Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive81

I was looking at some block logs today and spotted a message like the following:

<X> blocked "<ip address> (contribs)" (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 31 hours (Blocked for 31 hours due to recent vandalism. If this is a shared address, please register an account to avoid collateral damage.)

This seems to invite account creation while simultaneously preventing it. The problem may be in a bot or a bit of javascript, and doesn't seem to be limited to one particular user.

Script and bot-using admins, please check your block scripts to make sure that they don't contain bugs like this. --Tony Sidaway 17:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem is in the QuickBlock script some admins are using, containing constructs like:

addTab('javascript:('+QuickBlock+')("31 hours","Blocked for 31 hours due to recent vandalism. If this is a shared address, please register an account to avoid collateral damage.",1,1)','31ao','p-block-31h');

Should be changed into:

addTab('javascript:('+QuickBlock+')("31 hours","Blocked for 31 hours due to recent vandalism. If this is a shared address, please register an account to avoid collateral damage.",1,0)','31ao','p-block-31h');

_→AzaToth 18:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The shared IP facility (permitting account creation) is intended to minimize collateral damage. An administrator would block allowing account creation where there was a reasonable expectation that the IP was shared. So there's no element of bean-stuffing here. --Tony Sidaway 23:14, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Also note: The block message doesn't say to create an account from the shared IP. It could imply to create the account from a home IP. ~Crazytales, your resident godking (I AM THE AVALANCHE) 12:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2007-April/028748.html - 4.250.201.212 19:58, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, IP. Interesting read, certainly written from Florence's POV but I can understand Danny's side from it. Pretty much a clear-cut work dispute. Happens every day in the world. Teke 23:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

It is quite clear that the new people on the board of directors are assuming their proper responsibilities and this is resulting in changes that has produced resignations. WAS 4.250 02:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

In the fairness of a NPOV, it's more of (in my opinion) a new board of directors created a different working environment, and change cometh. There was no lax on the job before or after, just change in management created conflict with employees. Teke 08:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I've noticed that several admins have removed April Fool jokes on AFD and MFD, is that appropriate and is there any policy regarding to April Fool's Day on Wikipedia?

There's not, but there should be. I'm tired of these jokes already. PTO 02:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Well for one thing it would be good if they're actually funny... WjBscribe 03:06, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

My opinion: these things ought to be removed/userfied on sight per several guidelines and simply because of common sense: they don't support the goal of building an encyclopedia. CMummert · talk 03:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps reverting on sight is a good idea, but I think we need to not get in a huff about this. --Deskana (ya rly) 03:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that while we're messing with our own april fools' day jokes, people are vandalizing articles with false information. The latter takes priority over the former, IMO. PTO 03:23, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree, but I think either way no matter what rules we try and put in place, the stuff will happen so it's important not to get wound up about it. --Deskana (ya rly) 03:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Most certainly. And please stay out of the MediaWiki namespace... ^

[omg plz]

 03:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

April Fool's Day isn't until 2 April this year, anyway. --

THF

04:10, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

April Fools day has always been on April 1. The day never changes. Purgatory Fubar ^Converse or Snafu 21:06, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Mate that was a joke. DXRAW 07:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually the MW space is a place where we could have easily revertible, only noticeable to admin, inside jokes. For example, you could say change the Block user button to "Annihilate user", and it would be funny, and at the same time not disruptive, admins know what it does. Or you could change the delete button, rollback button, protect button, ect, anything non-admins wouldn't see. So touching page headers is a big no-no. No one would be well enough behaved for any semblance of this though. Prodego ^talk 03:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh my god, that's such a good idea! --Deskana (ya rly) 20:30, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

It seems like most of the jokes (Afd/MfD, etc) have died down and the serious editors have gotten back to work. It will most likely be just vandalism for the rest of the day. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 04:04, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly. But some people have no sense of humour :D Viridae^Talk 04:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

• We need to be well prepared in advance for next year, so we have twelve months to refine
  WP:0104. Guy (Help!
  ) 15:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• I suggested this before. Is there an admin-l private list? Guy (Help!) 10:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• Yeah, the
  cabal list. Luigi30 (Taλk
  ) 13:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:IRC would be better, but this message is late (by a day). · AO ^Talk 17:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Need help please, death threat involved. Robotman¹⁹⁷⁴ 10:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Well don't throw death threats at people if you need help! Luigi30 (Taλk) 12:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, this is late, but you should increase the

WP:DEFCON meter; a lot of users watch that (not sure about admins though; I suppose they do too). Also, there's WP:IRC. · AO ^Talk

17:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Some editors have been abusing the DRV process in this DRV. Since DRV is about whether the AFD guidelines were followed or not, there are some Endorse votes which are clearly abusing DRV. Here is one, to the letter:

Endorse:Still a game guide in my opinion.

As you can see, this is NOT what you do at DRV so I think a few Endorses on it need pointed out. Bowsy ^{(review me!)} 12:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Moved to the community sanction noticeboard. MER-C 13:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

The board has 31 open cases including a bot report with dozens of possible autobiographies. Please pitch in. Durova^Charge! 14:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

See history of Glenn Greenwald. This user has persisted in labelling any opposition to his point of view as being indicative that his opponents are sockpuppets of me; this is in addition to his totally spurious personal attacks, which I have attempted to point out to a handful of admins with little action being taken.Chris Cunningham 15:28, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Erm, no I have not, I have engaged it constructive debate as the record shows. I have only accused Thumper and R.Baley of being the same person, something that I stand by. I have never accused anyone else of being a sock, and have continued to debate with thumoer in good faith in any case. Thumper also used his "well known work address" to add a homophobic remark to my user-page. Again, I have been editing in good faith and engaging in debate with a number of users. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 16:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Need I say more. Spart never followed up on his attempt to have a checkuser run against me, but based on his own research he has decided that the vandalism of his user page (which was by an IP from some university in England) was "clearly" by me based on the evidence that I had reverted him once on the Greenwald article. As for "continuing to debate in good faith", that's another three specious accusations of homophobic abuse and / or sockpuppetry in as many hours. I'd seriously appreciate some action on this, as informal attempts to resolve the situation have so far been ignored. Chris Cunningham 16:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

My only complaint with anyone is with you, and even then I are not really bothered. Despite the fact that I believe you are using sockpuppets, I have nevertheless continued to discuss the article with you in good faith, and am happy to continue doing so. There is no purpose to this at all, this is all silly. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 18:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so I'm trying to use an image of a foreskin in an article, but it won't let me. The discussion page says that I need to contact an admin, but I am an admin, and I know nothing about how to cause this image to appear as it should. Little help? Exploding Boy 16:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

It's probably on the blacklist for being an image of a penis. Luigi30 (Taλk) 16:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

That much I know. I want to know how to remove it. Exploding Boy 16:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I figured it out, FINALLY. I hate that "bad image list." Exploding Boy 17:10, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Why? You'd have to revert a lot more penis-related vandalism if it wasn't for that. · AO ^Talk 17:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Burgz33 (

SBC ranges. It's how Cplot mostly slipped through the cracks.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

The ranges of those two addresses have been blocked for 2 weeks. —Centrx→talk • 23:56, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 03:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

No they havent. 209.30.145.209 21:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

What is the policy on allowing identifying information of a minor on his or her user page? In the instance that I've noticed, the user provides age, fairly detailed location information, and the high school that he or she attends. Sancho (talk) 02:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Location and school shouldn't be provided. These edits should be oversighted, and if the user keeps adding it, they should be blocked. --TeckWiz ^ParlateContribs_@ 02:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Really? I thought that was only an issue if the user is under the age of thirteen. -- tariqabjotu 02:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't believe the user knows that this is wrong and I don't want to start a conversation that will add more attention to this information and more information that will have to be eventually deleted. How can I give the user ID to somebody to delete (not simply edit-remove, but delete from history) this information? PS. The user has identified him/her self as being 15. Sancho (talk) 02:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Although I am not an admin, I have an email address publicized on my userpage. Cascadia ^{TALK| HISTORY} 02:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Got to Wikipedia:Requests for oversight and send them an e-mail with the diffs to hide. They're trusted with extremely confidential information and will take her age off Wikipedia, including in the page history, only allowing other people with oversight permission to see.--TeckWiz ^ParlateContribs_@ 02:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the guidance, I'll do that. Sancho (talk) 02:28, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Follow up: Oversight didn't see this as a problem and has left the information available. Sancho (talk) 13:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd have to agree. I'm 14, and I publicise my grade and, indirectly, the school I attend. Nobody's bothered to get oversight on my userpage. ~Crazytales — t,c 21:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

The arbitration case, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/InShaneee, has closed. By the remedies passed by the Arbitration Committee, InShaneee's admin privileges are suspended for 10 days.

For the Arbitration Committee, - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 18:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Is it good to create a user page only to add the indef tag? While I have wanted to for certain vandals, I have usually not done so because I thought it may be considered a waste of space. Is it a big deal? The Behnam 19:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's a big deal either way. I think I read somewhere that they get deleted after a while? --Deskana (ya rly) 19:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes as temp pages they are deleted after a month. I just didn't know if it was OK to make it simply because it uses space for a certain amount of time without being necessary. I do admit it adds to the sense of closure after hunting a particularly obnoxious vandal. The Behnam 20:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Up to you, to a certain degree. As I'm sure you know many of the accounts are throwaway account, being used briefly for blatant vandalism until blocked. Generally creating the user page then will pretty much be a waste of time, it's unlikely anyone will ever have need to visit it again. The normal indef block tag is also down in the temporary page category so will possibly be deleted at some point in the future. --pgk 20:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Could somebody take a peek at the contributions made by User:Wen Hsing and see if some guidance might be required? The editor's first several edits were admonishments to be nice to the Communist Party of China, including one comment [Jimbo's talk page], and has followed with some strong language on a few other pages, then jumped into AfD discussions (with some abstentions and a few opinions). It looks odd to me, but I've no idea how best to approach the situation. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

See [1]. I thought that

Its common sense that it should be move protected, considering the havoc it could cause if someone unexpectedly moved it. Viridae^Talk 22:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

A new and presumably confused user,

Move fixed by Ryulong. I fixed one (one?) double redirect. —210physicq (c) 00:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

The talk page is still at

talk

00:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

It appears to be fine. The talk page and the article both have the same title. Viridae^Talk 00:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Ryulong apparently noticed and moved it as well. --

talk

01:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Just blank the appropriate one and replace it with a redirect. Make sure you merge everything that is relevant but is not already merged. Viridae^Talk 01:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I've noticed an article,

Be

bold. Viridae^Talk

06:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay. I just didn't want to override a (minor) discussion without approval. Thanks. SMC 07:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I have recently marked the following articles for speedy deletion (db-a7):

Lou Baldwin, Robert Bartolle, Orville Jennings, Joseph Finley, Rosette Amery, Doc Howard

These were all created and edited by a few users (including the users Dw123456 and Mr. feets . I suspect that this was an intentionally fraudulent effort, since I can't find any references for any of these people outside of the website.

I don't know what the procedure is here (probably should have used a different speedy deletion criterion) but I thought I'd write it up here for administrator review. Zimbardo Cookie Experiment 07:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Deleted one under csd a7, the rest claim notability. Prod them, and if contested and you think they still warrant deletion, AfD them. Viridae^Talk 07:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Done, thanks for the insight! Zimbardo Cookie Experiment 18:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I hope this is an appropriate place for me to post this - but if there's a better spot, please do feel free to move this around.....

I'm a small wiki-editor who is interested in how old you are, as an admin, editor, or just wiki fly-by.... if you don't mind letting me know, click here!.

Thanks all! - Petesmiles 09:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I just stumbled across Image:AleMoon.jpg. It is tagged as GFDL, but I hiiiiiighly doubt its truthfulness. Unsure what to do, so posting here. Thanks. --Ali'i 19:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

There is a template somewhere for this, I'm trying to find it. --Deskana (ya rly) 19:30, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking of

WP:IFD would be the best thing. --Deskana (ya rly)

19:31, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:PUI is designed for this sort of case. —Cryptic

19:45, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I frequent both venues, and would recommend IfD for an obvious case like this and PUI for less obvious cases. --Iamunknown 19:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow... I didn't think I was that new around here, but the IfD process (like the AfD process) is too complicated. Is there any way to make things more automated? I listed this at

Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because it seemed like the easiest place to do so. Mahalo nui loa. --Ali'i

19:52, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Indubitably there is a way to automate image tagging (IfD, PUI, NowCommons, etc.), just add the line importScript('User:Howcheng/quickimgdelete.js'); to your Special:Mypage/monobook.js. --Iamunknown 20:11, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) But this case is not obvious, at least not to me. The uploader claimed "GFDL-Self". A commercial image would be likely to have an obvious logo displayed, as this oen does not. It looks of professional quality, but there are lots of good photogs out there. Is the subject a celeb? I don't recognioze her. I put this on PUI and notified the uploader. DES ^(talk) 19:57, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

• Wy are we faffing about? It was originally uploaded with a different tag and changed when it was challenged, the uploader has not uploaded any other images (which if they were a pro they probably would have) and it is almost certainly not the work of the uploader. Guy (Help!) 20:44, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

As Guy demonstrated, images with blatantly false free licenses can, should be, and are speedily deleted at any time. Only use WP:PUI and WP:IFD when you're not sure of yourself. Sending all copyvios to those pages is a waste of time seeing and merely adds to the backlog. Picaroon 21:05, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

It's true that we sometimes catch people patently making stuff up, as JzG notes, but I think we should remember to

AGF unless it's obvious that the free license is false. (The two types of these I see most are where (a) the image bears someone else's copyright notice (d'oh!), or (b) the image can be traced to a source that clearly did not release it under a free license.) But where it's doubtful it seems to me that putting it in front of IfD or PUI to be reviewed by others is a good practice. And, of course, there are also cases where the uploader admits to copying a non-free image but still claims a free license as self-made, as where they scanned a print photo and assert authorship of the scan, which of course is invalid, and the image can be speedily deleted. But I would not want to automatically jump to the conclusion that "professional-looking image + casual user == copyvio". --MCB

22:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I see this was deleted out-of-process.

