:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Summary

The key points:

• guestbooks = harmless (and friendly).
• spamming = bad.
• biting the newbies
  = also bad.

Especially don't forget that third point; ie. heavy hands aren't needed, just gently remind people that MySpace is over there. --

) 13:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Going to have to agree with

User:Thebainer

here. Look folks we're a collaborative project; guestbooks/autograph books help foster goodwill amongst editors and help to enhance the collaborative environment. So long as editors aren't spamming and spending an inordinate amount of time on their autograph/guestbooks they should just be left alone.

As a side note, there is an Autograph book MfD open right now which judging by the lack of courtesy notices to the users whose pages are involved in the MfD should just be closed and restarted. (→Netscott) 14:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the summary posted by

talk · contribs). Bottom line, guestbooks are basically harmless. If you find them annoying just ignore them. Spamming talkpages for signatures can be dealt with via existing guidelines.--Isotope23

20:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Other opinions

I feel that autograph books are fine, as long as people don't spam requests across the site. If they advertise the autograph subpage on their actual userpage, that's fine. But this is NOT a social networking site (except as a means to the end of creating an encyclopedia); user talkpages are meant primarily for the improvement of the encyclopedia and all issues as a means to that end. But autograph books themselves are perfectly fine and a great way to lighten up the atmosphere, as long as it does not get carried away. — Deckiller 20:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

It should not be decided here, among only admins, whether you should mass delete userspace. I'm not taking a side, but I think you should give the users who's pages you are about to delete, a chance to represent themselves. Dfrg.msc 21:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe you misunderstood my comment. I made it clear that I do not agree with deleting autograph books themselves. However, I believe the mass advertisement of them is unacceptable. — Deckiller 23:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The Daigacon article had been deleted multiple times, but it's back again... --PatrickD 00:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

You may wish to speak with User:The Cunctator as to why he undeleted it. Getting his view point will surely clear this matter up. — Moe 00:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Reading the AFD debate, it was deleted because of

WP:CRYSTAL, and The Cunctactor undeleted it as it had happened. I think he should have taken it to DRV to get some kind of consensus to undelete it, though, rather than unilaterally undelete a unanimous-delete AFD. Hbdragon88

00:54, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

PatrickD, if you feel there should be debate over whether to still delete the article now that the convention has occured, please open a new AFD. I don't think it needs special administrator attention anymore, so I'm marking this resolved. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-08 09:38Z

So PatrickD has to go through process again to delete something that has already been deleted through process? Why not have The Cunctator redelete that article and use the process (DRV) to get that article undeleted? Hbdragon88 19:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Coz that would be process for process sake. The default status of Wikipedia articles, for better or for worse, is existing (ie not deleted). 〈

REDVEЯS

〉 19:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Let's say I wanted this Daigcon article back. I'd have to go thorugh process. Why? Because I'm not an admin. So why should an admin be able to undelete? They should have to go through the same process as well, It isn't just process for process' sake. I know that

WP:CON is fundamental to Wikipedia, and that the admins are charged with carrying out CON whenever it occurs in xFD debates. Now what? That can just be erased? Great. Another thing between the haves and the have-nots: the ability to undelete and get away with it without trouble. Hbdragon88

23:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Let's make this more of an encyclopedia and less of a first person shooter game

Let's make this more of an encyclopedia and less of a first person shooter game. There is too much Vandal versus Blocker first person shooter game aspect to Wikipedia, caused by treating "anyone can edit" as if it were holy writ. Some quotes:

WAS 4.250 21:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

FPS? I thought Wikipedia was an RPG. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-08 21:23Z

MMORPG I think. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me}

) 21:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Vandal-fighting is more

talk

21:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Reminds me of the quote that IRC is just multiplayer notepad. --Deskana (talk) (review me please) 21:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

All I do is type text; it's a MUD. --Edokter (Talk) 10:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

We do already have a

Talk

21:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Since when is the Administrator's Noticeboard the open soapbox anyone can yell from? :P - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Isn't this the Wikipedia complaints department? --

talk

21:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

It is? I thought this was

the room for an argument. Ben Aveling

22:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I told you once. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

If I've told you once, I've told you a million times, don't exagerate. Regards, Ben Aveling 10:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Tangentially, in all seriousness, had it been intentionally designed this way, I'd consider it a great success in Human Computation and Games With a Purpose, being cleverly addicting yet work-producing by having attributes of both a FPS and a RPG. For more on this interesting area see research by CMU Prof. Luis von Ahn [10] —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-08 21:34Z

So where are stable versions? Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

You may want stablepedia. Ben Aveling 22:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

No, thanks. I want stable versions. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd rather just have automatic edit summaries and a "this diff has not been viewed by anyone at all yet" flag. — Omegatron 22:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

We also need to redesign the top of each page to clearly say "This is an encyclopedia edited in real time by people like you and may contain errors or vandalism."

More generally, we just need some experts in user interface design and social engineering to reword and relayout everything in a way that encourages good contributions, discourages bad contributions, and makes the nature of the site very clear to first-time visitors. — Omegatron 01:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Omegatron's suggestion seems entirely right to me. Speaking of such things, have we lost the anti-vandal bots? Jkelly 02:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't quote me on this, but last that I heard the bots had been taken over by the foundation. They are running with the "=bot" flag, as such their revisions would be hidden from recent changes. Teke ^(talk) 04:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure

