Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive91

It came to my attention that more and more newbie admins delete "speedy" or "prod" tagged pages without waiting the necessary time. PLEASE DON'T. `'юзырь:mikka 16:35, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Pages marked for speedy deletion can, with very few exceptions, be deleted at any time. Where's the problem there? Anything else, and you'll need to provide some diffs before I'd see it as a potential problem. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:38, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[Edit conflict] There is no time limit for speedy deletion, something can have been tagged for very little time or no time at all, the point is that the articles are not valid, full stop. As for the prod situation, can you be more specific? Give some examples? J Milburn 16:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed; speedies are no problem, but carrying out a PROD too early is a bad idea. --Masamage ♫ 18:55, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Unless the prodded article also fails a speedy criterion, in which case it can be speedied as normal. That might be what's happening here, but without specifics, there's really nothing anyone can do. Mikkalai, can you point us to any specific instances where you believe a deletion was done improperly? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Some of our speedy deletion criteria do require a given amount of time however i.e. those for images. It is important that the required time after the uploader is notified of the tagging has actually elapsed before these images are deleted. WjBscribe 20:27, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Some articles are tagged within minutes or seconds of their creation, even when the author is clearly intending to improve it and is just engaging in progressive saves. However, this is not an issue for admins — or even newbie admins — but a failing on the part of RC patrollers. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 05:00, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Can someone sort out the images on

 Done - ewwww! - Alison ☺ 18:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Monobook.css file fixed. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:54, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I have accidentally added this to my monobook.css page, and now cannot view Wikipedia any more. I disabled the autologin feature of my browser and created this emergency account. My question is: how can I remove this line from my monobook.css page? The page only seems to be editable by the user it belongs to. Could any admin assist me in this. Cheers, Emergencyaccount 19:16, 10 June 2007 (UTC) (Salaskan)
Oh, by the way, once it's fixed, this account can be indefblocked. Emergencyaccount 19:16, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Fixed your monobook. I'm afraid user requested self-blocks are not typically done. --Deskana (talk) 19:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Huh? No, that's not what I meant, I meant that I practically blocked myself when I accidentally put that line in my monobook. Emergencyaccount 19:22, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

• What Deskana was trying to say is that the indef block of the "emergency account" will not be done due to a risk of collateral damage amongst other things. GDonato (talk) 19:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

This is a bit of a weird situation. There might be a better place for discussing this, but if there is, I couldn't find it and appreciate any references.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Estonian Age of Awakening is now in limbo. The original nominator, Ghirlandajo, has expressed intent to withdraw the nomination, but subsequently crossed this expression out and finally "left in disgust", apparently abandoning the whole affair. The current consensus is an overwhelming 'keep'; the only 'delete' recommendation is by the original nominator.

Can an administrator look into the situation and decide if a speedy close is appropriate? Digwuren 20:22, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I closed it as speedy keep as the nominator has withdrawn the nom, then seemingly abandoned both the nom and the withdrawal of the nom(!?). Nobody else supports the deletion.

^(H)

20:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

IFDs in limbo

Can someone please look at (at least)

Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 May 25

? There are only a few images left, but those that are left were commented on by the IFD regulars (i.e. Howcheng). I'd say delete for all of them, but I'm not an admin.

There are many others (the 27th on), but if we could at least get those five done, it would be much less backlogged. --Iamunknown 21:16, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

A few weeks ago, I read that wikipedia articles plagerize copyrighted articles much more often than any reasonable editor would like.

I just found an instance where several paragraph are plagerized. See the article for internationally acclaimed architect, I. M. Pei.

This is our (wikipedia article):
before moving to the United States to study architecture at the age of 18. He started at the University of Pennsylvania before going on to receive his Bachelor of Architecture degree from Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1940. That same year, he was awarded the Alpha Rho Chi Medal, the MIT Traveling Fellowship, and the AIA Gold Medal. He enrolled at the Harvard Graduate School of Design two years later; shortly thereafter, he served at the National Defense Research Committee in Princeton, New Jersey.

In 1944 he returned to Harvard, received his master degree in Architecture in 1946 and stayed at Harvard as an assistant professor. He received the Wheelwright Traveling Fellowship in 1951 and became a naturalized citizen of the United States in 1954.