WP:DRV here we come. DES ^(talk)

20:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

No ke aha, lord?!?! --Ali'i 20:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

The above user is currently blocked for sockpuppetry and edit warring on

Thoughts? - Alison^☺ 04:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• Blocking admin just fully protected the page as I hit 'save' :) I'd still be interested in the rationale so I can learn from it - Alison^☺ 04:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not the blocking admin, but I'll chip in my two cents. Ordinarily you shouldn't protect the blocked user's talk page so that they can request unblock and have other communication. However, if the user doesn't care that they are blocked and continue shenanigans after being blocked on their talk page, at least temporary protection is recommended. It's trolling, 'tis all and trolling is disruptive. Teke 04:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair point indeed. Thanks for that - Alison^☺ 04:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I had Benjiwolf's user talk page watchlisted for other issues. I've now blocked him indefinitely for continuing to disrupt his talk page while blocked and advertising to spam Wikipedia. Review of this block by other admins is welcome. Sandstein 05:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

The whole BenjiWolf thing has now gone to

ArbCom - Alison^☺

06:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

While I can appreciate the sentiment of an ArbCom case, it is pretty open and shut to me and I don't anticipate its acceptance unless the user becomes a recurring problem after this situation. Keep up the good work, Alison, and keep asking questions. Teke 07:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

This user has actually caused quite a bit of disruption. I've attempted to get other admins involved via email, talk pages, and

WP:AN/I to no avail and ultimately imposed two range blocks after finally getting a response via email. In addition, Benjiwolf has used at least three known registered names (Silence-of-the-Wolves, CrystalizedAngels, and MnemosynesMusings). His goal is to have every IP in Switzerland blocked from editing. While the armcom case may or may not be necessary, if it will bring some attention to help (me) out, I'm happy for it to continue. - auburnpilot talk

08:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

From the ArbCom statement by the PR firm that Benjiwolf is, "We will no longer edit very often unless it is for pay from now on. There is a great deal of money to made."

Good grief. Teke 02:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The blocking of Tor proxies can collude with Internet censorship by the Chinese government. Please have a look at this discussion on the blocking of Tor proxies: Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy#Softblock for Tor proxies. —Babelfisch 07:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

• It can also prevent massive vandalism and ban evasion. Note that Chinese readers are unaffected. Guy (Help!) 09:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
• Wikipedia is about being a free encyclopedia, not a political anti-censorship vehicle. To quote Jimbo "If you have such a severe personal situation that editing Wikipedia with the level of anonymity provided by an ip number is dangerous to you, well, I guess you shouldn't edit wikipedia." [2]. But generally regarding censorship no one in the world is permitted to write here based on anything other than verifiable, reliable sources if those sources exist then censorship of that information isn't occurring. --pgk 12:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I've copied this discussion and answered here: Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy#Softblock for Tor proxies. Please continue there. —Babelfisch 01:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Administrator

Please reduce your statement to at least 1/5 its current length. Admins like me are loath to read never-ending statements that merely tell us what is happening, not tell us what to do. —Physicq210 04:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Here here. Or at least make paragraphs. It's not that I can't read this out of laziness, it's because I'm in bed on reading on a tiny tiny laptop screen with tiny tiny font. Readability! Teke 04:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, Sandstein's content is obviously wrong here. The problem is what to do about this. Take it to

WP:RFC/U and see what can be done there. that would be the best idea, I'd say. You can probabyl copy-paste this even.--Wizardman

04:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• Inappropriate advocacy, for sure. The rpesent statement is unproblematic, although I'm not sure the eagle helps much. Guy (Help!) 08:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
• Be honest. Even after the small blurb explaining my POV was gone, you've still been blocking me. The latest one week block you attempted was simply for having 4 quotes from Mussolini and Hitler that simply had to do with economics. There was nothing "inflammatory" about what I wrote or the quotes. Now, you're threatening "indefinite" block if you see me do something to my user page that you don't like, without seeking consensus at all. You're misbehaving. And you won't get away with it. Billy Ego 16:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment by spectator. Billy Ego has been subject to quite suspect treatment, in all probability as a result of his political views. Sandstein appears to have some sort of negative personal agenda with regards to Billy Ego. The actions of Sandstein have been also condemned by other users [15]. The guidelines at [16] seems to be fully supportive of Billy Ego. Cloveoil 10:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Sandstein enjoys the support of (coherent) administrators. El_C 15:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

What El C says is true. [[User:HighInBC| 15:28, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I also support Sandstein with regards to this issue.--Alabamaboy 15:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Concur. Kirill Lokshin's statement in the rejected RfArb, "Wikipedia is not a free webhost, and user pages likely to bring the project into disrepute are prohibited in any case", pretty much says it all. --MCB 16:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Sandstein's interpretation of

Wikipedia:User page is neither novel nor controversial. A user page isn't a private web page or blog, and while disclosing possible biases is generally encouraged, abusing one's user page to host polemical essays and propaganda is not permitted. Get a free website. --Tony Sidaway

15:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

So you're telling us that it's ok he puts an "indefinite" block on them if they make an edit to their user page that he personally thinks doesn't accord with

WP:UP, and simultaneously block me forever so I can't argue my case, and he gets away with this? He's judge, jury, and executioner? Billy Ego

16:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

No. But when a lot of people start agreeing that something on a userpage is inappropriate, it probably is. If you put "I like editing Wikipedia" on your userpage and got blocked for it, people would raise hell, and consensus would not support the block. If you're putting material that will probably be inflammatory, you'll find that won't go so far. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Right. I understand that. But, he knows that there is no such consensus. So I guess, I'll have to try to arbitration again since nothing is being accomplished here. Billy Ego 01:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Just to inform people who may be watching this thread, Billy Ego has now submitted a

Update: and this second request has been accepted and will open today. Something should be accomplished, in view of arbitrator comments such as "If we need to make it clear that Wikipedia is not a web hosting service and support an admin, we will." Bishonen | talk 07:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC).

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Not seeing this move anywhere. Navou ^banter / _contribs 09:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

---

Resolved

Request an uninvolved admin to close a username discussion for User:Fenian Swine at this location. Thanks in advance for the help. RJASE1 ^Talk 17:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Repeating request as the discussion is getting bitter and circular, we really need to get this issue resolved. RJASE1 ^Talk 23:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Note to closer, please use the new RFCN archive template when closing the discussion, {{

RFCNbottom}}, then just simply remove the request from the main RFCN page Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk

00:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree it needs to be closed ASAP. Can only look on, though ... - Alison^☺ 00:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• Due to length, the discussion has moved to a subpage: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names/Fenian Swine, with meta-discussion on a talk page.

  In my opinion, the comments have gone past merely uncivil to actually abusive. Another might see things differently. But the need for an uninvolved and impartial administrator is genuine; probably needs to be thick-skinned as well, given the remarks at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/User names/Fenian Swine#Closing. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 01:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Given what the discussion was degenerating into, I've gone ahead and closed it. There was no consensus to block the name, so it will be allowed. Whatever anyone wants to call me regarding it, I've been called far worse anyway. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

It appears that Seraphimblade took all of six minutes to sift through the discussion (and the talk page) decide which comments were valid as related to policy, and then make an informed decision. I think that this RFCU was closed rather inappropriately gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 02:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Well I would normally agree, but since the name predates the rule against "potentially" offensive names, then I would say the argument is much more open than the standard user name discussion. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 02:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I see what you mean, and it's certainly valid rationale. However, this doesn't explain why Seraphimblade didn't give the RFCU its due attention. It's not like he was under any obligation to close it, but he was certainly under an obligation not to close it if he didn't have more than six minutes to look at it gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 02:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I have taken a look at it (was following the discussion anyway) and I support Seraphimblade closure as no consensus. There you go, you now have two admin closers. Viridae^Talk 02:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

As another uninvolved admin, is see no consensus in this messy RFC/N and support the closure. And where are you getting this "six minutes" figure? John Reaves (talk) 02:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd made another edit six minutes before the closure. I had looked over it beforehand (actually since it appeared here), but it seems that means I actually read through the whole thing in six minutes. Actually, the "six minutes" was what it took me to look over the last of it, and decide letting it run any longer would be counterproductive. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

It is possible he is just fast, do you have any reason to think it was not given due attention other than the time it took? ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 02:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

True enough. As a fellow admin from Ireland (and a member of SF), I can say with certainty that the user name is unequivocally inappropriate for Wikipedia as stated in its username policy. I would've liked to see Seraphimblade put a bit more thought into his reasoning, but it's a bit silly to expect anything from someone who is here volunteering his time (like all of us). It's a bit disappointing that the username will remain in histories and such, but it's not a huge deal, by any means. Thanks to Viridae, HighInBC, and Mr. Reaves for taking time out to comment. Cheers gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 02:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• • • If it was 6 minutes, 60 minutes, or 6 days, someone on the Disallow side would have been unhappy with the result and would still be insisting that the name was a violation. TortureIsWrong 02:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
      • (ec)TIW, once again,
        Wikipedia is not a battleground. Drop it, please. RJASE1 ^Talk
        02:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
        • You mean like you've dropped our dispute over my own username? Really?TortureIsWrong 02:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Actually, I was watching the RFCN since the time it appeared here. Yes, I made other edits in the meantime, and just went back to check it periodically. I would certainly not take such a cursory look at such a contentious issue. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
        • Thanks for your time, Seraphimblade. But be careful - some member unhappy with your decision might file an RFCN against you for your combination religious/violent imagery username. If so, I'll be there to vote Allow.TortureIsWrong 02:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Seriously, drop it. Your snide remarks help nothing. John Reaves (talk) 03:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Seraphimblade expressed the thought that he might face some flaming over his decision. My comment wasn't "snide," in my mind it's a gesture of support. And as no one else thanked him, I thought I might. Call that snide if you will. Cheers. TortureIsWrong 03:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually I thanked him in the appropriate place - on his talk page. RJASE1 ^Talk 03:21, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

My apologies. I thought any place was appropriate for civility. But why is it appropriate for you to tell me to "drop it" here but not for me to thank someone? I guess all of this etiquette stuff is way too complicated for me. Cheers. TortureIsWrong 03:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I was wondering if someone who also uses Spanish Wikipedia could look into this for possible AfD on Spanish Wikipedia.

A similar article, which was posted in the English Wikipedia, was put through AfD and deleted per

There's no need.

WP:BJAODN. Angus McLellan (Talk)

19:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

More specifically, it's the hoax section of BJAODN. There's a separate page for funny articles/vandalisms that aren't hoaxes, per se. Natalie 20:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Looks a whole lot better than our BJAODN, and I can work on my es-2 by reading it, too. Luigi30 (Taλk) 12:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I created this page, as a simple category, to flag BLP concerns quickly: WP:BLPC. It seems like a good idea. - Denny 21:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

• Well, something like this already exists, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. — MichaelLinnear 00:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  • In addition, it seems like a bad idea. If there's any doubt about something in a BLP, it should go. If it can be sourced properly later, it can come back. This encourages people to defer rather than remove. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

My thinking was that in borderline cases (rather than clear cut) this can be used to flag an article for review. Not all BLP violations are particularly 'unsourced'. - Denny 01:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Looks like instruction creep and template creep to me. --kingboyk 12:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

This is a very bad idea. I would rather BLP violations didn't become something like {{

Steel

12:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

There IS merit in this. Unsourced negative material must simply be removed, period. We don't need to draw attention to such cases, just ruthlessly clean them out. However, often an article may have well-sourced information but be written entirely one-sidedly. We increasingly get complaints about hatchet jobs. OTRS ops have not the time to re-write articles and look for sources giving the other side of the story. In such cases, what is needed is precisely to draw the article to the attention of the wider community and ask people to do that as a priority. It will also often involve battling with some POV pusher who is jumping up and down when the well-cited but partially chosen material is removed by an angry subject. Perhaps we need a more specific category here: {{POV bio}}? - and give barnstars to people willing to take them quickly in hand.--

I really don't think this is a good idea. Tagging an article with a template can't bring immediate attention to an article; there's no way to watchlist a category or a template's transclusion list. I don't know how effective

WP:BLPN listing will, and if it's used instead of that listing, will almost certainly bring less. —Cryptic

13:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, all it takes is for one person to think 'I tagged it so I'll don't have to say anything on the noticeboard,' and we got a problem. El_C 13:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I take the point that's quite right. But what we could use is a way of people, and particularly the otrs team drawing articles to the community's attention than need urgent fixing. Maybe we need a team of specialist volunteers for this task. But when a POV BLP bio is identified, we need it fixed, and like yesterday.--

Doc

^g 15:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Docs reasoning is *exactly* what I was thinking but didn't particularly word well. It's not, "X is a effing pedophile," which likely could be a blatan BLP vio, but those 'sourced' messes where clever (or unwatched) people have quietly and effective POV torched something. - Denny 13:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Idea to use in conjunction with this, where you can't watchlist a category (and FWIW I have been watching the category since I made it): I saw Ryulong mention on ANI a couple days ago that he watches some IRC recent changes feed for mentions of himself or something, in case he's needed? Couldn't someone just make a super-quick script to do that to look for additions of {{blpc}} and then just pop them into the notice board as "x article was tagged for BLP at 00:00:00", like an auto-AIV for BLP? - Denny 13:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The above entitled arbitration case has now closed and the decision may be found at the link above. LSLM (talk · contribs) and Lukas19 (talk · contribs) are each banned from Wikipedia for one year. For the arbitration committee, David Mestel^(Talk) 13:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Per this