Talk

14:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

There's the handy "permanent link" in the toolbox. It'll lead you to the revision you prefer each time. Other than that, I agree with the childish vandalism and the articles it will obviously attract might merit a kind of permanent semi-protection on the formed articles subject to such crap. Penis and Vagina, for example, are vandalized all day every day with little new information to put in the article that can't be hashed out for four days on the talk page or simply having to wait for autoconfirm. Teke ^(talk) 23:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I would say it was Whac-A-Mole rather than an FPS. Vandal fighting is voluntary. If folks don't want to do it they don't have to - people are free to develop articles as they wish. SFC9394 21:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. There are a lot of people who enjoy it. If that ever ceases to be the case, that's when we'll find a better way to deal with vandalism. Regards, Ben Aveling 22:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, I've developed a set of articles and I have to constantly watch each edit to make sure that it's good or not. Even if it isn't vandalism, it may be written in an incoherent manner, replete with spelling mistakes and grammar problems. It's kind of like guarding hostages. Hbdragon88 05:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Here's something by that changed my mind somewhat about stable versions:

The greatest joy of Wikipedia for many people, and I think what draws many, many new users in, is that this is a dynamic, collaborative body of work in which your contributions are instantly visible. It gives somebody like me a chance to be a published author, in a very real way (since this is such a high traffic website and most people with computers use it as a reference at some time or another). To relegate anyone's contributions to the realm of "something that may be added to the article at some point, if your edits combined with everybody else's since the article attained 'stability' are deemed by who the hell knows who to be a 'significant improvement'" seems almost humorously counterproductive. --Tractorkingsfan

I can still see a place for some sort of delayed publishing of 'untrusted' contributions, but I'm convinced that contributions should be considered innocent until proven suspicious. Regards, Ben Aveling 10:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Certain article areas may be useful for it. I don't know how far along it all is, but I believe when this was first floated a while ago it was roughly outlined that it would only be a candidate to be used in a few article areas. Ones that immediately spring to mind are quite a few of the ones that are under permanent SP (G Bush etc). The vast majority of wikipedia articles are backwaters, out of the 1.6 million I would guess a few thousand get hit by vandals very regularly (10+ times per day) - the other 1.55 million can go months without any new content, and when that new content does come it has a decent chance of coming from an IP address or a new user. Creating stable/live versions of these pages is a bit counter-productive - all it is likely to do is create large backlogs of pages needing reviewed and updated by the "keyholder" editors who can edit the stable page. Frankly it might be an idea to reverse the process on these backwater pages - we have stable "1.0" pages held behind the live front page. A reader going to these pages would be presented with the live page just as now, but there would be a stable version in a tab available if they wished to double check against something that had a few more guarantees against it. The pressure to review any content submissions would be lower, because ultimately they are immediately viewable just as they are now - but we would have a more stable backup page in reserve. SFC9394 13:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course, the heavily vandalised pages are often the popular ones. But I agree, applied on a case by case basis, like full and semi protection, it sounds good. I raised a similar proposal at the village pump many moons ago [11]. One concern people raised was that we would be feeding Google different text to what we would be showing people, which might be considered cloaking, which is a bad thing to do. My investigations suggested this probably wouldn't be a problem, though I could say for sure that it wouldn't, and it's anyone's guess if Google would be prepared to adjust their algoritims for us if it turned out to be one. Regards, Ben Aveling 22:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Sam Blacketer keeps removing speedy deletion templates. - Patricknoddy^{TALK (reply here)|HISTORY} 23:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, I have twice removed what I considered to be an inappropriately placed {{

the incidents noticeboard. I am not quite sure what he is doing or why. Sam Blacketer

23:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

You had other complaints about your use of the tagging software, including adding DB tags to pages that already have it. Due to this, I have blocked your account until you agree to me to stop using that tool. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 23:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Seems he had lost control of his NP Watcher: see

Bubba hotep

23:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I've removed him from NPWatcher's approved users list until this is sorted out [12]. –

23:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Not a new problem judging by

Bubba hotep

00:05, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

There's also the redundant "Rissa Butler" notices at

WP:BIO would seem to clearly indicate so), but anyone who tags it as CSD instead of nominating it at AfD or discussing it on the Talk page probably shouldn't be placing speedy tags without a minder! - David Oberst

00:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Same user also marked my article about a nine-year Big East college basketball coach as not being notable. If you look at his talk page there have been a lot of questionable markings for speedy deletion lately. Tomdaddy53 00:37, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

This arbitration case has closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The parties identified in the decision as having acted poorly in the dispute regarding

23:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Filing an

WP:RFC

against an administrator

Hey, I was wondering if it would be inappropriate at this point to file an RFC against User:Philwelch. I believe this user has been warned before, and failed to improve his behavior. He has a very long history of using his adminship to block editors with whom he has an edit dispute: see here, here, here, here here, here, here, here, here. This includes a shameful block log for an administrator, even ignoring the weird self-blocks: [13]. I hate to open up an RFC on a good faith editor, but does anyone agree this may be necessary? Part Deux 01:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

He no longer has his adminship. See

Steel

01:09, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, that clears things up. Thanks. Part Deux 01:20, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Since it's March, be very observant of a potentially high amount of vandalism to colleges and college basketball teams, male and female. Thanks!

01:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

User:VoABot II has become crazy. Please look at its reversions.[14] and [15] I don't think that editions were vandalism.Sa.vakilian(t-c)--07:59, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it's guessed the edition is vandalism because its too large:(+5,894)Sa.vakilian(t-c)--08:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll have a look.

Voice-of-All

08:53, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The bot identified it as blanking due to a large character loss.

Voice-of-All

08:55, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I've changed the requirements a bit and changed the warning message to suggest a way around it.