• That's perilously close to
  WP:BLP unquestionably applies to the individuals, whether it applies to their wrestling persona is a different matter. Guy (Help!
  ) 16:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • The reason I ask is that we treat biographies of living people much more rigorously than, say, an article about a superhero. Professional wrestlers fall somewhere in the middle, and the bulk of Wikipedia articles about them are plagued with unsupported, and in many cases unsupportable, material. Should these article be treated as any other "real life" biography, or are special considerations given to their largely fictitious personas?
    Burntsauce
    17:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The sourcing of the articles is very problematic. I went through just the 'A' and 'B' entries of the above category earlier this week and there were over 50 articles I added an unreferenced (or equivalent) template to, and not many of the rest were adequately sourced either. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 17:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• I think what's needed is a lead which is strictly factual, an in-universe warning on the body, and fact tags for anything not decently sourced, plus unreferenced tags for those which have no credible sourcing. Anything not fixed in a couple of weeks, we can start to purge. Hopefully people will get the hint. Source it or lose it... Guy (Help!) 18:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• My understanding of the matter is that the persona, along with the name, is generally owned by the specific company. The solution seems to be to say that |Wrestler Stage Name| is the stage persona of |Wrestler Actual Name|.KV(Talk) 00:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Well I went through the Cs, and 47 out of 50 articles need sources/verifying. From what I've seen, there's a popular misconception among people editing the wrestling articles that if you've just seen something on TV you can just add it to an article. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 19:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• My findings are exactly the same as One Night in Hackney's. In virtually every single case, they're either entirely without sources, or have had the {{
  Burntsauce
  20:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Based on past experience they will !vote with "Strong keep" en masse, then the same people will make no effort to source the articles in the months that follow the AfDs. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 20:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Example: "when a section dosen't have referances you tag it not delete it" —

20:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC) Everything that needs verification is verified or comes straight from the shows which are a primary source. DXRAW 23:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Let's take

original research, it's impossible to verify. WWE TV shows from the last 7 years aren't repeated, there's no online archive of them, so how can anyone verify the article? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃

23:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

You don't need an online archive. Take some old random book for example is it online? why would you need an achieve to be online. Most achieves are not online. DXRAW 00:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but books can be read in libraries or purchased. Please tell us where there is an offline archive for WWE TV shows? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 00:13, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

1241 East Main Street Stamford, Connecticut DXRAW 00:31, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

"Tag, don't delete" works once per article, and not at all if the article has been tagged for some time without being sourced. Naturally if people then source the article and it is kept, there is no further problem. Guy (Help!) 21:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

An archive that's not open to the general public. Thanks for clarifying that the TV shows are not sources that can be verified. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 00:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I answered your question. Next time you might want to phrase it differently next time. Why do you need to a primary source to be verified sounds like a bit of overkill to me. DXRAW 00:42, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Then the whole project of trying to collect verifiable material into a neutral encyclopedia is overkill. If we don't require information to be verifiable by actual readers, then Wikipedia is no different from the rest of the internet. The reason Wikipedia is different is that we bother to filter out the unverifiable stuff. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the ultimate problem here is that the articles at issue here are a matter of one article on two subjects - one a fictional character, one a person.

WP:BLP clearly applies to one and not the other. What needs to happen is the separation of the two personae within the article, with information about the person subject to BLP, information about the character subject to the usual level of ATT, and information not identifiably about either of the two rewritten or removed. Chris cheese whine

00:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I feel that they are separate enough at the moment. DXRAW 00:42, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

(0utdent) Be aware that JB196, one of the site's long term vandals and most prolific sockpuppeteers, concentrates on frivolous drives to delete articles in professional wrestling. Durova^Charge! 00:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

JB196 is also still engaged in self-advertising, see for example the history of this (and there's several similar ones) article, he's quite persistent. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 00:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Who is going to maintain these articles except people who are interested in professional wrestling? It is unlikely that they will ever be brought to and held to encyclopedic standards. I think we need to acknowledge that if we have these articles, then these articles in their current form is exactly what we are going to have. Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

That's not something we can acknowledge, since that would make the articles deletable under "no potential". Some of the cleanup tags suggest "This article needs a little work", whereas some effectively say "This article is not in a fit state for Wikipedia". It has long been my opinion that in the latter case, anyone who wants such an article kept at AfD is duty-bound to contribute to the improvement. Chris cheese whine 01:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I just want to make certain the other sysops are aware of possible background at this topic: JB196's modus operandi is to breed a large sockfarm, go on a notability/verifiability tagging spree of non-North American professional wrestling topics (often targeting older biographies from the pre-internet period), then initiate mass deletion nominations. Meanwhile he uses other socks to vandalize the non-North American professional wrestling articles that do have citations, deleting the references and then tag teaming with his other socks to pin (previously) verified but vandalized pages onto the deletion mat if the vandalism doesn't get reverted fast enough. He does this faster than a team of people could possibly add citations from vintage magazines and he's been at this game for a year. He just happens to think the only pro wrestling that matters happens in the United States and Canada, and he wants to manipulate the world's most popular reference site to reflect his bias. He got away with that for a long time too because (heck let's face it) professional wrestling doesn't get a whole lot of respect, but the more one thinks about it the more pernicious and exploitable that whole methodology looks. So to summarize, it's a wise idea to view all tagged articles on this subject as very possibly tagged in bad faith by a banned user (checkuser requests have confirmed well over 100 sockpuppets). Durova^Charge! 02:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

He has a

long term abuse report. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃

02:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

That is not an excuse to say that articles that can only ever make it a short way up the quality scale are acceptable. Every now and then the vandals

do something right. Chris cheese whine

02:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

This is taking the thread in an unhelpful direction, one does not need to possess a doctorate in rocket science to determine whether or not something is appropriately tagged as {{

Burntsauce

21:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Why is this interesting? If we are making unsourced, or poorly sourced claims about living people, it needs to be cleaned up. It can be cleaned up through careful editing, which is going to have the effect of removing any verifiability tags, or it can be removed by deletion, if the article doesn't fit our inclusion criteria, or if we cannot find enough reliable sources to write a proper one. Frankly, we should be a lot more concerned about unsourced claims about living people than we should about someone frivolously using {{

verify}} on a scrupulously-sourced, neutral, encylopedic article? Jkelly

02:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

That is precisely the sort of thinking this vandal exploits. I had the same incredulous reaction at first until I looked into the matter in depth. Here's a rather clever vandal who's found a chink in our wikiarmor. DurovaCharge! 02:42, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to comment on the above discussion, but instead answer the question posed in the title: yes, WP:BLP does definitely apply to proffesional wrestlers. --Iamunknown 03:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Apropos of nothing in particular, half of what JB196 did/does needs doing, as many of the wrestler articles are garbage, and deleting them - particularly those of minor backyard wrestlers - loses nothing particularly useful (

(not Proto ►)

This was archived over the weekend, but I feel this should be discussed further. First, I take issue with someone above claiming the removal of

Burntsauce

20:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge,

WP:RS and non-notability to degrade the site's database. Please review the long term vandalism report linked above and take this to my user talk page if you're still confused. This matter was investigated thoroughly and settled months ago. Durova^Charge!

21:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm not interested in what some troll was doing, I'm asking for advice on how to best resolve the existing

Burntsauce

21:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

American wrestlers are among the few pro wrestling subtopics this vandal doesn't target, so by all means apply

WP:BLP ruthlessly. Durova^Charge!

21:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I've been a huge fan of pro-wrestling all my life but have largely avoided wrestling articles here for a couple of reasons... First, most wrestling articles are high traffic articles frequently targeted by vandals and trolls. Most good faith edits are piss-poorly formatted and written, and in most cases are just hit-and-run IPs contributing their own fannish garbage with no intent of helping the Project. The pro-wrestling articles here provide excellent evidence of how a free-for-all wiki system can fail so miserably. The bad contributions are so god-awful in quality and so high in volume that anyone willing to maintain the pro-wrestling articles would spend all their time reverting crap, the 300 against the Persian hordes. And every time, the 300 loose.

The second huge issue, as pointed out above, is that of kayfabe and biographies. I have long felt that

Mr. McMahon is a character, Vince McMahon

is the executive of a multi-billion dollar, multi-national, multi-media and sports entertainment company.

The biggest step we can take as a project in the war to build a quality encyclopedia is to split every single wrestling bio into characters and people.

Lillian Ellison the woman, and The Fabulous Moolah

the character.

Professional wrestling is a genuine performing art with a rich and prestigious history and a global audience of scores of millions of people. Wikipedia has long proven that it can have a zillion articles, but the jury is till out on the quality and reliability issue, and always will be for pro-wrestling articles unless some drastic steps are taken. Due to the nature of kayfabe and the notoriously unreliable nature of pro-wrestling "news" reporting, the only way to satisfy BLP while still describing story lines is for a massive split. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Pro wrestlers are the bane of our life over on Wikiquote where we have been spammed with multiple articles containing unsourced and untraceable inane quotes (along the lines of "I'm going to get you" in millions of variations). Wikiquote's rules on speedy deletion being greatly restricted, they are all being brought before Votes for deletion and I think I'm right in saying that none, nada, nil, zilch have survived. What should Wikipedia do? I think hold to exactly the same standards as other articles, apply WP:BLP rigorously, and watch as the majority of the articles dwindle away to nothingness. No, pro wrestlers do not get excepted from other policies. Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 11:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I concur with the general theme of this discussion. Of course, policies and guidelines such as [WP:BLP]],

WP:ATT apply fully to wrestling articles. Sandstein

19:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I wholly agree - it is essential to separate fictional characters from the real people that play them, and the difficulty it seems some wrestling fans have in keeping the two separate only emphasizes the need for Wikipedia to do a better job of it. I believe that keeping an article on the character and an article on the wrestler/actor playing the part is near essential in keeping that division. After all, we certainly don't put the biography of a screen actor into the article of one of the characters we've played (although we certainly do make references between screen character and real-life person as necessary). Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I would just like to note that there are also articles related to wrestlers where there is nothing verifiable known about the real life actor, and as such the only topic that can be reliably written about is the character they play. Also, if the only notable thing an actor has done is to appear as a particular wrestling character, then in most cases I would say the actor doesn't have enough independent notablity to justify an article. Dragons flight 20:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

BLP does not apply to any article!

Or, now that I've got your attention, I should rather say BLP applies to all articles. Its applicability, that is, does not in any way shape or form depend on which article. There is absolutely no rule that says "If the (a?) subject of the article is a living person, stricter rules about verifiability, no 3RR, etc, apply" (and if it's not, they don't apply?) Controversial unsourced claims about a living person in any article must be removed, and unsourced claims not about a living person in any article may be tagged instead. --Random832 15:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with removing original research by wrestling fans based on interpretation of primary sources. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 17:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

But that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about applying a different standard to statements about wrestling characters than about, say, movie characters, because they happen to share an article with their actor, so we can hide behind supposed "BLP concerns" (therefore 3RR doesn't apply, etc) - this is a principle which would have far-reaching consequences - you're basically saying that BLP is applicable by article rather than by topic, so it's not a BLP violation if i slander someone on my userpage, or in some other article that doesn't have their name on the title. --Random832 18:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I fully agree, as in fact it was me that suggested this change was made to {{Uw-biog1}}. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 18:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

So taking the general approach that seems to be in favor here and apply it to say the article on Tom Hanks right?I would be fully justified in removing the following sections from that article

• The ”Early Life” section except for the first couple of paragraphs with sources on his kids
• The first section of ”Career” will TOTALLY have to go, unsourced and it’s all about his TV apperances without sources so that’s up for deletion.
• ”Period of hits and misses”?? Totally original research, I mean where are the sources that says what’s a hit and what isn’t
• ”Progression into dramatic roles” it has a quote by Tom Hanks that’s not sourced, if there isn’t a verifiable source he did not say it.
• "Forrst Gump" section, unattributed quote – just says ”Vanity Fair”, that’s a bit general. And it claims that Hanks won an Academy Award. Where is the source? The Award show you say? Sorry didn’t see it, it’s not available in stores and not on repeat so clearly by the strict rules that seem to be applauded here it’s got to go along with all other Oscar comments, not a single source in the bunch.
• Trivia Section? Blanked for lack of sources

I also see no sources on how much money the movies make, they’re mentioned all over in the text but they fail to include a reference every time a figure is mentioned except for one time at the very end.

If you think I’m being overly dramatic then I haven’t applied any logic or reasoning other than what’s been presented here and I’d say I’m in accordance with

WP:BLP in blanking out major parts of the Tom Hanks article. MPJ-DK

14:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Let me add that the

WP:BLP. It is a policy with a specific content, not a machete someone should indiscriminantly hack and slash with when there are little to no sources. MPJ-DK

14:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Enquiry re user's indefinite blocking as a sockpuppet

I've been contacted by a user who's found themselves indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet. The checkuser report is here. None of the three third-party responses made there seems to support a ban; instead, there is a query, a decline and an inconclusive. I'd appreciate any advice as to whether or not this indefinite block is unwarranted. Thanks, David Kernow (talk) 00:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I've not looked at the edits, but if someone familiar with the contributions notices similarities with the edits, the checkuser evidence shows they're all coming from the same IP address, so even an inconclusive CU report can make a suspected case stronger as it can show whether the accounts are editing from the same location at the same time etc. -- Nick ^t 00:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your response, Nick. I think the crucial distinction in this case might be the "at the same time" requirement. The user looks to've had their first account blocked for three months at the end of September last year, at which point they began editing under a second account and did not return to their first account once its three-month block had expired (at the end of December). So I'm not sure whether their current (second) account warrants the indefinite block it's just received...?  Regards, David (talk) 04:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

This is not really a sockpuppet case.

Thatcher131

15:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Does he? That seems diametrically opposed to the concept of blocks being preventative, not punitive. I'm operating under the assumption that he has not maintained whatever activity got his first account blocked in the first place, since no one has made the assertion that he has. If that's the case, I see no reason to instate a block... —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 15:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

See

Thatcher131

15:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Thatcher131 and Bbatsell, for your input. I'm wondering, however, if it's unduly harsh to (re-)enforce a three-month block that originally expired at the end of December on an account that hasn't been used since then (User:Indrancroos); i.e. that anything amounting to evasion/sockpuppetry/etc needed to be found before then, otherwise the user involved has succeded in editing acceptably (whether under a new account or anon IP)...?  The user has told me that, block or no block, they no longer intended (or intend) to edit as User:Indrancroos, but at present it's their newer account, User:Wiki Raja, that's indefinitely blocked, not User:Indrancroos. Would it be unreasonable to block User:Indrancroos indefinitely and reinstate User:Wiki Raja on the above grounds...?  Advice appreciated, David (talk) 10:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Ban trend

March 2007

After a few hours of work and referencing, I have come up with some data on banning trends.

A tool used against persistently disruptive editors and egregious violators alike since June 10 2002, it was sporadically used for the first 3 years and 3 months of its existence before picking up momentum beginning around November 2005. The establishment of a near-dedicated area of discussion for bans, the community sanction noticeboard, only further fed this trend, reaching an unprecedented 11 indefinite bans imposed in March 2007 alone, or about 1 ban every 2.819 days. A chart showing the trend of indefinite bans imposed by Jimbo Wales, ArbCom, and the community is shown at the right.

Whether this trend is considered a good thing or a bad thing is up for debate. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 21:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I venture to guess that over time the community has realized the increasing value of weeding out the problematic elements (editors) towards overall project cohesion and has gotten better and better at spotting when such elements make themselves evident. 11 vs. ~ 1000 active editors = 0.1 % over a month strikes me as low. (→Netscott) 21:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

How does this trend compare to the increase in editing, as measured in terms of number of active editors, number of edits, or any other way of measuring you can come up with? --Carnildo 21:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the absolute number of bans per month is of little interest since we now have far more active editors per month than we did in 2002. It may well be that editors are now less likely than ever to be banned despite the fact that there are more bans than there were. The really useful number is the percentage of active editors banned per month. This would show whether the chances of an editor being banned had risen or fallen since 2002. Time for a recalculation. -- Derek Ross | Talk 21:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Higher profile + more editors + vastly more articles = more bans. Not a surprise. Guy (Help!) 22:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

File:Ban vs editing.png

Added comparison to editing trend (I have incomplete statistics on editing, but this is only for a generalization). —²¹⁰physicq (c) 22:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

How are you identifying bans? Obviously it is not identical to an indef block (which are far more common), but I didn't think there was an centralized record keeping of bans. Dragons flight 01:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

There actually is. Please see

WP:BANNED. —²¹⁰physicq (c

) 01:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

So, is anyone being banned who should not be? If not, then I'm not concerned about the number. — coelacan — 04:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I went and read through the BANNED category, and they are all legit IMO. What is interesting is just how de jure the process is, but de facto the banned users just engage in a sock chase. Food for thought. Teke 04:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Banning only serves as the "green light" to revert all edits made by a user under any disguise. It's not a stop sign towards the banned user (well, it's supposed to be, but experience tells us this practically isn't the case). —²¹⁰physicq (c) 04:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Quite right. But the ban isn't so much a technical matter as a way of demonstrating there is community consensus to green-light certain defensive behavior that would not otherwise be allowed: reverting the person's edits outright (banned users cannot edit, but nicely behaved socks of indef blocked users sometimes are given this leeway), taking their socks to checkuser if necessary (checkusers ask to see proof of a ban), blocking their socks even if they're "behaving" (users are permitted to return from indef blocks if they completely cease the behavior that got them blocked, but we use bans when they've demonstrated they have no intent to cease). So yeah, they still sock, but the ban green-lights some things we wouldn't otherwise do. It's a formalized way of saying AGF has been reasonably exhausted. — coelacan — 04:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

It's not only just reasonably, but oftentimes completely in most cases. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 04:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Certainly, certainly. If it comes down to a bannation I doubt it would ever resolve peacefully, with no quells or troubles. Personally I think more users could be technically, by policy, easily banned. I agree that it's a general "We're fed up" and it does allow for unilateral action. As previous opinions by Arbitrators says, these blocks for disruption are expected of administrators, as well as the blocking policy. In other words, the banning policy is its own force, but if we're just doing our job than there are many users that are effectively banned/indef blocked. It's a vague idea in my mind that I'm trying to express, so I hope everyone understands. Teke 05:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The consensus that drove the Wikipedia:Disruptive editing guideline was that a significant proportion of editors who deserved banning weren't getting banned and were instead driving good editors out of the project. Although the arbitration process has a valuable place in Wikipedia, sometimes arbitration devolved into a huge waste of everybody's time. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Gundagai editors is a prime example especially in its page histories. One of the reasons I cowrote that guideline and proposed WP:CN is because, as a practical matter, ArbCom already operates pretty much at capacity. Jimbo used to do all the banning himself. By early 2004 that was too much for one person and ArbCom got started, but the site has grown tremendously in the three years since then. Not only is Wikipedia larger in absolute terms, but its emergence as a dominant site on the Internet now makes it a target for commercial exploitation as well as good ol' ideological exploitation. Unfortunately, many PR consultants these days are advising their clients to violate site policies. Journalists are setting and recommending the wrong examples. In my opinion it's absolutely necessary for the community to shoulder a good deal of the banning responsibilities and to do so in a venue where cases get archived for easy reference. Of course many banned editors want to tiptoe back on sockpuppets, but we've set things up so that it's a lot more work for them to do that than for us play whack-a-mole: indef block the sock, revert the sock's edits, and protect a few pages. Eventually they get tired of the game. Durova^Charge! 14:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Policy re. use of Wikipedia shortcuts?

Hi all. Just a quick question.

I've just observed an editor make their own [[WP:xxx]] shortcut to redirect to a sort of personal WikiProject in their own userspace. They then referred to the shortcut in a comment to another editor to justify their editing of some of that editor's userspace stuff; "per WP:nnn ..., thus I ...". This seems a little misleading to me, and I'm concerned. Looking at

WP:CUTS, I don't see anything specific which should disallow that, although it is highly unorthodox. What do you think? - Alison^☺

03:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:TOKU used to redirect to my userspace when the WikiProject was still in its developmental stages. I don't see anything wrong with it, so long as it does get moved into the Wikipedia space.—Ryūlóng (竜龍

) 04:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Gracenotes has compiled a list of WP: shortcuts to userspace

here. Like Ryulong, I don't see a problem with it as long as it's not something that shouldn't be associated with the Wikipedia namespace (however subjective that is). If that's the case, a quick RfD would probably take care of it, methinks. —bbatsell ¿? ✍

04:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Now here's the second question. What if the target page is using a title override, to remove the "User:XXX/subpage/" bit, leaving only "WikiProject:YYY"? — coelacan — 04:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• That would be misleading, having a page imply greater officiality than it does, and should be changed. >Radiant< 11:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Looks like the practise is one of those grey areas but is allowable. Note that the issue has now been referred to by someone else on

WP:ANI [17]. Thanks again - Alison^☺

04:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• When in doubt, you can put the redirect on
  WP:RFD. I think that in general WP: should redirect to Wikipedia: namespace, but it's not that big a deal. I suppose it could be abused, hence the RFD option. >Radiant<
  11:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, though I would not have a problem with a WP: shortcut redirecting to a meta or mediawiki.org page. User space seems kind of slimy. —

fgs

13:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Assistance needed to fix move issue

Resolved

On March 7 user

EFD (EFunds Corporation), then likely felt this was a mistake so copied the contents of the second page back to the first and continued editing the first. In other words, this effectively moved the edit history of the first article to the newly created article. The second article hasn't had a substantial edit since then. I believe that the first article has the correct title, so I would propose that the edit history prior to March 7 be moved back to "eFunds" and "EFunds" be made a redirect or be deleted. Ciotog

06:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

See

Wikipedia:How to fix cut and paste moves Night Gyr (talk/Oy

) 09:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Cut and paste move repaired. Viridae^Talk 11:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Page move while protected?

Wikipedia:Polling was moved to Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion by User:JzG while it was in a protected state. This after being summoned to the content dispute by one of the disputing parties. Wikipedia:Protection policy is clear about not doing that. (→Netscott

) 14:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Or to put it another way, Netscott moved the page without prior discussion, got it protected through edit warring, and is now complaining that the undiscussed move has been reverted by an uninvolved party. Guy (Help!) 14:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• (via edit conflict) Guy's move seems entirely correct, as the page was moved - by you - with only a "
  WP:RPP made at the old title. If anyone's actions here are indefensible, it is your own. —Cryptic
  14:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• When you are summoned by one of the disputing parties you are no long "uninvolved" JzG you should know better. The RFPP was done at 8:15 (four hours before the page was protected) I did not coordinate it's protection. (→Netscott) 14:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• The move was done unilaterally, with minimal discussion and no agreement. The previous page name was a compromise reached after much discussion by many editors. Since the page move borders on
  WP:POINT it seems perfectly appropriate for an admin to reverse, protected or not. --Minderbinder
  14:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

What I see is that the page was called "Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion" for quite a while, then Netscott requested protection, moved this to Wikipedia:Polling with the reasoning of

WP:BRD and since the protection circimvented the continuation of that, Guy used his mop to move on to the revert stage and now it looks like there is discussion. I'd say the process worked.--Isotope23

14:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

As an essay

WP:BRD is never going to trump protection policy. Other than that Isotope your analysis is not too bad. Again, JzG misused the mop here. (→Netscott

) 14:25, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I think Isotope was saying that your move was based on

WP:BRD, not Guy's. Isotope can correct me if I erred in my reading of this. --Ali'i

14:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Considering that you (Netscott) were directly quoting

WP:POINT action), one which Radiant! often does, as well : ) - jc37

14:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

It was entirely a bold action as there is now talk about merging

WP:ATT guidelines for polling and PNSD would occupy the same page and have shortcuts to their corresponding sections. All of this is no doubt stemming from Wikipedia:Attribution/Poll. (→Netscott

) 14:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any mis-action on Guy's part. I disagree that being called in by an involved party makes you involved. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

RE:

Wikipedia:Polling for the next several days/weeks while this discussion happens this isn't going to make or break the 'pedia. We don't have to blindly follow policy just because it is written.--Isotope23

14:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

This entire discussion seems to be a waste of time that could be more profitably spent discussing the actual guideline. Guy (Help!) 15:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Darwinek

This arbitration case has closed and the final decision is available at the link above. Darwinek's administrative privileges are revoked. He may reapply at any time via the usual means (RfA) or by appeal to the Arbitration Committee. Darwinek is placed on standard civility parole for one year. This notice is given by a Clerk on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad 15:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The future of

WP:RFCN

proposals

There have been proposals put forward at

Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/User names#Possible restructure as to how RFCN should be used in the future. I have also created User:Ryanpostlethwaite/AIV/U which would take over from RFCN and create a new alert board, soley for usernames, which would run the same way as AIV and be assissted by the AIV helperbot, users could post their concerns, admins could take a look, block if required or remove if it was not against policy, all other debates on usernames could take place at WP:AN. Please take a close look at all proposals, and feel free to make suggestions on how username problems can be addressed in the future Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk

16:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

New system for

WP:RFCN

Just to let everyone know, there's a new procedure for

WP:RFCN

new RFCN procedure, it basically means that it's going to be run like AfD, where each username has it's own page, and all that is listed on the main page is a list of templates directing to the specific discussion page, new archival templates are then used to properly close the discussion. this will hopefully allow the closing admin to better justify themselve, and give a firm policy reason for their action, hopefully this will stop many of the currect current bureaucratic actions there. I'd suggest having a quick look at the RFCN page just to check on the new way it work. For clarification, here are the new templates

• {{RFCNdiscussion}} - this template is automatically added onto the specific discussion page when someone starts a new RFCN. Please be aware of the hidden comments.
• {{Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names/USERNAME}} - this template is to be used to put the specific RFCN page onto the main page, replace USERNAME with the username that is being discussed. This should be removed by the closer on archiving thediscussion.
• {{
  RFCNtop
  }} - this is the archive template which is put on the top of the relavent discussion page by the closer. The format should be {{subst:RFCNtop}} '''result''' (optional statement on reasons for closing) ~~~~. Please note, that only admins who have not commented on the username should close the discussion.
• {{
  RFCNbottom
  }} - this is the archive template which is put on the bottom of the relavent discussion page by the closer. The format should be {{subst:RFCNbottom}}.
• I've also changed the main template for the page to instruct on thenew system; {{RFCUsername}}. Please check the diffs to see whats changed.
• {{RFCNblocked|Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names/USERNAME}}. This template can be used on the blocked users talk page to explain the block and give a direct link to the discussion. USERNAME should be replaced with the name of the blocked user.

If there's any problems you can see with it, let me know, or leave a note on

WT:RFCN Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk

07:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• I strongly object to running
  WP:AFD. All those !votes of "allow and deny" are really inappropriate. The page used to be a warning board for dodgy usernames, and at any rate the username policy is pretty clear cut on that. >Radiant<
  09:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah... the problem is unnecessary process. What is so bad about the current way these are handled? If a discussion gets too long to fit on a page, or too unruly to handle (even with refactoring), then it can get moved (as in the recent Fenian Swine situation). Why introduce all kinds of formal templates/tranclusions/subpages... etc.? This seems like a tremendously bad idea to give us more work. Mahalo. --Ali'i 12:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Agree it seems to be taking on a life of it's own, really have people nothing better to do than read through the new user creation log looking for names which can be lawyered over? --pgk 13:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:RFCN should go back to what it was a year ago, not to even mention the latest. El_C

13:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more, especially with pgk's point; unfortunately there's a small group of editors who haunt the page, trying to see how user names can be shown to conflict with policy, often offering bizarre arguments (a recent one: "TortureIsWrong" shouldn't be allowed because it's potentially offensive to BDSM-devotees(!); a current case is User:Fact verification — the claim is that newbies might be fooled into thinking he's an official...). given that RFCN has reached this stage, though, Ryanpostlethwaite's aproach helps to keep things tidy. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 13:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Mel, your TortureIsWrong example was a dumb April Fool's comment that was quickly struck out - not really a typical example. RJASE1 ^Talk 13:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

It was certainly struck out, but there was no sign at the time that it hasd been meant as an April Fool. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 14:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Mel, the primary argument against

WP:U#Violence that says "Usernames that promote or refer to violent real-world actions" are not allowed. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me}

) 13:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

That argument will do nicely to illustrate my point, I suppose; less extreme, but still a desparate stretch to apply policy to a name that is clearly unobjectionable. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 14:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC).