Voice-of-All

08:59, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Can some uninvolved admin please look into user:UBeR's actions. Specifically:

1. His trolling and POV pushing on
   Global warming
   and related articles
2. His repeated and persistent harassment of
   William M. Connolley, one of our resident experts on global warming. To wit: Unfounded sockpuppet accusations, trolling, specious 3rr warning, trolling William's article
   , 'etc.
3. The "hit list" that Uber keeps (which, I will note, is the same act that got Wik perma-banned)

I would make the block myself but I am involved. I do, however, think his behavior merits some serious sanction. Raul654 20:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• I am not an admin, but reading the diffs, I would support action. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 21:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
• I have tried reasoning with him when he was trolling William's talk page, without luck (all I got for my troubles was this, where he seems to be saying that he is following my advice, while doing just the opposite). He doesn't seem interested in behaving like a member of the community - I'm not sure if the community's patience is exhausted, but my patience certainly is. Guettarda 22:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
• His behavior amazes me. I worked with him on another article and saw his ability to do good work. So, I'm dumbfounded as to why he keeps harassing User:William M. Connolley. It is unacceptable and must stop immediately. If it doesn't, I do support some sanctions. --Aude (talk) 22:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• Please also note
  WP:NPA problems. --Akhilleus (talk
  ) 22:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• Three attack pages are up for deletion - Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion#2007-02-28 --Aude (talk) 22:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
  • These might meet
    WP:CSD criteria #G10, though I think we can let it go through MFD. --Aude (talk
    ) 22:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
    • I think they can be speedied; they're pretty blatant. Trebor 22:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
      • I'd toss out the SSP page as well. No need to dignify those allegations by archiving them as if they were worth keeping around. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• To address to the first claim, I have not pushed any particular POV at Wikipedia other than that of consensus, if any at all (notwithstanding talk page discussions, of course). An overwhelming of my edits to that article have been to address sloppiness, style, grammar, spelling, etcetera. My mission here is for the betterment of Wikipedia articles. Let it be known that I support the consensus view on global warming, as presented by the IPCC. In fact, despite what might appear as undue support for the
  global warming
  article, where a number of POV-pushers patrol and police the article.

• To address the second claim, modeling doesn't constitute expertise. Second, there is a colossal difference in "accusation" and "suspicion," hence the name "suspected sock puppets." And it is true that I have a suspicion. How can you say it is wrong for me to have a suspicion? That's nonsensical. So, on behalf of Brittainia, an abettor of mine, I filed that suspicion, "so as to retire any further suspicion of sockpuppetry of this user." Third, I will keep in mind now to keep comments that specifically relate to an issue (in terms of previous occurrences), but may be considered "trolling" by Raul654 and his cronies, to the talk page of the originator. My apologies. Fourth, my notice of 3RR was merited on the basis of his three reversion on that particular page.[16] I felt it necessary to advise him, because he often reverts content on that particular article, as well as related articles. There's isn't much to that. Fifth, my template of notability on that particular article was well merited. I've attempted to discuss the issue, but users, along with Raul654, digressed terribly from the issue. The particular ad hominem attacks/arguments abound when such issues arise.

• To address the third claim, it would be wholly inappropriate to label this as a "hit list." It serves as a notice board that "will serve as a notice board that will be updated when necessary. The evidence gathering process is ongoing and, along with other users, I have begun this process." I've been consumed with the vexation of particular administrators who consider themselves above Wikipedia's policies. This is the sort of desecration up with which I will not put. It serves as a watch list, as it is titled, to my abettors and other users who wish to be cautious and watchful of such activities that I have observed and begun to document. It serves to no other purpose. Banefully, it is without proper evidence/references at the current moment, for which I apologize (and quite frankly, may abet in the appearance of personal attacks). Real life activities detract my availability on Wikipedia, but my "watchdog" activities will continue, and, with further aid, the notice board shall be complete with references, etcetera. The goal is not to detract the editor, but rather the particular edits by that user that have been contrary to Wikipedia policies. My regards, ~ UBeR 22:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• I can speak for at least the first claim and say that from what I've seen of
  William M. Connolley's POV or behaviour regarding climate articles, and I have witnessed myself at least one disregard of WP policies by him so far. I guess it is legitimate to keep a file with regard to his actions. --Childhood's End
  23:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
  • It should be noted that Childhoodsend (along with a few others - Roncram, Rameses, and the above-mentioned Brittainia) are, like Uber, POV pushers attempting to weaken or otherwise degrade the global warming and related articles. Their opinion of Uber's biased edits should not be taken as accurately representing the content of those edits. Raul654 01:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I will not respond to this POV pusher accusation. I'm trying to bring balance and as far as I know, my contributions have been appreciated so far. --Childhood's End 01:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Raul654, please remove yourself from this discussion; we are trying to have a serious discussion. You are not. You may sit here all day, with your ad hominen attacks, trying to discredit those who see the injustices of yours and WMC and others. In the end, however, you are only detracting from the issue at hand. Lets take a look at some of these examples you trying to put forth as POV-pushing, shall we?[17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26] [27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35] These are all of my edits made to global warming, not marked minor (all my edits marked minor were stylistic, grammatical, reversion of vandalism, etc.), of my last 500 edits to Wikipedia. Since you are making these claims, can you please explain how these are POV-pushing? ~ UBeR 03:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• Please read the evidence for yourselves and give UBeR a fair hearing. UBeR is truly a very hard working, fair minded, long standing contributor to Wikipedia. He (along with many others) has simply become increasingly frustrated by the kinds of tactics used by User:William M. Connolley, User:Raul654 and a few others who constantly delete all contributions by UBeR and anyone else not agreeing with their POV on all pages having to do with Global warming - See: [36] (Fight this insidious Censorship) William stop deleting relevant discussion, Connolley's Revert Censorship of Wikipedia Evidence. 12 out of the past 50 edits by User:William M. Connolley are reverts [[37]] (the rest are mainly talk page entries) and almost all these reverts are to global warming pages. when he runs out of reverts himself he pulls in others to start reverting. Given that he makes his livelihood in this field and clearly has a very strong POV, he should avoid this area for the obvious conflict of interest reasons (esp. so for an Administrator). [38]

User:William M. Connolley has already had two official complaints reported against him in the past for similar tactics and has been prohibited from making more than one revert per day See: ([39], [40]). Also he has rather strangely been taunting an editor to report him on that editor's userpage: [41] His actions certainly do need to be seriously examined by Administrators as his form of control is damaging to Wikipedia. I believe UBeR is justified in suspecting a sock puppet and in starting to gather evidence of these tactics. -- Brittainia 02:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• The
  WP:NPOV policy has an "undue weight" provision, but the sceptics keep pushing for equal coverage of the GW sceptic position. We attract an awful lot of sceptics, so we hear the same complaints over and over. But this isn't about the sceptic POV-pushing, this is about Uber's (and Brittainia's) disruptive activities - laughable accusations of sockpuppetry, trolling William's talk page, trolling Talk:William Connolley, setting up attack pages, etc. Guettarda
  02:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Guettarda, you are not representing my actions fairly. If nothing else, the solar variation theory is probably the most debated topic within the scientific community. This theory holds water. Many scientists have researched the effects solar variation has the Earth, and there shouldn't be anything stopping these substantiated scientists' research from being discussed in relationship to how it affects Earth's climate. I've added nothing to the global warming article that was either against the consensus or POV in nature. For all intents and purposes, your claims are unfounded. ~ UBeR 03:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Sorry if my comment wasn't quite clear. Brittainia talked about "all the other people" who have had similar problems with William. Not only is that a misrepresentation (since, after all, it isnt just William), it's also expected, since there's always been a movement to give equal weight to a minority position. As I said, this isn't about...POV-pushing, this is about behaviour. I think I've represented your behaviour fairly - your continued repost of a 3RR warning, your sockpuppetry accusations, etc., your creation of attack pages...this behaviour is unacceptable. Guettarda 14:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
      • I'm sorry then, I misunderstood. But I still disagree with your assessment. The overwhelming amount of dissent is that in the direct of William M. Connolley. This isn't about skepticism. You have misunderstood that idea. Second, how am I supposed to address my concerns with this particular user? Shall I go to to his user page? Of course not, that's trolling! Well then, shall I go to some committee or report it to some official noticeboard? Of course not, that's silly and nonsense! Forgive me for not
        assuming the assumption of good faith, but what else can I do when there is a particular administrator who has been elected to be given a large amount of power, who, based on his personal feelings that he hasn't been able to subdue, can only categorize my every action as unwarranted, when, in fact, this is solely biased and unfounded! If anything, this is nonsensical. I've made by rebuttal above, and the author of these claims continuously avoids the facts, but rather simply attacks some unrelated point of view, and has yet to substantiate anything he has said. ~ UBeR
        18:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• The "Fight this insidious censorship" comment Britannia linked to (well, tried to link to) above was posted by Ramses, and it's really quite illustrative of the whole affair. A contrarian POV pusher tries to put bias into the article, gets reverted, and decries the "censorship" in the article. That's pretty much the same of these accusations.
• As to the one revert parole on WMC, the arbcom reversed it and acknowledged they had made a mistake (For the record, I voted against imposing that parole, and was the only arbitrator to do so) But Britannia already knew that parole had been revoked, because Stephan already told her. So she is simply repeating an allegation she knows is false. Raul654 02:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
  • As a close friend of WMC, why didn't you recuse yourself from the voting since it was an obvious conflict of interest? -- Brittainia 02:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Mu Raul654 03:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
• Raul654 has labeled me a "contrarian POV pusher trying to put bias into the article". But all I was doing was defending the words: "However, there remain respected scientists who hold differing opinions." which had been deleted from the
  Global warming article. Surely these words do not constitute pushing a biased POV, as alleged? The control group will not even tolerate this tiny amount of NPOV in this important article. UBeR is a good person who has been the subject of these bully tactics for too long. Please seriously review whether User:William M. Connolley's conduct shows his fitness and neutrality to remain a Wikipedia Administrator. (The link to the relevant section is: [42]) -- Rameses
• This is a
  bias on many global warming related articles to shut down and revert edits that are anti-GW. I don't believe any action needs to be taken against UBeR. Oren0
  03:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
• This situation is extremely complicated and something that anyone who is not a regular participant in global warming related articles will be hard pressed to untangle. In terms of disclosure I should state that I am a climate scientist, and am taken by some as one of the villains in the affair. Discussions on the topic sometimes get heated, and even those who are acting in good faith sometimes make remarks that could have been put more tactfully -- certainly I have. Consider all this however you will.

The global change articles see a steady stream of editors who wish to promote a point of view that gives undue weight to the skeptical viewpoint. Some simply make gratuitously provocative edits in order to stir up trouble; others have an agenda and are fact-averse. Representatives of each of those groups already have responded here. But I don't think UBeR belongs in those categories. He genuinely believes that the skeptical side is not being given fair play. In other words, while I think he wrong on the facts, I think his position is held in good faith. He also is an excellent copyeditor. The problem is, the same single-mindedness and persistence (some might say obsessiveness) that well serves a copyeditor is less helpful when dealing with other individuals. One has to learn to be flexible and that some battles are not worth fighting. I have tried to warn UBeR against personalizing the situation but unfortunately to no avail. To make a long story short, if any sanctions are meted out they should recognize that unlike some others, UBeR can make and has made constructive contributions to the articles themselves. The problems mostly lie in his actions outside article space as outlined in Rau654's point 2. I hope that the situation can be resolved in such a way that he can continue to make constructive contributions.