• I've changed the page to a much simpler version. Please take a look at it. Bureaucratic subcultures are not always a pretty sight. >Radiant< 13:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

While the most recent change in system was discussed and agreed upon, your rather major change was not Radiant, I have reverted it in the spirit of

WP:BRD. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me}

) 13:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I see no effect on how we will discuss with the new method. It will make more concrete archives, and allow for better closers statements. As for how difficult it is now, well the people who actually participate in RFCN think it is a great idea. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 13:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The new system is the same way that other Rfc's are run as well, as HighInBC said, it gives concrete archives of discussions instead of just deleting it and archiving a diff. But unlike as you seam to suggest Radiant, the username policy isn't set in stone, and it is open to interpretation, if it wasn't, be could software block all usernames Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 13:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

If it was an archival problem, then why not just fix the archival system, rather than drastically increase the amount of work required to seek other opinions on a person's username??? Wouldn't that make a lot more sense? --Ali'i 14:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

It is not just an archival problem, there is a real need for a page that the closer can leave an explanation on, and a dedicated talk page to discuss the name/closing. What is more, it is not that hard, the people who actually participate in RFCN thought it was a great idea, check out

WT:RFCN. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me}

) 14:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

How often does a discussion need an explanation of why it was closed whichever way it was closed, and how often do people dispute the closing (as they would on these new "dedicated talk pages")? As I said above... certain long discussions can get a subpage, not all need them. As to the fact that "people who actually participate in RFCN thought it was a great idea", that just seems to discourage casual users who stumble across a name as I recently did. It is more work. Yesterday, I simply went to the RFCN page, and clicked the tab to create a new section, and asked for other opinions, dropped a note on the user's page, and was done. If I had stumbled across the name today, I would look at the process involved of creating new pages/transcluding them, etc. and said "fuck it", and ignored the problem. (On a side note, if a new request takes starting a new page, aren't we disallowing anons to ask for comments?) --Ali'i 14:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the new page hasn't resulted in any change to the process, but simply makes it more tidy and easily accessable. The process is no more diffciult than before, and probably should be easier. Coemgenus 14:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Folks, this is not an admin issue, so the correct place to discuss this would be at

WT:RFCN where there is already a near unanimous consensus that this change is a good change. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me}

) 14:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I confess that I'm disturbed by this proliferation of bureaucracy and find it counterproductive. Is this great clanking mass effective? Have a flood of marginally-possibly-think-of-the-children offensive usernames been blocked? Mackensen (talk) 14:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, if there's a negative trend lately, it's probably promotional business/trademark usernames. RJASE1 ^Talk 14:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and also several have gone through that should not have. Read through the

WT:RFCN for details. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me}

) 14:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

A good example is

WP:BITEing. >Radiant<

15:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there has been a certain amount of discussion about admins blocking names which is considered biting and leter RFCN later "overturns". To me an admin blocking (although undersiable if being overzealous), deals with the issue quickly and lets the user move on. If I were a new user I'd probably be far more put off by being dragged into some bureaucractic process immediately whilst people argue the letter of the law. --pgk 15:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Per the current process, a new user isn't "dragged into the process" without a discussion concerning their username first (via the 'UsernameConcern' template on their talk page, or equivalent.). RJASE1 ^Talk 15:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

In the past that frequently hasn't been used (not sure about the current status I'll admit), I can't see it as much different in effect though, within a short time of creation names clearly are being taken through that process. --pgk 15:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

You're right, some folks new to the process sometimes don't give the user enough time to change their name (or explain the reasons for it) - or sometimes we just screw up. I haven't been perfect about this in the past, either - it's been a learning process. Usernames should only come to RFCN quickly if there's reasonably clear policy violation (but maybe not quite clear enough for

WP:AIV). Of course people's opinions on "clear policy violation" will vary, as recent discussions have shown. RJASE1 ^Talk

16:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

"HighInBC" sounds like another stonerism but I will agree with Radiant here. This is no point in wasting time arguing about the validity of usernames which have not made any edits, such as this case, where we have no way of knowing whether the user is a troll or whether he registered that name so he could disrupt marijuana related articles. It could be that that was User:Pothead12345's original plan and he forgot the password (for whatever... reason). At the very least I suggest limiting

WP:RFCN to discussions of users which have actually made useful edits. — CharlotteWebb

15:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what stonerism has to do with username policy. Also, discussing a name then allowing it is not biting. The suggestion that usernames in violation of policy should be allowed if they have not made edits should go at

WT:U. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me}

) 16:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I never made that suggestion. However, I did say that lengthy discussion of the usernames of unused accounts is a complete waste of time. If it's offensive, block it. If they are actually interested in helping the project, they'll be back under a more suitable username, and nobody will know who they were previously. This would be the least painful solution for everyone involved. — CharlotteWebb 17:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I think Radiant's change of RFCN was made out of a misunderstanding of present procedure regarding username discussion. The usernames that Radiant is thinking of, that are clearly inappropriate, should be handled by

WP:AIV, which is the equivalent of Radiant's change. RFCN is designed to be expressly for usernames that are borderline and require discussion to determine whether or not they comply with our username policies. Is RFCN sometimes inappropriately used? Of course it is, just like every other noticeboard or process on Wikipedia. That's not a good reason to oppose it entirely or engage in reckless bold editing without any sort of discussion on the relevant talk page. —bbatsell ¿? ✍

18:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I am >< close to mfd'ing the whole thing. Not only a waste of time, but users seem to get the idea that it's a democratic process (let alone the fact that common sense went out the window a long time ago). Patstuart^talk·edits 18:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I was actually kind of thinking the same thing. If it's an obvious violation, any admin should be able to take care of it. It is much like Wikipedia:Quickpolls as I have heard of it. Kind of the same way the "Community sanction board" or whatever its name is. However, there are legitimate times when further comments (NOT straight votes) would be required, which is why I haven't MfD'd it. --Ali'i 18:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

(unindented) The new policy is already being implemented, and is very successful, no need to debate about its merit.

Wooyi

18:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

^{[citation needed]} Debate is fine. And processes can change (as evidenced over the past 2 days at RFCN), so nothing is final. --Ali'i 18:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

These subpages are a waste of time and effort. —Centrx→talk • 21:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I have now Mfd's this page, please raise all concerns their Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 23:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh good, I was considering doing it myself. Viridae^Talk 00:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Running with all those subpages seems like a waste. I wouldn't mind seeing it run with logpages though, ala tfd. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:49, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Category:Cub Wikipedians

In the past two days, I have seen some strange activity regarding

WP:CFD

:

• The category was nominated for deletion on 4 Apr 2007 by User:PatPeter (see the discussion here).
• Several people accused User:PatPeter of emtying the category himself.
• The discussion was closed by User:WJBscribe on 5 Apr 2007.
• User:PatPeter nominated the category for deletion a second time on 5 Apr 2007 (see the discussion here).

I myself have no viewpoints regarding this category. However, given these series of events, this looks like an uncivil (and possibly disruptive) debate, and it looks like it needs administrative intervention. Could a neutral administrator please intervene in this argument before it becomes too disruptive? Thank you, Dr. Submillimeter 18:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I second this request for an uninvolved administrator to evaluate this. — coelacan — 18:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Ip trolling to harass editors

One person appears to be using open proxies to harass various editors on wikipedia. Seen here, [18], here [19], here[20] and here [21], and every time one particular Ip is blocked a new ip appears and disrupts again, the pages have been protected now but I would like various admin talk pages to be kept an eye on for this particular kind of vandalism. Retiono Virginian 18:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

• 80.43.122.183 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (I think this is one of them, seeing as they just replaced my talkpage with 'AKA DA AK 47', probably because I blocked 2 of the IPs. Hilarious stuff. – Riana ^ऋ 19:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC))

If these are open proxies, somebody can just indefblock them all. They need to be confirmed, though, and I suck at that kind of stuff. The IPs in question are replacing talk pages with "WANKER!" with five or six <big> tags on them. El C just semi-protected Jimbo's talk page, too. PTO 18:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

(ec)This has necesitated sprotection of

User talk:Doc glasgow, User talk:Wiki alf, User talk:The JPS, and my own talk page. I know less than zero about open proxies or how to identify them, which is why I haven't indef blocked them. If someone with more technological ability could talk a look, that would kick ass. Natalie

18:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Since most of the pages the anon hit have been semiprotected for now, the urgency's reduced, but it would be good if someone could confirm whether they're open. – Riana ^ऋ 18:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The protections and blocks are all only for 24 hours, I think, so their is still some need of timeliness. Natalie 18:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

A complete whois of the IPs shows that the IP range that these IPs are contained in is probably dynamic, but it is probably not an open proxy or zombie. PTO 18:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Right, these are Energis UK DSL allocations. I've never heard of Energis, but I'd suspect that these are dynamic IP's and blocking them for longer than 15 minutes won't do much good. Best bet it to monitor the articles when semi drops off and see if the vandalism continues.--Isotope23 19:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Dang. This would be so much easier if it was an open proxy. Natalie 20:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

They started yesterday going after my talk page. 84.71.112.46 was the first. Then 84.67.58.164, 84.68.9.143, and so on. By the time 84.64.252.250 appeared, he had started harassing Yamla. Apparently, he has spread his campaign even wider. IrishGuy ^talk 20:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Update: A new IP has appeared and began attacks on User:Wiki alf's userpage. The same addition of "Wanker" in large text. This must stop. Retiono Virginian 20:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• User:81.79.160.76

• (ec) Also 81.79.160.76 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - blocked now - Alison^☺ 20:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

If it starts being a real problem, try an IP Checkuser request. We've rangeblocked ISP's before where the collateral damage is minimal compared to the level of disruption the individual is fostering with this "vandalize, log, vandalize, log, vandalize" tripe.--Isotope23 20:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• 86.147.68.69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) just hit this page. Blocked - Alison^☺ 20:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

There appears to be no pattern to the IP vandalism (I.E., not a good way to do a range block). -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

81.77.108.243 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)- also involved. Retiono Virginian 20:18, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

90.240.245.205 just hit my talk page again. I blocked him. IrishGuy ^talk 20:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that blocking really doesn't help, and protecting pages has just caused them to move on to other pages. Is it time to contact the ISP? Natalie 20:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Definitely. IrishGuy ^talk 20:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• User: 84.71.47.25 - THe next in line. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

This edit by the IP is telling - I'd say that indicates that they are very deliberately trying to get around the various anti-vandalism rules and processes we use. Natalie 20:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Unblock denied for obvious reasons. He certainly knows what he's doing, though. Contact the ISP, please, anything to get rid of this muppet. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 20:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

IP comment reverted: we don't cut deals with trolls and vandals. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 20:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Where's that going to stop? - Alison^☺ 20:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree, you beat me to the revert. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd almost guarantee this is an indef blocked or banned editor who Irishguy et al have run across before.--Isotope23 20:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Most likely. As he seems particularly pissed at me...my bad, guys. IrishGuy ^talk 20:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Errm, nope! Their bad, actually. It's hardly your fault they're being ... well, a wanker - Alison^☺ 20:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Dont see how its yoir bad! -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Not your bad: see Number 26 of this and Number 12 of this. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 20:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I've had angry vandals repeatedly target me, but I never expected a vandal to just go on a spree like this one is doing. I'm just saying...if I am responsible for pissing this guy off, I apologize to everyone who is inconvenienced by him. IrishGuy ^talk 20:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

OK...if it is time to contact his ISP, which one do we contact? He appears to be using two completely different ISPs. One in Leeds, United Kingdom the other in Muenchen, Germany. IrishGuy ^talk 20:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Check out the bottom of the German one where it says "Energis UK". The German company apparently bought out Energis (the Leeds one) fairly recently... I'd start with reporting it to Engergis UK.--Isotope23 20:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

You may have some meatpuppets involved as well - 80.43.122.183 is registered to Tiscali/as9105.com, for instance. Even if all the IP's belong to various subsidiaries of Cable & Wireless (which bought Energia), that is a surprising range of IPs to be getting from disconnect/reconnect. - Quietvoice 20:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

90.242.17.232 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) it continues... Natalie 21:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

81.158.32.148 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) as well. Natalie 21:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Yep. After a brief lull he seems to have started back up again on Yamla's talk page. IrishGuy ^talk 21:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

So, did anyone actually get in touch with the ISP? I wouldn't want to duplicate effort (or annoy the people at the ISP with too many emails) but if that hasn't happened someone (maybe someone with some experience in that area) should do so. Natalie 21:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I will not be bullied out of my right to free speech by threats of complaints--84.66.19.51 21:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Only problem is, you don't have the right to free speech on this site. Nice try though. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 21:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually yes I do :) --84.66.19.51 22:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

No you don't. Read your local copy of the United States Constitution if you wish. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 22:18, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

From the information provided, it seems quite likely that the user concerned is not in the USA, and so the issue of whether the USA constitution applies is not completely certain. Nevertheless, these actions might well fall into the area of relevance of some UK statutes. I do hope the ISP is contacted about the disruption.  DDStretch  (talk) 22:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

True, the IP above is traced to London. But the Wikipedia servers are in the United States (specifically, Florida), so US laws should apply to the English Wikipedia. Of course, I'm not a lawyer, so feel free to correct me if necessary. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 22:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

This thread is completely irrelevant. —Centrx→talk • 22:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Blocked. —Centrx→talk • 22:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

I also report:

• 90.240.37.243 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 81.77.77.61 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 81.76.109.158 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 81.76.29.93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 90.242.52.54 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 90.241.40.129 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 81.79.83.3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

All have been blocked. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 00:51, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Hm. These aren't open proxies, just very dynamic IPs with wide ranges. I believe these four WHOIS links contain one from each range I've seen, so far: 84.64.0.0/13, 80.40.0.0/13, 90.240.0.0/12, and 81.77.128.0/17. Could be multiple people, given the wide spread, but that doesn't seem certain. Let's see if semi holds. – Luna Santin (talk) 02:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

That's already been established; these are not open proxies, just an annoyingly configured ISP. —Centrx→talk • 05:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually they were vandalizing my talk page. I deliberately did not protect it to see what IPs the user would use. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 03:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Add one more, then, 81.79.0.0/17 (or possibly 81.78.0.0/15, WHOIS mentions both, but I haven't recognized anything outside the narrower set). As far as I know, this has been a problem since at least yesterday? – Luna Santin (talk) 03:22, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

M16 rifle original research dispute.