Finally, should the remarks of User:Rameses and User:Brittainia become material to the outcome of this matter, there are reasons to believe a RFCU on those two usernames could be worthwhile. Raymond Arritt 04:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Raymond. UBeR genuinely believes the skeptical side is not being given fair play and I agree (the

Global warming controversy article needs work). UBeR attempts to edit in good faith and has made positive contributions. I would encourage UBeR not to personalize the situation and to focus on the facts even when being attacked personally (as is sometimes done).RonCram

18:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• I've speedy deleted UBeR's attack pages based on the MFD discussions and general consensus that they are attack pages. I have also listed them at
  WP:PTL. If UBeR wishes to collect evidence for an RFC, he may ask me to unlist the pages.—Ryūlóng (竜龍
  ) 04:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

---

The next step

It seems to me that while there is disagreement as to Uber's article editing practices, there's more-or-less unanimous agreement that his treatment of others users (the harassment and the hit list, points 2 and 3) is way out of line. (I'm discounting the opinions of the contrarians, whose solicited support [43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50] is both transparent and non-credible ) I suppose the question now is - what's the next step? Raul654 05:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah it's pretty easy to say "I will ignore all who disagree with me." It's pretty typical of you. If you notice, however, I simply ask them to review the case on their own. You reject their judgment, not because it is wanton, but because they disagree with your judgment. I've already made all my points clear enough above, all of which have not been responded to. If there is any next step, if for you to be reviewed. ~ UBeR 09:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Raul, this is getting absurd. Until that last post, I thought you were doing this is good faith, but that's obviously not the case. You're right. I came to this page because of a notice placed on my talk page. Have you thought (*gasp*) that maybe not everyone checks the administrators' noticeboard on a regular basis? So because Uber or one of his supporters solicited my opionion, I'm immediately non-credible? I think I've contributed enough to WP at this point that I'm obviously not a troll. My opinion should be worth just as much as the opinions of people that disagree with you. Can I discount anyone that's posted on your or WMC's talk page as "non-credible" as well? Give me a break. You're just trying to discount 8 editors' opinions because they disagree with you. When did WP become about censoring ideas you disagree with?Oren0 17:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Raul654, in a perfect world the next step would be an investigation into why Uber is behaving in this manner (because I think there is fault on "both" sides). Unfortunately, this is not a perfect world, most people are here because they are willingly contributing their time. This is a really difficult call, you ought to enforce the rules, but by enforcing the rules you probably are doing an injustice because some are using the rules to bully others. You ought to investigate the bullying but that would take too much time (as I found out) and I'm sure there is fault on both sides. Probably the best solution would be to ban anyone who has contributed to this debate from editing any of the various global warming/climate change/mars heating up/etc. articles again!

16:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Raul654 - I think the next step is to thank those administrators who do give up their own time to read all this argy-bargy. To do a good job moderating these disputes must take an awful lot of time and effort. Well done and thanks. Having read the israel-palestian and global warming, perhaps it might be worth considering creating new pages which can only be edited by one "side" which are linked to the main page (the main should not be edited by those taking a "side"). By asking people to decide whether they wish to be "neutral", "pro" or "anti" it would allow them to contribute to the article which best suits their own background. But more importantly it would allow the articles to include contentious information often repressed by one group. The "pro" group would be balanced by the "anti" group obtaining an overall NPOV within wikipedia (but not within those articles). Just an idea!

Mike

15:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Forking is bad. --Onorem

15:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Proof that Raul654 filed this complaint just to "get this monkey off WMC's back"

Raul654, this post [51] that you made just after UBeR filed a checkuser against William M. Connolley, clearly shows that this entire complaint against UBeR was orchestrated just to "get this monkey off WMC's back". The next step should be to stop this intentional diversionary complaint against UBeR and investigate your activities instead. Your entire group [52], [53], orchestrating these illicit activities should be thoroughly investigated by all those who have wasted a lot of their valuable time on your "getting this monkey off WMC's back". It is now clear that you yourself are guilty of most of the accusations which you have levelled at UBeR above, I believe that you and your co-conspirators should be permanently banned from editing global warming articles in order to stop the kind of bias, frustration and witch hunts which you are causing by your devious tactics. Everyone should know that this group are currently being investigated and exposed by a radio show for their hijacking of global warming articles as this group already knows [54] - thus they are bringing Wikipedia into disrepute. -- Brittainia 06:02, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you are so right. To bad we organized our secret conspiracy on public talk pages. Now all our hopes of complete world domination via accurate scientific representations are moot! Back to the UN mothership! --Stephan Schulz 10:30, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Your sarcasm isn't appreciated here. ~ UBeR 19:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Stephan, this post by William M. Connolley on a user talk page [55], is clearly designed to appear innocent and is a pointer to the next post on another user talk page [56], where the actual conspiring and planning of your group's next move is clearly discussed. WMC was obviously attempting to hide this discussion otherwise why would he say "Where next? - I have (reluctantly) started a discussion of this at User_talk:Stephan_Schulz#RFC? William M. Connolley 09:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)" and give a pointer to another user talk page before starting the actual planning session? The "where next" comment makes me question "where was it before?". Your self-serving mischaracterization of user talk pages as "public" is false as the public rarely (or never) visits them for "general browsing". Now that your group has been exposed, I hope that the Wikipedia community takes this seriously and considers permanently banning your control and POV pushing on all GW pages. -- Brittainia 06:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

It's hard to tell if the above post is a surreal attempt at humor, or is meant to be taken seriously. Assuming it to be the latter, if anyone wants to conspire, it would be trivial to use the "email this user" function on the side of each user's talk page.

Furthermore, there is nothing unseemly about either [1] my message informing WMC as to the existance of this thread (after all, Uber's persistent harassment of him was one of the three primary complaints here; obviously a de facto part of that is to inform the person being harassed), or [2] the fact that WMC asked me to participate in a discussion about how to follow up this thread. Raul654 06:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Although a conspiracy is not proved only by the discussions that Brittainia unearted, circumstances are of concern. I was perhaphs naive, but I must say that until now, I did not understand how it could be that these three editors are on the same line 99% of the time in GW related articles and always backing up each other. I mean, in normal circumstances, the odds are that they will disagree here and there on occasion no? This being said, the "monkey-off-your-back" post by Raul654 as well as the one where WMC gives an awkward pointer to his friends do not seem to be within normal Wikipedia behaviour. --Childhood's End 18:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Um...maybe our usual (though by no means universal) agreement has something to do with the fact that all of us can recognize and read scientific papers, and distinguish them from political pseudo-science. Moreover, 99% of the time, Raul is not even there. As of the end of January 2007, he has 8 edits on talk:global warming (as opposed to William's about 700 and my 400). And, of course, the secret conspiracy on our talk pages is open for all to see. My talk page has never been archived. According to the article contribution counter, William has 11 edits there, Raul has 1 (and that is the official notification about the closing of William's ArbCom case that I reopened). Given that User:Brittainia herself has indeed widely canvased support (even on pages of users who have been inactive for a long time), this conspiracy theory is laughable.--Stephan Schulz 20:34, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