User Rhilliam has produced the following edit four times: [22], [23], [24], and [25]. He has represented it as original research here: [26] and refuses to remove it. I've reverted three times and tried to discuss it civilly with the user, however I've not been successful. Thank you for your time. --Asams10 20:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I've pitched in my comments. Though I think this belongs in

WP:AN/I rather than here. x42bn6 Talk

20:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah

WP:ATT.--Isotope23

20:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if this will help, but see http://www.google.com/search?q=LSA+Semi-fluid+M-16 for the one claim, and http://www.google.com/search?q=M-16+aluminum+%28jam+%7C+jams+%7C+jamming+%7C+jammed%29 for the other. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 20:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Only a problem is the information is challenged. You can go too far, you know ;-) --Kim Bruning 20:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC) Except for the rivets discussion, but you can still argue that out without documentation if you have to *sigh*.

Proposal to add software feature to let admins edit signatures

I've made a proposal that a specialpage be added into the software so that administrators can change other user's signatures if it's disruptive, given that a (yet undecided) set of guidelines are met. As this is relevant to administrators, I would appreciate more comments. Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Administrators editing signatures. --Deskana (ya rly) 21:09, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it is a good idea to let admins muck about in users' preferences. Since signatures are not transcluded anyway, editing a signature doesn't change sigs that are already used on pages.

WP:RFCN provides enough power to deal with problematic usernames. --Edokter (Talk

) 23:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Given the overwhelming number of good and dedicated editors who utilize signatures I think the creation and possible utilization of such a tool is going to be extremely problematic. This would likely be UBX wars 2.0. (→Netscott) 00:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Um, Netscott? I assume you don't know that you

aren't supposed to transclude your signature, which is what you're doing right now. Please fix that or you might just be the first victim test dummy of the very proposal on which you just commented! ;) Picaroon

00:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

He's had that signature forever in a day and nobody has bothered. Frankly, not worth pissing off a good contributor to enforce a not very well thought out rule (we're told, probably wrongly, not to worry about server load, but can't transclude our sigs, hmm).

Basically, what Netscott says, but having the ability to invoke a default signature through a tickbox wouldn't be a bad idea, permitting a user to sign their posts with a default signature until they change their problematic signature. It's a relatively small problem so it's probably not worth writing the hack. -- Nick ^t 01:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the need for that. If a problematic user wants to have an offensive sig, he should be warned and blocked. Otherwise, there might be "sig wars" where the user reverts the admin and vice-versa. Too complicated, I like the current method better. · AO ^Talk 17:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with AO. Admins shouldn't be mucking around in others' signatures. Refactoring them on some pages is ok. but having carte blanche access to preferences isn't. ~Crazytales — t,c 21:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Yet another admin power grab?

talk

20:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

It's not a grab... it was a simple proposal for a perceived problem. --Ali'i 20:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

LocateMe bot

I am concerned about a bot placing LocateMe templates on articles (rather than talk pages even), but don't know enough about the subject to address it properly. I'd be grateful for those who do to take a look and participate in User_talk:SatyrBot/Current_project#What_on_earth_is_this.3F. Tyrenius 01:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree, and suggest that there is no consensus for adding such a tag to thousands or potentially tens of thousands of articles. If the bot is permitted to run at all (and frankly, I don't necessarily agree that it's necessary or desirable), it should be tagging Talk pages, not articles. This seems to be a massive project that affects the look and readability of a very large number of articles but is basically one user's hobbyhorse project. --MCB 21:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked User:SatyrBot till this can be sorted out, in order to prevent unlimited articles being tagged with the LocateMe template, which was originally to be applied to talk pages. Tyrenius 00:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The bot's approved function (

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/SatyrBot2) is to add WikiProject tags to talkpages and such. Nothing about any other type of tag, nor adding things to article space. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk

) 00:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Discussed here at

Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup, which is a list of templates that may be placed in the article space. User:SatyrBot was used to execute Andy's request for bot assistance. I'm sure User:SatyrTN will be along before too long to explain his/her perspective. --Tagishsimon (talk)

I'd like to request that the block be removed, as the bot does a lot of legitimate work with various wikiprojects that usually runs at night. I will turn off the {{LocateMeBot}} tagging until the issue can be resolved. Please let me know where the discussion is taking place so I can follow it and participate. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 01:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Two comments with regards to this project. 1) My understanding is that the tag was to be placed in article space, not talk space. While the description on my bot's page originally read that, Andy Mabbett quickly pointed out that consensus (presumably within WP:GEO) was to add it to article space, so I changed the description. 2) There is no way the bot will run amok and add the template to unlimited articles. It is working from a specific set of categories, and not recursively (their subcategories). I've been assured by the project person that each category has at least an 80% hit ratio and that they'll be reviewed to remove any false-positives. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 01:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

There's no evidence of consensus at Template talk:LocateMe, or, to the extent that there is, it is that the template should only be used on the talk page. I think any assertion of consensus was disingenuous at best.--Tagishsimon (talk)

I have unblocked on condition it's used for the time being on tasks other than LocateMe template placed on article pages. If the bot keeps to its original permission for talk pages I don't think it will be a problem, but there may be other thoughts about this. Tyrenius 02:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Tony n' Tina's Wedding

An issue seems to be developing with user Corvus Cornix and the Tony n' Tina's Wedding site. The original celebrity guest star was an actor named Rikki Lee Travolta. This is long established in the history of the page. Corvus Cornix has sought to eliminate this actor from the page. The user in question uses sources such as "Elites TV" to justify naming other celebrity guest stars but even though the same article references Travolta, Corvus Cornix refutes the validity. When I stepped in the give settlement to the page and stabalize it pointing to one of the official Tony n' Tina's Wedding sites, Corvux Cornix did a 3rd revert of information (an infraction I believe) stating that even the official Tony n' Tina's website is not valid if he doesn't deem it so. I am concerned there may be an over zealous mouse in the house. TonyntinaNY 20:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• Well the problem appears to be that the contention that Rikki Lee Travolta is somehow a "celebrity" is completely unsourced and making such a claim in the referenced article simply is not supported by any reasonable sources.--Isotope23 20:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  • At best, Rikki Lee played in the Chicago production for a limited run (which I can not verify). By no stretch of the imagination does this make him "the original celebrity guest star." The only reliable sources on Rikki Lee Travolta are that he has played in community theater in Chicago; none of the more dramatic claims about him have ever been sourced to a reliable source, questioning whether he is even a "celebrity." We have long memories here,
    Thatcher131
    21:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

So should we remove all the celebrities that these sources on the Tony n' Tina's page document since those references are the qualifiers for all? TonyntinaNY 21:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The other celebrities are actual celebrities. Frankie Avalon. Rosa Blasi, and Lee Mazzilli have documented fame. Rikki doesn't. IrishGuy ^talk 21:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The quality of each source is evaluated separately. Wikipedia is not a directory, and is not a free web host, so it won't be expected to list every guest star. Whether individual guest stars are notable enough to be mentioned depends on the notability of the star, the quality of the sourcing, and the impact on the show. For example, if

Thatcher131

22:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• As far as I can tell, the exhaustive list of people who consider Ricky Lee Travolta to be a celebrity is: Ricky Lee Travolta, and Ricky Lee Travolta's mum. This name came up recently on DRV, also part of Travolta's long-running astroturfing campaign. I believe this almost qualifies as a long-term abuse case. Yes, thanks, Ricky, we know you want a Wikipedia entrye, but no, thanks, we don't want you to write it, and thus far nobody else seems to care. Them's the breaks. Guy (Help!) 22:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps if they spent as much time on acting as they are on trying to get on Wikipedia, they actually would be famous. Sigh. Natalie 22:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually the Elites TV source isn't mine, it's somebody else's, I just removed the Travolta twaddle. Corvus cornix 02:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Second opinion requested on Jodie Foster

An IP editor is insisting on adding information to the

WP:BLP but the IP insists it does not. The edit in question is here. Could an uninvolved admin take a look and see if they agree. I am not going to edit war over this. Thanks, Gwernol

00:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Gwernol; images don't make very good refs. I think that the page that was "cited" as the source of this information is probably a host of photoshopped celebrity images (just look at the URL name). I think that this should be removed, or better sources should be found for the information. PTO 01:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

PTO took issue specifically with the link to perezhilton.com. I have removed that link so that the primary reference for the Out Magazine piece is the Out Magazine site itself, and not a third party.

Blatant BLP violation, involving information that probably would not belong in the article even if properly sourced. Newyorkbrad 01:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Assumptions, even by siblings, are not reliable, nor is Out! magazine's speculation. This is a recurring problem with this bio by the way, probably an old axe-grinder taking a new shot.

Thatcher131

01:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Why on earth would it not belong in the article if properly sourced? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, yes, but it also includes whole paragraphs about disputes over the penis size of pornographic actors. The thoroughness affforded by a wiki community allows for a much more detailed account than any other encyclopedia could provide, and debates over a person's sexuality are CERTAINLY an important enough element of a celebrity's personal life to be included in an article. See Anderson Cooper, Barbara Mikulski, Ken Mehlman, etc. in which the prevailing edits have agreed with this interpretation of BLP rules.

As a matter of form, please sign your posts on talkpages like this one with four tildes (thus: ~~~~). Beyond that, you appear to be a

single purpose account whose sole interest in Wikipedia is ensuring that poorly sourced information about the private life of an individual known for other matters is inserted into her biography. I find this disturbing. It does appear, however, that you may have done a service by pointing out other articles some of which may also require attention. Newyorkbrad

01:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

It's clear that this IP has violated

WP:3RR on the article. Will another uninvolved admin block it? I guess I got involved with this matter when I gave my third opinion and reverted. PTO

02:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Apologies--I was not familiar with the rule. I will cease edits on the article. 140.247.153.30 02:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I gave you a warning on your talk page informing you of the rule before you reverted the latest time. [27] PTO 02:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I apologize--really, I did not see your warning. Had I seen it, I would certainly not have performed the last edit. This is the first time I have ever edited an article in a way that has generated controversy, so I am not as well versed on protocol as I should be. I have now learned.140.247.153.30 02:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I've semiprotected the article. Durova^Charge! 03:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

A Blurred Line

Resolved

The page A Blurred Line has been marked as a copyvio. It obviously isn't--it says that it is a copy of allexperts, which itself is a copy of Wikipedia. I considered being bold and reverting, but the template says don't edit until an admin looks into it. Can an admin please take care of this? (Perhaps the template should be modified, and there should be a list of known mirrors so that ordinary users can fix problems like this in the future, but for now I will play by the rules.) Matchups 02:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Copyvio tag removed - obviously not a copyvio. Will remind editor to be more careful. Natalie 02:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

What a good amateur RPG.....too bad it's probably not notable for inclusion. — Deckiller 05:25, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Deletion processes backlogged

Stuff proposed for deletion is backlogged three days: March 29, March 30 and March 31. AFD is also backlogged with afds for March 28, March 29, March 30 (12 remaining) and March 31 needing closing. Let's use this Easter weekend to help clean out some of the crap. MER-C

03:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing the backlog, but I'll be back tomorrow with more flammable materials for the forest fire. MER-C 12:25, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Request at User talk:75.92.75.126

I left a {{

drmafd1}} note at this talk page after the IP removed an AfD template from Items and concepts in FLCL. Not much later, a note appeared from an individual asking for the "Apache httpd logs" for the IP contributions, so that the user on their end could be identified. Setting aside the fact that this was not serious vandalism, and I don't think the employee should be terminated, the user has requested an administrator who knows how the Apache httpd logs can be obtained. I'm not familiar with what he's asking for (and I doubt that an administrator would have access if regular users don't), but could someone who knows what they are please talk to him? If you could, also stress that this was not serious vandalism. Leebo ^T/C

03:29, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I very highly doubt that'd fly -- see the privacy policy, that sort of information is only ever released to particular people in particular circumstances, if ever. You'd need to get in touch with the devs, for a request like that, although I anticipate they'll tell you pretty much the same thing. – Luna Santin (talk) 03:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I figured that would be the case. I was doubtful that that kind of information was available to any editor. I'm going to inform him, because I don't see the point in going to such lengths for an edit that wasn't even severe vandalism. Leebo ^T/C 03:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I doubt the Apache logs will reveal much. Here is a typical entry:

69.117.101.214 - - [22/Apr/2006:12:37:32 -0400] "GET /test.zip HTTP/1.1" 200 7714232 "http://72.136.70.187" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.0; .NET CLR 1.1.4322)"

It contains the IP address (obviously 75.92.75.126), date and time, operating system, and browser. Unless the employer had a different operating system and browser combo for each computer, this information will be useless. --Bowlhover 05:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

It could be useful. For example, X-Forwarded-For headers can tell who's accessing Wikipedia through a proxy, and the browser ID string can be revealing. --Carnildo 05:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we keep apache logs (or at least not for that long due to the size we would generate). Not to mention given the amount of apaches and squids we have it could take a huge amount of time to find. --pgk 10:25, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/XXL (band)

It was closed with the following, figured i'd pass it along. Just H 08:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

"The result was keep, despite the best efforts of JzG to get it deleted. John Reaves (talk) 05:07, 6 April 2007 (UTC)"

Just a joke, light-hearted, a comment on JzG's veracity, more of a compliment if any thing. I would've appreciated a note at my user talk page by the way. John Reaves (talk) 09:08, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually it was despite my best efforts to get it sourced or not a directory entry. Wikipedia is not, as far as I'm aware, a directory of Eurovision bands. If this article still has no non-trivial independent sources in a month I will nominate it again, and for precisely the same reason. It's all very well saying "keep and expand" as some did, but when they cannot cite a single source from which it could be expanded, that is a rather pointless !vote. Nor was I the only one arguing for deletion on the grounds of lacking non-trivial independent sources. The only truly reliable independent source is a book which lists all the bands that played Eurovision - that is, a book which establishes the notability of Eurovision, which was never in doubt.