His 8 edits to talk in contrast to his 76 on the main article. Pretty bad ratio. ~ UBeR 23:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Stephan, you sound like the accused in the accused box who is yelling that the accusations against him are laughable. Although you can of course have your say in this new affair, you should stick to facts, not rant. Let the discussion go and see how the case unfolds. As a party to the "conspiracy theory", your testimony (since you chose to testify) must be flawless. It is true that your talk pages are public, but you also know just like us that they're not widely read, far from that.

Besides, we can all read scientific papers. It's just that we can also elect to be critical rather than elect for blind belief. Try reading

Einstein, among others. --Childhood's End

14:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

There is so much nonsense in this that I probably miss some of it...

1. I'm not an accused accused in any way that remotely resembles the situation in a court of law and warrants such a comparison.
2. There is no "new affair".
3. I'm not yelling (but admit to some ranting, which seems like an adequate tool in this situation).
4. I'm sticking to the facts.
5. I'm not a party to any conspiracy theory, neither with not without quotes.
6. My testimony certainly does not have to be "flawless" (why should it have to be?) and, in fact, I'm not giving "testimony". At most I'm presenting evidence.
7. In fact, I have no idea about how many people read my talk pages. Certainly most people I have interacted with have my talk page on their watch list.
8. I have no idea if you are able to read (as in "read and understand") scientific papers. Certainly, "we all" cannot read scientific papers - its extremely hard to read and understand a scientific paper that is not in your field of expertise. Most people (and most Wikipedians) have no approriate scientific training at all. William and Raymond are actually specialists in the field.
9. Indeed, there is no absolute certainty in science. None of us has ever claimed there is. But that does not stop us from using scientific results to calculate the statics of a bridge, to determine the ballistics of a weapon to put someone into jail (or, in more barbaric countries, onto death row), to develop a new vaccine, or for thousands of other tasks daily. Demanding "absolute proof" is at best a self-serving delaying tactic.

--Stephan Schulz 22:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Stephan, you claim not to be an accused - well I accuse you of conspiring with Willam M. Connolley to censor and control global warming articles. Here is a clear example of how you both work, (bolded to highlight obvious censorship and biased POV - from Talk:Global warming section titled: Svante Arrhenius)

Fair enough. I fixed it above.

Unfortunately, Svante Arrhenius has some problems (i.e. the standard sceptics claim that water vapour is responsible for 95% of the greenhouse effect). Will somebody with more knowledge about sources than I write a sufficiently nuanced sentence there? --Stephan Schulz 07:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I've fixed that by removing it. It wasn't relevant there anyway William M. Connolley 09:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia cannot afford to let anyone (let alone Administrators) abuse and control widely read & controversial areas such as the global warming articles. Especially in so obvious a form of POV censorship. -- Brittainia 05:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Suprisingly, while you may think that the 95% claim supports your POV, it is unambiguously wrong. That's why I asked for someone (notice this high level of conspirational secrecy!) to fix it. I would have replaced it with a corrected version, but, on balance, I think William was right - there is no place in such a detailed discussion in a biographical article (that't why we have

greenhouse gases). --Stephan Schulz

07:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

How odd that "someone" turned out to be William M. Connolley (who is part of your group [57]). That is a brilliant method of removing all of the inconvenient facts from the main

Global warming page (almost sounds logical - hard to argue against). I may not agree with your censorship - but I have to admit to a grudging respect for the genius of your methods of execution. -- Brittainia

20:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

So your argument is that even if something is known to be incorrect, it would be "censorship" to delete it? The 95% claim isn't just wrong; it's absurdly wrong, like saying the moon is made of green cheese. Raymond Arritt 20:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

No doubt I am also about to join the "accused". I don't really have a problem with the ongoing pattern of new editors arriving on these pages etc. I agree that UBer seems to be trying to improve Wikipedia in good faith. However, I find the pattern of personalising discussion on this topic by attacking other longer standing editors totally unacceptable, both on and off wiki. It violates Wikipedia:Harassment and a pile of other policies. If those who seek feel NPOV is in a different place (however good faith they are) throw tantrums and engage in personal attacks on other editors than we should warn and ultimately reluctantly exclude them. We have enough to do to stem the rising tide of outright vandalism without wasting time on petty squabbles. The attack pages have been deleted, some sort of good behaviour agreement should be sort before this is considered closed. --BozMo talk 10:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

How refreshing: I am also now object of an off-wiki attack page: [58]. I ought to add for completeness that the poor Wikiquette issue I raised at AN/I before: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive198#Personal_attacks. It is a shame that we don't seem to deal with these kind of editors quicker. --BozMo talk 16:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Since you have done nothing wrong - why is this radio show investigating your group? -- Brittainia 17:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry but I don't have any group? As a pretty straightforward demonstration of this I was recently elected as an Administrator here by a very marginal majority (76% versus the 75% required) but none of the editors with whom I am assumed to be "grouped" voted for me. What better demonstration is there of a lack of conspiracy? As for this radio show ("race to the right"?), as far as I can tell it is a couple of guys who have a very strong POV and are trying to make a story about people not accepting their views. But they are both contributing to Wikipedia and writing a website apparently attacking editors here alleging conspiracy just because anyone with a reasonable scientific background is reverting low quality contributions. This should be stopped now. --BozMo talk 20:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Bored Radio DJ's... that would explain everything, I suppose. But they aren't the only people complaining about a conspiracy - there are plenty of Wikipedia editors who have been complaining about the cabal controlling (and pushing their POV on) the global warming articles.

William M. Connolley has already had three complaints against him - which two members of his group have admitted that they helped him to get out of (their admissions are right here on this page). After this latest complaint, he and his group conspired to launch this diversionary complaint which we are now involved in against UBeR (I am not sure why, if they had nothing to hide?). It is now time to begin a formal investigation of their tactics and the allegations against them from so many sources (including the bored DJ's). -- Brittainia

04:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, this looks like an unfounded allegation. Personally I have complained several times on AN/I about UBer and others engaged in personal attacks ref the content of the page. This seems to me to be the substance of the current complaint: if he and the 3-4 others in the "conspiracy theory" gang were a bit more civil we would not be here (and that group have a lot of cross comments planning on each others talk pages, and abusing other editors). This is not in appearance a diversionary complaint AFAICT and unless "having a monkey on your back" has a vastly different meaning in other countries there is nothing I have read above to make this claim substantial. I think it is time to go to the ArbCom and ask for a community ban for the disruptive editors. --BozMo talk 08:54, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm uncivil? Lets not fool yourself, Bozo. ~ UBeR 03:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you are, as the multitude of comments above have born out. Perhaps you should go re-read some of them. Raul654 06:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Raul654, this post [59] that you made just after UBeR filed a checkuser against William M. Connolley, clearly shows that this entire complaint against UBeR was orchestrated just to "get this monkey off WMC's back". Now you are trying to impeach UBeR for "incivility"? Talk about the pot calling the kettle black! People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. -- Brittainia 08:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Ramses and Brittainia RFCU - sockpuppeting confirmed

Per Raymond's suggestion above, I ran a checkuser query on Ramses and Brittainia and - low and behold - they are the same person.They both edit from the same class B network, and almost entirely the same class C networks too, with many overlapping IP addresses (including one case where Ramese made an edit with an IP, then Brittainaia a few minutes later, then Ramses again a few minutes after that; and another case where they used the same IP address within 3 minutes of each other). They're clearly the same person. Raul654 04:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

PS - user:Persianne is also linked to them. Raul654 04:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Is this not a separate issue? As I'm sure you have checked many a times, I have no relation to these editors in terms of location / computer use, etc. If your intent is to distract from issue at hand, please do so elsewhere. If, however, there is reason for the inclusion here unbeknownst to me, I apologize. ~ UBeR 04:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I do not see how the fact that Brittainia and I live together is anyone's business but ours and it certainly should not be relevant to this review process. I do object however, to the process by which Raul654 breached my privacy. No formal process was initiated - is this acceptable or is it more renegade tactics from this group? ~ Rameses 04:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Apparently your concerted editing was enough, on its face, to make Raymond suspicious as to request a sockpuppet check.

And it's extremely relevant to this discussion - The Arbitration Committee has ruled that, for the purpose of dispute resolution, when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sock puppets, or several users acting as meatpuppets, they may be treated as one individual. --

Wikipedia:Sock_puppet#Meatpuppets Raul654

04:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I have AFD'd Persianne's only substantive contribution, Persian Panda, as a probable hoax article since I can find no confirming sources. If it is a hoax, it is worse possible kind as it appears both detailed and well-written, and would easily pass as legitimate (albeit unsourced) content to most observers. Dragons flight 04:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

In fact, both Brittainia and I would like an apology (for unecessary and unauthorised breach of privacy) from Raul654 and from Raymond Arrit. Failing this I would like to initiate a formal complaint and a review of their actions here. ~ Rameses 04:58, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I would like to note that, beyond your self-serving denial, we have no evidence at all that you, Brittainia, and Persianne are in fact different people. Moreover, the fact that your similar editing patterns were, on their own, enough to tip Raymond off strongly suggests otherwise. I have no intention of apologizing for following up on an (apparently correct) sockpuppeting suspicion. If that doesn't suit you, you can complain to user:UninvitedCompany, the checkuser ombudsman. Raul654 05:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Though this is pointless to respond to, I'll say it anyway for brevity's sake. Where is the breach of privacy? Raul654 has been entrusted with checkuser access to identify socks, meatpuppetts, and other uses of contributions to evade bans/blocks or misuse Wikipedia content or process. We are not all entrusted with such access for the very privacy reasons you are concerned with. Raul654 confirmed the IPs, and not a single shred of personal identity was posted. Only checkusers can view their logs. I don't know your gender, location either city or continent, editing patterns that aren't public or marital/tax/health status from the checkuser confirmation. So what exactly is your beef with a checkuser that would invite such a riled defense? This question is rhetorical, I do not request a response. Teke ^(talk) 06:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Just to point out, for the sake of clarity, continent, state, city, and even ISP can be determined with an IP. So you're not 100% correct in that aspect. On another note, I believe the very problem was that Raul654 WAS the one who did the check, as opposed to a more trustworthy and uninvolved person. ~ UBeR 00:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Now you are dragging a child into this, this really is typical of your smear tactics. It is reprehensible how low you will stoop to win! ~ Rameses 05:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Based on these comments as well as the signature at the end UBeR's comment here, I would not be surprised if Rameses, Brittainia, Persianne, and UBeR are one in the same.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

In the interests of complete fairness, based on this comment and the fact that he raised the issue above ("As I'm sure you have checked many a times, I have no relation to these editors") I ran a check on Uber (my first and only one). There is no evidence there to suggest he is related to the Ramses/Brittainia/Persianne sockpuppetry Raul654 05:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

To add to Raul's comment, I am convinced based on editting patterns alone that Uber is definitely distinct from the others. Dragons flight 05:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflicts galore) That's going too far IMHO. I strongly doubt that UBeR is the same as the other two (or three, or one, or whatever). Raymond Arritt 05:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