WP:N

: "A notable topic should be the subject of substantial and non-trivial published source material which is reliable and independent of the subject." This has been the subject of virtually nothing. So it should probably be merged to an article on that year's Eurovision, rather than kept as an unsourced and unsourceable article on a band which has precisely one hit, will never have another, and vanished without trace after they failed to win the competition.

I really don't think it's an especially controversial view that we should not have articles on bands that have no significant external coverage. We delete dozens of such articles every day. The band is not notable, the competition is, we already have an article on the competition.

Is there any particular reason you felt the need to share this here, by the way? Guy (Help!) 10:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

• I would suggest that John should not make such comments in his deletion closings, and that this closing is brought to
  WP:DRV because the arguments to delete (lack of sources) were stronger than the arguments to keep - or alternatively, we could resolve this by merging/redirecting to Eurovision. >Radiant<
  13:58, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
• I argued to keep, but I agree with Radiant's comment. Nothing personal against John though, I think it was just an honest mistake to say that, I can see how it can be misconstrued. Just H 15:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not offended in any way, just to be clear. I laughed. I thought he was referring to the fact that I speedied it, it was reposted, and then I AFDd it. But yes, the arguments for keep did not seem to me to be founded on policy. A merge would be fine, the source about Eurovision is a more than adequate source for the fact of this band having performed that year. We just don't have any non-trivial independent sources about the band. Incidentally, a small group of editors are trying to rewrite the central notability criterion to explicitly allow single-sourcing, which I think is a very bad idea. See {{
  WT:N. Guy (Help!
  ) 15:52, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

• Well, I don't see any problems with a merge, probably would have been the best way to close it anyway. John Reaves (talk) 17:30, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Threats from a 'disgruntled' Editor

A disagreement between two editors (myself being one) has attracted the attention of another editor, who seems to have appointed himself as 'judge and jury'. He is, admittedly, very involved in Wikipedia and has done a lot of good work, however, he seems to think that Wikipedia is 'his own' and that he 'shall' have the final word. He and others have banded together to try to prove my edits wrong, which they can't as I have provided verifiable sources to back up my edits (they have not). He has, recently, suggested a 'Formal Mediation' between parties to try and resolve the matter, which is acceptable, but now he has started to issue THREATS and suggestions that are of a SEXUAL NATURE! Evidence here ...

1. "I must also alert you that I am aware of your account on WiganWorld.com"

This is a 'lighthearted' local communication forum enjoyed by the local community.

2. "I will also post links to your WiganWorld.com account. You could incurr considerable restrictions (blocking) upon your account."

This is 'interfering' with non-Wikipedia business and intruding into my private business. If he can trace my whereabouts and my accounts elsewhere the problems he could create are endless!

3. "I will also bring all the source material that the users have brought to the articles, and contact them to co-file their opinions on this matter."

4. "I'm not your friend, a private councillor or a cybersexual."

This was his reply when asked 'why he was following me around and reverting all my edits'.

5. This, on my talk page, came as a result of 'highlighting' important words in a message to him regarding the issue ....... " MR Hanson, I have NEVER said THAT Pemberton IS not AN area IN it's OWN right. STOP saying THE word "YOU", as THIS is UNHELPFUL. I HAVE infact STATED that WE should WORK off SOURCE material, AND that IF we HAVE a CONFLICT of SOURCES, we SHOULD state THIS in THE article. I actually STATED to YOU (though YOU have NOT mentioned THIS in YOUR reply) THAT you ARE not PROVIDING suitable SOURCES, and ARE merely SHOUTING as LOUD as YOU can TO get HEARD. Again, THIS is NOT helpful, AND I WRITE in THIS style TO demonstrate HOW frustrating YOUR text IS to READ. It IS not APPROPRIATE is IT as IT is CLEAR I HAVE the ABILITY to READ normal TEXT. Jhamez84 23:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC) JemmyKINDAgettingINPATIENTwithTHISsillySHOUTINGandBLAMINGnonsenseTHATkeepsREOCCURINGeverytimeIlogINaboutAsubjectTHATisREALLYveryTRIVIALandCOULDbeSORTEDifYOUwentTOtheLIBRARYthenTHISwouldALLbeOVERB

This guy has hammered my talk page with authoritative comments and has resorted to threats because I won't back down regarding a disputed issue on the Wigan articles. Could anyone, with the authority to do so, rein him in a bit before he gets too full of himself? ........ User, Jhamez84.

80.193.161.89 12:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC) JemmyH.

Do you mean this?[28] Provide diffs for your serious allegations. Durova^Charge! 13:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

If an administrator does take an interest in this problem, I'd be happy to provide contrary evidence that this contributor has a history of breaching

WP:TALK

, etc etc.

The message above appears to be in retaliation (after third opinion and request for comment) to my intention to contact the mediation committee about this user. Yes I've lost my patience with this user, I hold my hand up, but I really have nothing to hide here, and would certainly welcome intervention.

Other users have expressed dissatisfaction with this user, I'd be happy to request for their comments also. Jhamez84 13:45, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

No need. I've scanned both your edits for the past week and the IP levels false claims. 48 hour block. Thank you Jhamez84 for being patient and using dispute resolution. Follow up at

WP:ANI if necessary. Durova^Charge!

13:52, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. It's really appreciated. Jhamez84 14:01, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Is

WP:PUI

ineffective?

The backlog never seems to go away, and most of the links brought there have no discussion and remain undeleted. I was just about to list Image:DSCN0634.JPG as an unfree image, but what's the point? Someone uploaded this image as a free image, but these websites say that it "is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 2.5 License", which I understand is not allowed here. [29], [30] It isn't being used on any article.

I was under the impression that WP was taking steps to drastically remove unsourced/unfree material, but this page just sits a lot of the time. What can we do to make it more active (admins take more of an interest in)? Thoughts, ideas, suggestions? Mahalo. --Ali'i 15:01, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I know little about PUI, but for this image, you should just tag it with {{

CAT:CSD. —bbatsell ¿? ✍

15:07, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that WP:PUI is ineffective. A couple active administrators regularly clean out the backlog. I personally tag blatantly copyvio or forbidden-per-policy with the appropriate speedy deletion template or IfD tag; if, however, I come across an image that is not blatantly a copyvio but I have concerns that it still is, I take it to WP:PUI. Pretty simple, really. --Iamunknown 17:30, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

When signatures go bad...

I'm working right now to fix this problem, but just so many people are aware, Atomic Religione (talk · contribs)'s signature has screwed up the dozens of pages he's left comments on by making the page completely bold from the point he signs to the end. I think I've got most of them fixed by adding </font>. If you see anymore that I miss, please fix them. Metros232 15:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

See what happens when you let amateurs practice HTML coding without a license! I thought MediaWiki used to correct or remove such bad coding before it caused harm? *Dan T.* 15:33, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Looks like Atomic Religione has realised that something is amiss too. (aeropagitica) 16:51, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe this is all related to today's

Talk

19:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

It's the opposite, it used to not correct or remove bad coding on signatures;

Wikipedia:How to fix your signature was created soon after it started rejecting bad coding on them. --cesarb

21:12, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Wikipedia:Requests for adminship

A case has been filed concerning Wikipedia:Requests for adminship -- Cat ^chi? 19:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Being speedily rejected as not within the ArbCom's remit. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 20:21, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Deceased Wikipedians message

The recent threatened suicide of a user has raised an issue I don't think we have yet, thankfully, had the opportunity to address - what do we do with the userpages of deceased Wikipedians? We cannot delete their accounts, but deleting their userpage seems callous. As Wikipedia lives on, it is inevitable, if sad, that some of us will die and our offline relatives will have to inform Wikipedia, especially if the deceased is an established or active editor. To this end, and seeing as we can never delete an account, I have created this notice for if we ever need it:

This Wikipedian is known to be deceased.
Bona fide.

The bona fide ("in good faith") is not only a gentle pun on

WP:AGF and an appreciative message of their work they have done for Wikipedia, but also shows that we assume that this person is dead because we have been told so and may not have verified it. I thought it a suitably tasteful way of handling a distressing situation. Dev920

(Have a nice day!) 20:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

This unfortunate event need not merit a template. If you want to see a list of dead Wikipedians, try Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 21:03, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Xulin is the perfect candidate for a template such as this. His userpage has nothing but a category in it. It doesn't seem right to have nothing. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:40, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:List of protected pages

See Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Wikipedia:List of protected pages for the background; the page has gone overly long, probably due to the overenthusiastic bot, and it's now next to useless. Something should probably be done; we could try to go back to not using the link templates, as was done before the bot, or perhaps split the page. Any other ideas? --cesarb 21:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

User:STS01 insists that reposting warnings on talk page isn't edit-warring

I attempted to remove a large amount of information that fails

WP:RS from the article Colin Cowherd, and User:STS01 continues to slap warnings on my page. Without commenting on the (in my opinion, dubious) nature of the warnings, I removed them from my page, acknowledging I have read them. However, he is persisting in reposting them and told a third party that he's not reposting, that he's giving me new warnings. (diff [31] (Please note, I have done 1 revert, with a description and a request to discuss it on the talk page of the article, which has been ignored. Can someone sort this out, please? SirFozzie

00:34, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

He has now responded on the article's talk page, so hopefully we can now work towards a consensus version of the article. Striking through my request. SirFozzie 00:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

User talk:R9tgokunks

Could someone look at this editor's unblock request before he blows a gasket? I'm the blocking admin, BTW. Thanks, Gwernol 03:14, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Dunkenud (talk · contribs · count) block review

I blocked Dunkenud (talk · contribs) for continuing to upload images without licenses and sources after warnings. I based the block on Wikipedia:Blocking policy of vandalism (continuing to upload images w/o the needed info). Is this in accordance with the policy? feydey 17:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes. —Ruud 11:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Could someone look into the issues brought up at User_talk:ESkog#Vandalization

Thund3rl1p5 (talk · contribs) has accused ESkog (talk · contribs) of abusing his administrative tools in the case of blocking an IP (69.241.124.150 (talk · contribs)) at ESkog's talk page. ESkog replied at Thund3rl1p5's talk page explaining the block and inviting him to bring it up here if he still had a problem but instead Thund3rl1p5 chose to continue bothering him about it (including calling him a bully) and vandalised my userpage when I tried to explain. Wondering if someone could look into it and check that there was no abuse of power and if so have a word with Thund3rl1p5 about it to avoid any further problems. Veesicle (Talk) (Contribs) 19:12, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Please do review this action. I don't know what connection Thund3rl1p5 has to the IP I blocked, but he seems to be quite adamant that I made a mistake, although he doesn't want to ask for advice. As Veesicle said, he has escalated to low-level personal attacks on both myself and Veesicle over what appeared (to me) to be a simple run-of-the-mill case of blocking a vandal... (ESkog)^(Talk) 11:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Looks like they are likely the same person, given the activity times over the last 24 hours, they are both active at around about the same time. It appears to be a comcast cable address, so I assume semi-static. I'll reblock the IP without the anon-only flag. --pgk 11:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Rules for the next board election are being established

Such as no leaking like last time. 4.250.198.86 10:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Black Tusk

talk · contribs) has become a problem again, as was pointed out to me here. He was previously known as User:Duggie [email protected], where myself and others discovered he had uploaded a relatively large number of articles that were copyright violations from various webpages. Duggie/Black Tusk usually rearranged some phrases and changed some words, creating what seemed to be useful Wikipedia articles, except for the copyvio issue. His contributions are numerous, and his method makes it hard to easily search for what he copied from, so I'm asking for some help here to go through his new articles and try to make sure there are no more copyvios. Also, I have given him a final warning here, since he had previously promised to stop and apparently didn't. --W.marsh

17:02, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Kansei Nakano

Resolved

 – histories merged, vandal blocked, rinse and repeat —Cryptic 00:15, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be a bit of idiocy going on at Kansei Nakano. It was moved to Stupidest person alive, and the, the contents were copied back to the original article, losing the edit history. I'm not sure if this is the correct place to post this or not; but, the edit history needs to be restored back to the original article, and the redirect at Stupidest person alive should probably be deleted. Neier 00:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Transnistria

I'm concerned about what I believe to be biased editing by at least one editor in articles and stubs related to the disputed region of Transnistria. References and category listings relating to one or other side in the dispute are being deleted with refs and cats supporting the other inserted in their place. Spellings of place names are changed, sometimes with the resultant loss of links. Text is being added elaborating aspects of the dispute that are probably best served under the main Transnistria article, the motivation appearing to be support to one side in the dispute.