So it is merely coincidental that Rameses just started to sign his comments the same way that UBeR does?—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I am truly disappointed, Ryulong. ~ UBeR 05:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. (Or whatever cliche I'm trying to think of.) Raymond Arritt 05:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Well since your group obviously has no decency whatsoever, I have filed a complaint with the ombudsman. [60] (Is there no place in Wikipedia for families?) ~ Rameses 05:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Families are allowed on Wikipedia. My little brother has an account here. However, when all of the members of a family push the same point of view disruptively, we have to apply the duck test.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

That's the one where if you weigh the same as a duck, you're a witch? Because a duck floats, wood floats, you burn wood, you burn witches? "She turned me into a newt!" "You don't look like a newt." "I... I got better!" -- Ben 09:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Ombudsman? What Ombudsman? Corvus cornix 18:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Ryulong and all of you others, I must say that I am also truly disappointed by your continually dragging a child into this unseemly character assassination (it reminds me of Shakespeare's "the stabbing of Julius Caesar" scene). Persianne has certainly not "pushed the same point of view disruptively" (apart from one vote to save her dad's article from a similar assassination) and if you can show any evidence at all - do so. If you cannot, kindly retract your ugly smear and apologise. Failing this, I ask that this unwarranted and completely false attack on a child's character also be examined by the ombudsman. -- Brittainia 19:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Um... Checkuser only discloses similarities between accounts and general information in order to avoid revealing personal details. Personal details, for example, such as that Persianne is apparently the account of an underage female. In the future, you may want to consider not revealing such specific details in public, even when making such a response. Bitnine 20:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Rather that shes a daughter of a couple, which isn't quite so revealing. ~ UBeR 00:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

All that Raul has revealed is that all three users apparently use the same machine(s) to access Wikipedia. He did not reveal either the ISP, the location, or the (apparent) family relationships. The latter were subsequently revealed (in as far as we trust them) by User: Rameses and User: Brittainia themselves. --Stephan Schulz 00:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Since creating a hoax article is blockable already, you'd do better to address Persian Panda rather than bemoaning the "character assassination" of an account apparently created primarily to hoax Wikipedia. Dragons flight 19:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Sigh - that article was her class project. She and her friends set out to prove their science teacher wrong - by showing that Wikipedia is a reasonably reliable source of information (through it's constant error correction). I guess that makes you a part of the project - the part of the hero...? -- Brittainia 20:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

---

I have had the misfortune to try and edit the various global warming articles. Although I do not personally agree with Uber's point of view, I am firmly convinced that the faction that opposes Uber's views try is ganging up on contributors they don't like in an attempt to silent contributions informing readers of alternative & notable view points to the pro global warming lobbyists. I really do feal sorry for people who are trying to document the alternative view to the pro global warming lobby because they are up against some very nasty characters who quite clearly want to stop people like Uber using any means possible. This whole situation doesn't do Wikipedia's reputation any good. There is unquestionably a majority (of scientists) who are of the view that the minority should not be heard at all. The majority appear to be able to edit Wikipedia at all times of day and night, the minority seems to be "normal" people with an interest as they edit intermittently.

From what I have seen this is not at all a fair fight, this is the Wikipedia equivalent of the overwhelming force of the Nazis attacking the minority jews (with the same vicious belief they are right). The "Nazis" may be technically operating within the law, and the "jews" may be behaving in ways that in other cases would be acceptable, but until Wikipedia finds a way to redress the balance and in particular starts to enforce NPOV, I'm with the underdogs and would urge you to see their actions as extremely restrained given the intolerable position they are under.

11:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Godwin's Law in the first attempt. Impressive. And with regard to your edits here: I suggest you retract the "professional lobbyists" claim unless you have any serious evidence that anyone in this conflict is paid for his work on Wikipedia. I'm still waiting for my cheque... --Stephan Schulz

12:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

"The climate change establishment's suppression of dissent and criticism is little short of a scandal" - Nigel Lawson, former Chancellor of the Exchequer (Prospect Magazine, November 2005) --Childhood's End 19:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

"A fascist group can easily hide itself by quoting

Godwin's Law whenever anyone reveals the true nature of their activities." This has the added benefit of smearing their victim's reputation. You can call that Brittainia's Law. -- Brittainia

19:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I prefer to call this an uncalled for and unjustifiable

personal attack. --Stephan Schulz

19:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Can we please stay on topic. These ad hominem arguments do nothing but to distract from the topic. It is becoming increasingly annoying. If you feel so inclined, please bicker on each other's talk pages. ~ UBeR 21:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I've worked with Uber on the minimum wage article. In that context, I've found him to be one of the few, intellectually honest Wikipedia editors. -- Mgunn 07:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I have been away dealing with my own server issues lately. I have had the horrid experience of attempting to edit/balance the Global Warming pages. My own research of edit histories, etc. has shown some extremely disturbing things about Wikipedia, its administrators and its policies. The short of the whole issue is this: there are a number of admins (the group being discussed here are not the only ones) who flex their power over any other editor that dare disagree with them. The tactics used are vague references to policies to 'prove' the other editors are out-of-line; carefully crafted cheap shots in the article edits summaries & talk pages to 'push buttons' of the 'bad editors'; talk down to them as being too inexperienced to understand how to properly edit Wikipedia; revert edits wholesale and in tandem (when one's rv is undone another will re-revert for the admin. The harder the resistance to the will of the abusive admins the more destructive the admins use/abuse of policies become. People talk about the blue veil of protection for police officers and a perfect example of that in Wikipedia can be found in reading the past 2 years of action, complaints, activity, etc from the admins and their colleagues in this particular complaint.

This entire RfC is a part of the constant efforts to chase away editors who do not comply with the viewpoints of various admins. To some degree it worked with me personally...I have chosen to not edit Wikipedia until I talk with certain key people in Wikipedia about this problem. Their actions are so intrusive I have recently received messages from some of these people attempting to dictate content on my own personal webspaces. -- Tony of Race to the Right 18:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)