I've made a few attempts to make the articles more balanced/NPOV but if I continue I fear it could just turn into an editing war. Also, on looking further into this there would seem to be a fairly large number of articles and edits affected and I simply don't have sufficient time to deal with them all (particularly currently as I'm on a dial-up and without use of my own computer). I suppose I could slap disputed-neutrality templates over all the affected articles and leave them but that would only be a limited solution and I don't like the idea of leaving these articles in a questionable state. Can someone with more experience give some advice? Mutt Lunker 13:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• I think we should have a bot report this one every couple of weeks, on principle. That article is a constant source of partisan conflict, and the people who know most about the subject tend all to be deeply involved one way or the other. I'd suggest finding a couple of admins or long-standing editors on each side, to hack out a compromise, but I have a horrible suspicion they are all there already. Guy (Help!) 18:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• I'm happy to have a look at it after Easter. I've had a lot of experience in hacking out compromises on Yugoslavia-related articles, so I'm sure I could probably do something similar for this one. -- ChrisO 14:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

• Nice to know that you'll take a look. I had no idea what a can of worms I was opening with this topic as there is a known puppeteer involved and I'm now being accused of being a sockpuppet. Even less motivation for me to take any further part I'm afraid... Mutt Lunker 20:23, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

• ...and the next episode. As a slightly convoluted result of this User:Grigoras.Iliescu, the user I was most concerned about, has been discovered to be a "real" sockpuppet - if that's not a contradiction in terms - and is now blocked. I'm not sure if that's the end of the problem but should be a major step to the good. Mutt Lunker 14:26, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Arvandrud/Shatt al-Arab

This post refers to the recent move request

Shatt al-Arab/Arvandrud

.

The

move request discussion

has already been closed.

• First,
  naming conventions rely). – (See examples of usage
  ).

• But then, Khoikhoi considered that the result is no consensus (i.e. keep at Arvandrud/Shatt al-Arab), giving as reason that "there still doesn't appear to be a clear-cut consensus for the page move".

From his short explanation, my personal impression is that Khoikhoi is disregarding the arguments expounded, and effectively treating the move request as a vote with 8 against the move and 7 for the move. Of course, I could have misinterpreted Khoikhoi's reasoning.

In order to get as much imput as possible, and thus archive a better, clear consensus on what the result of the discussion is, I'm posting this notice here in addition to the one I previously posted at Wikipedia:Requested moves.

Let's all be patient, wait to see what other administrators' and users' views on the issue are, and avoid any revert until a clear consensus is formed :-) Best regards, Ev 11:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

There was no clear-cut consensus to move the page. There were 8 votes to keep the page at Arvandrud/Shatt al-Arab, 3 votes to move it to a similar title Shatt al-Arab/Arvandrud, and only 7 votes to move it to Shatt al-Arab. Therefore, Khoikhoi acted correctly. --Mardavich 11:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

But a move request

naming conventions

, but rather in the belief that all official names should be included in the title.

All policy and guidelines-based arguments were in favour of the move. - Best regards, Ev 12:03, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

this, "If an article name has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should remain." Khoikhoi

12:12, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

In fact,

Wikipedia:Naming conventions is policy (read the top), and the operative phrase in the sentence you quote is, of course "no good reason to change it" - which doesn't apply here, because "use English" is a good reason to change it. Fut.Perf. ☼

12:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I meant to say

WP:NC. Khoikhoi

12:21, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, but like with all those pages, the "convention" sub-page is only spelling out the details of what is already formulated as policy in the main policy page (

Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Use_English_words). Fut.Perf. ☼

12:29, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but "use English" doesn't apply here, both names are used in English, and neither is English. Khoikhoi 12:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

And

WP:NC clearly states that "In a few cases of naming conflicts, editors have been unable to reach a strong consensus to support one name above another name. In these instances, both names are allowed." --Mardavich

12:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

This is wikilawyering. For all I can see, this should have been a very straightforward case of applying the normal policies (most common name used in English), without any need for debate. Khoikhoi, after all the similar discussions we two have overseen together, I have no idea why you are taking this rather outlandish view now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

(big edit conflict) Khoikhoi, the notice at the top of

Wikipedia:Naming conventions ("This page documents an official policy

on the English Wikipedia.") made me believe that it was a policy, and not just a convention. My mistake, I removed "policy" from my previous comment.

Well, it is policy after all :-) I restored "policy" to my previous comment. – I simply assume that Khoikhoi has a much better understanding of such details than I do, to the point of prefering his explanation over the big bold notice on top of the page. - Regards, Ev 13:06, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the

naming conventions

mentions that "if an article name has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should remain." (emphasis mine)

As I said in the move request discussion, I think that compliance with our naming conventions is a very good reason to change the title. And our naming conventions call, over and over again, to:

• Wikipedia:Naming conventions
  : "prefer [...] what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize",
• Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names)
  : "[u]se the most common name [and] represent common usage",
• Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names): "use a widely accepted English name [, which] often will be a local name",
• Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English): "if you are talking about a [river], use the most commonly used English version of the name for the article, as you would find it in other encyclopedias and reference works."

7 editors shared this view, and argued to move the page in accordance to these guidelines (and common Wikipedia practice). Best regards, Ev 12:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

And 11 editors didn't share that view, that's not a consensus. So as the policy clearly states, both names should be used when editors have been unable to reach a strong consensus to support one name above another name. --Mardavich 13:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Mardavich, again, a move request discussion

naming Wikipedia articles. - Regards, Ev

13:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Khoikhoi's action was just, these are not English names, two local names, both in use in English media, furthermore as Mardavich points out, 11 users were indeed in favor of keeping the title unbiased --Rayis 13:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

• OK, everybody agree that both names are used in English but Shatt Al-Arab is more common. The naming has some political overtones. 7 Users evaluated this fact as the need to move the article to Shatt Al-Arab, 12 Users preferred the slash name. Nobody wanted Arvandrud alone. We usually require something like 60/40 consensus to change a name. Here we have something like the reverse 40/60 towards the change. Yes, AfD is not a vote: we are ignoring bad faith votes, we are ignoring obviously incorrect reasons, we are ignoring canvassed votes. Honestly I would not be surprised if there was some canvassing in the vote but I see no indications that one side was much better than the other. There was clearly no consensus here to change the name and if anything there as a weak consensus to keep slashes. In this situation if Khoikhoi would made another decision the amount of discontent would be even stronger. I propose to accept Khoikhoi's closing for now and if the name would cause sore feeling in a month time then just rerun the WP:RM. Might be it would be better advertised so that many neutral people could participate. Remember we have only probably twenty active Iranian and Arabic active users but many thousands active users who are uninvolved with either side Alex Bakharev 13:22, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

But, Alex Bakharev, not one single editor opposed the move argueing that the current name better reflected our current naming conventions. Not one. Respecting those arguments as valid would, in effect, transform the move request in a vote, in which policy and guidelines-based arguments can be nullyfied by the sheer force of numbers.

And please, take a look at the examples of usage. I haven't heard yet one single policy or guidelines-based argument not to follow common English usage here. - Best regards, Ev 13:36, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Of course, if the majority here considers that it would make things easier, let's open a new move request today (and beg all administrators who are native English-speakers to take part in it). - Best regards, Ev 13:52, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

The RFM very clearly and obviously ended in "no consensus" for a move, and there are no grounds on which to criticize Khoikhoi for his decision. What you are arguing is that the lack of consensus was not correct, that the people involved in the discussion were partisan and non-native English speakers, that the evidence was clearly in favor of a move anyway regardless of how people voted. That is not a criticism of Khoikhoi, but a criticism of those who spoke against the move. Whether or not you are correct in your own opinion is a matter for a different forum, but you have no grounds for criticizing Khoikhoi for acting on the basis that there was no consensus, because there was clearly no consensus; what you are actually criticizing him for is for not ignoring what people said, and doing what you wanted anyway. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:45, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

No, Jayjg, it has nothing to do with Khoikhoi "not doing what I wanted to be done" (i.e. move the page to Shatt al-Arab). It's about my understanding of how Wikipedia works.

I critizised Khoikhoi's decision based on my understanding of what consensus means in move request discussions. I honestly believed (believe?) that only arguments based on our naming conventions were valid ones, and that people's personal opinions which blatantly ignored (and contradicted) the most basic principles of our naming conventions shouldn't be considered.

It appears from the input by Khoikhoi himself, Alex Bakharev and now you that either I misunderstood how consensus is determined, or the paramenters along which our discussions are carried out, or even that I misread our naming conventions.

Either way, my cristicism of Khoikhoi's actions was a result of what appears to be my confusion about the procedures (attributable to my misunderstanding of the guidelines, my incapacity to understand the rules, or my sheer ignorance).

I honestly thought that this was a clear-cut case of "reflecting English usage", and that not a single argument against following that usage was respalded by policy or guidelines (worse, that those arguments ignored and even contradicted the said policies and guidelines). Thus, I was quite surprised to see what I interpreted to be clear consensus overturned on grounds that I understood to be illegitimate.

It appears that it was a mistake, but a bona fide one, I assure you. My issue was with the procedure followed, not the specific decision of moving or not the article to where I wanted it moved.

As I hinted above, I'm no longer sure of the soundness of my interpretation of how Wikipedia works in these cases. I will stay away from any such discussion for a while, using the time to try to understand the procedures better. If my actions on this issue caused any of you unnecessary trouble, I sincerely apologize (especially to Khoikhoi).

I really need a short wiki-break. In any case, it's already time to indulge in another session of Easter gluttony (you wouldn't believe the fish schnitzels my brother makes. Happy Easter everyone :-) Best regards, Ev 15:36, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

This kind of dispute is precisely why I wrote

Wikipedia:Naming conflict two years ago - to develop an objective methodology for choosing between two arbitrary names for the same thing. I suggest you all have a look at it and use the same methodology in this case. -- ChrisO

14:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Done. Shatt al-Arab is overwhelmingly more common in English; and the other two tie (both names are local official names; neither is self-identification of a body of water). You may want to look at the more recent

WP:NCGN, which diescusses the matter in more detail. Septentrionalis PMAnderson

16:22, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

In this case, Khoikhoi decided to oppose another administrator's decision. The closing the decision administrator focused on policy, and his argumentation looks to me convincing. Khoikhoi focused on votes (X versus X). I do not agree with this rationale, and I have doubts if this was the right thing to do. I think that if Khoikhoi wanted to oppose the initial decision should not focus on votes, but on policy, and on the arguments of the discussion: Is there a consensus or not that this or this naming is the most common in English per our WP policies? This should be the main issue leading to his decision.--Yannismarou 15:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

We can always just let the move request continue for another week to gain a clearer consensus (or to cement a "no consensus"). -- tariqabjotu 15:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Nevertheless, I'm struggling to find another situation in which this kind of "/" thing occurs. We have

naming dispute. -- tariqabjotu

15:52, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I have already clearly explained on

WP:NPOV on this issue. Wikipedia should strive for Total NPOV whenever possible, and in this case, because of the history, because of the modern politics, because of the WP software which allows double titles, we can gain this Total NPOV. In the end there was literally no consensus for a change. Khorshid

18:15, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

It occurs also in the naming of places in the South Tyrol (see

Talk:Communes of South Tyrol, at unspeakable length) where there is a large consensus against using double names at all, because they are clumsy; and because one side or the other always wants to change the order to give "their name" more prominence by placing it first "as it deserves". This move discussion of the Shatt al-Arab started that way. As here, there are always a few who simply oppose policy. Septentrionalis PMAnderson

16:22, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Tariq is right to point out that we've faced similar issues before. I hope people haven't forgotten the

Wikipedia:Naming conflict - to provide an objective basis on which to decide which version to use. The most important sentence in the whole guideline is that Wikipedia is descriptive, not prescriptive. We can't declare what a name should be - our role is simply to state what's the most used version in English. -- ChrisO

18:30, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with keeping it as

Arvandrud/Shatt al-Arab. It represents both POV names, which is something Wikipedia encourages and by what i've experienced here in Wikipedia, is hard to achieve. Both names seem to be used in English even though none are English... Regarding the earlier comparison, the Persian Gulf is an international body of water, with an internationally-recognized name which has a long history in English and all the other languages. Arvandrud/Shatt al-Arab on the other hand is a local body of water, exclusively under the sovereignty of Iran and Iraq with two local names, it differs from Arabian/Persian gulf scenario. I don't think it can be compared. Regarding the voting, I checked it out and I agree that no consensus seems to have been reached voting-wise and argumentation-wise. I suggest a re-nomination in the near future and keep it up longer so a solution is reached. This is my 2 cents. - Fedayee

18:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Except insofar as it reflects Wikipedia's consensus against double-named articles, the Arabian Gulf is a

WP:NCGN recommends.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson

16:29, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Misuse of warning templates

Not sure where to ask, so please point me in the right direction. I've encountered an editor who uses vandalism warnings and other tags as bludgeons, for example giving someone a {vandalism2} warning over what is obviously a content dispute. He's been asked not to do that, to no avail. He's also been pointed to the appropriate policy pages, but responds with an idiosyncratic interpretation of what policy does and does not allow. Any suggestions? Raymond Arritt 01:06, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

And who is this editor that you speak of? —²¹⁰physicq (c) 01:19, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

My aim was more to get advice on how to handle the situation than to report the person, but here is an example. Raymond Arritt 01:24, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Seems like wikilawyering to me. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 04:37, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Him, or me, or both? If I'm in the wrong here, I'd like to know. Over-reacting and making a fool of myself is not something that I want to do (intentionally, anyway). Sorry if I'm being obtuse. Raymond Arritt 04:47, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Him (or her). Not you. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 05:09, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to remove the spurious warning tags, and ask the other person to stop. If the behaviour continues, you may need to open a

Request for Comments about the user. Jkelly

05:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Geez, I just checked out Talk:The Great Global Warming Swindle#POV... gotta say, this guy is being exceptionally dickish. I think you'll be opening an RfC sooner than he'll stop adding spurious warnings. EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:39, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

He has now opened an incident against me; please comment. --Skyemoor 02:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Protected titles

When should an admin remove a title from the list?? I've seen pages that used to have {{

delete-protected

page)