This is http://www.netglimse.com/celebs/pages/i_m_pei/index.shtml which says this at the bottom: Copyright © 2001-2004 NetGlimse.com. Privacy PolicyAll Rights Reserved.

before moving to the United States to study architecture at the age of 18. He started at the University of Pennsylvania before going on to receive his Bachelor of Architecture degree from Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1940. That same year, he was awarded the Alpha Rho Chi Medal, the MIT Travelling Fellowship, and the AIA Gold Medal. He enrolled at the Harvard Graduate School of Design two years later; shortly thereafter, he served at the National Defense Research Committee in Princeton, New Jersey. In 1944 he returned to Harvard, received his master degree in Architecture in 1946 and stayed at Harvard as an assistant professor. He received the Wheelwright Traveling Fellowship in 1951 and became a naturalized citizen of the United States in 1954.

Aside from the list of his projects, this plagerized part is over half of the article.

It is interesting to note that the above source has wrong information which was copied to the wikipedia article. I have corrected it. The original name of I. M. Pei's firm was I. M. Pei and Associates and was changed to ....and Partners several years later.

The question posed is what should editors do about plagerized materials? I believe the correct action is deletion, even though it may seem painful. I will rewrite it. VK35 21:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Its only deleted if the whole thing is plagiarized from the beginning. Otherwise, remove the copied parts, revert to the last non-plagiarized version, or (best solution) rewrite it. Also, for established articles, there is the chance that the other website copied our article and tried to pass it off as their own. There are hundreds of sites that mirror Wikipedia and use Wikipedia's content, with varying levels of

GFDL compliance. Mr.Z-mantalk¢

21:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

In this particular case, I suspect the plagiarism went the other way. See this version and the previous versions which clearly show the development of the version now at http://www.netglimse.com/celebs/pages/i_m_pei/index.shtml. As far as what to do, in this case I think the GFDL non-compliance process at Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks is the appropriate action. What to do about problems going the other way is listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems. -- Rick Block (talk) 21:38, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

The problem with the theory that the other site may have plagerized it from wikipedia is that wikipedia's policy is not to have original research. The content in question had only 1 citation and that citation did not provide quite a few details that was in the wikipedia article. So the wikipedia content was either uncited or original research. Another possibility is that the editor had contact with the Pei family. But then, that would be original research.

Regarding Rick Block's comments, he may be correct. On the other hand, there was some discussion about Mr. Pei's birthplace which was then corrected.

Even if the other site copied it from us, this serves as a warning that we as wikipedia editors should uphold the highest ethical and professional standards.VK35 21:48, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

The article's edit history clearly shows that NetGlimse has plagiarised Wikipedia. So while it would be nice of User:VK35 to rewrite the article in order to improve it, there is no legal need to do so. It makes no difference whether the article is incorrect, uncited or whatever. NetGlimse still shouldn't have copied it without following the GFDL rules. -- Derek Ross | Talk 21:52, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Why is

Have you tried asking JzG, who protected the page? - auburnpilot talk 21:56, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Second the asking the person responsible as opposed to asking us, who can only guess. As my guess, however, I consider this version before redirect and protection a major BLP-related concern, especially considering that it was not well-referenced. Also, seeing as how she seems only notable for one event (the kidnapping), I don't think it is appropriate. But that is my opinion. --Iamunknown 22:00, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Then shouldn't it be salted, instead of being a nonsense redirect? You're right, I should have talked to Guy first, I'll do that now. Corvus cornix 22:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

• It was redirected in response to well-founded concerns, and
  WP:NOT a newspaper, and this [1] atrocious version was posted instead, so I protected it as a redirect. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tanya Kach (second nomination). Guy (Help!
  ) 22:20, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Why not just salt and protect? Corvus cornix 22:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

• Ask Doc, I guess. Guy (Help!) 22:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I seem to recall inserting a reference to this kidnap victim, appropriate to context and weighting, into Kidnapping. It is possible that it was removed, again on grounds of undue weight. I think it would probably be better as a salted deletion, really. --Tony Sidaway 22:55, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah no, here it still is:

Kidnapping frequently excites keen press coverage.

I wanted to say "lurid", but thought that would be too weaselly. --Tony Sidaway 22:58, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

The DRV happened here which resulted in overturn, with a strong suggestion of changing from a biography to an account of the events. The AFD (as linked above) was speedily closed and deleted, given the absolute enforcement of the DRV closure over the

n

23:30, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Issue resolved, apparently. EVula // talk // ☯ // 01:08, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

This user keeps posting ridiculously long edit summaries which annoys me because it shows up on the recent changes pages as long lines. What is the user trying to do? Trying to get our attention or just having fun? --_Hdt83 ^Chat 23:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean JoJ (talk · contribs)? If so, he only has one edit, and that was to post an unblock request...has someone deleted his edits? hbdragon88 23:27, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

That was fast. An admin deleted the user talk page and then redirected it to the user page, where it shows that it's a WoW sockpuppet. hbdragon88 23:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

 – User unblocked. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Could an admin unblock

I'd like to second this, there is no reason for this block to remain in place. --MichaelLinnear 02:52, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Done. (aeropagitica) 04:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Although I'm not an admin,

Captain Wikify ^Argh!

18:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Agree. The motives behind vandalism of redirect pages are different than for those of their targets (hey, I should know). YechielMan 23:34, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Chick Bowen

02:21, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Curious. It was tagged with semi-protection at the time I created the redirect page (~18:30 UTC yesterday). Does that mean a page can be tagged as protected without actually being protected? DarkAudit 14:52, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

The actual protection is independent of the templates. The tags are just used to inform people that the pages are currently protected (since as far as I know, people without the admin flag wouldn't be able to tell whether a page is semi-protected or not without them). Anyone could add the templates on a page, but it's usually disruptive if the page isn't actually protected. - Bobet 15:02, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Non admins can tell, it just requires a certain level of knowledge about Wikipedia. If you click "edit this page" on a protected page, some red text appears above the edit window informing you that the page is semi-protected. Also, it shows up in the page history and logs. But one usually has to know what they're looking for to notice those things. Natalie 06:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The above editor, who earlier raised a complaint against me at

I would comment that EHC had previously come into dispute with both Migospia, Danielfolsom and myself a few days ago on the Coral Smith talkpage which resulted in my blocking him for three hours. My involvement ended with the block, but I note he continued to engage with Danielfolsom over another article where their relationship veered between friendliness and rank incivility. It also appears that Migospia was interacting with Danielfolsom at that time.

Could another admin look into this and confirm that EHC is, if not trolling, acting outside the norms of civility and good faith by using a dispute between two other editors to cause further ill-feeling against the absent party? With the history I have difficulty assuming good faith on behalf of this editor, especially considering that EHC's Contribution history shows that there has only been interaction recently with the aforementioned editors and User:Rockpocket, Danielfolsom's mentor and also the subject of an EHC complaint. Since I am already involved in this I would like an opinion on my actions so far, and suggestions on a course to proceed upon.

Whoever takes a peek, I would caution a careful tread and a thick skin! Thanks. LessHeard vanU 22:31, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to add my support to the suggestion that someone take a look at EHC's editing techniques. I was the subject of a similar complaint a few days back (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive256#Issues w/ Administrator Rockpocket). There appears to be a pattern forming, that would be best nipped in the bud. Rockpocket 01:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I see 200 or so edits that don't build an encyclopedia in the past few days. His last article edit was 5 days ago. He's not here to help us, anymore. I've blocked him indef for now. His choices have been ridiculous.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Indef seemse harsh. Perhaps a week to see if this gets him to behave?

╦

08:16, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Another editor advised him on how to get unblocked and he has indicated he is retiring from the project [2]. Rockpocket 08:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I would reduce the block anyway, and allow him to choose to return if he wants to.

╦

09:00, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I would support a shorter block, and try to get him/her back to editing articles. When editing article space he is an okay editor. LessHeard vanU 12:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Could a few folks please take a look at

I don't see any problem with acting on this request, but I'd like to get the views from more experienced admins before acting on anything, as the whole situation involved many users. Is there any reason why the pages still need to exist? Cheers- CattleGirl ^{talk | sign!} 08:32, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Can you get a message back ask him to log in and email me, to confirm it's from him (or to log in and drop a message and a {{

╦

10:13, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't generally care very much about block notices on userpages, so delete the main page and blank the talk page if you like. I don't see a real reason to delete the talk page, but protecting blank should be good enough. Kusma (talk) 11:05, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

True, generally we're not supposed to delete talk pages. I've requested the email address that he used to contact 2-16 so I can email him. If he replies to that- his talk page is protected- I'll unprotect the talk page to allow him to request his userpage deletion, confirm that it is him. If he replies, I'll blank the talk page. (I'll also direct him here in the message). Cheers- CattleGirl ^{talk | sign!} 11:36, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

He does have the Right to Vanish, which involves deleting one's talk page. This seems to be what he wants. Just ask him to log in and request deletion of his own talk page.

masterka

19:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

He can request his talk page be deleted himself. No reason for us to do anything. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I would prefer the talk page not be deleted, but if the consensus is that it is appropriate in this case, then so be it. --Iamunknown 20:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, his talkpage is protected and has been for months, so he can't request deletion there. Upon receiving confirmation that this is Flameviper's request, I would delete both pages, with the caveat that if he is found engaging in future misconduct they would have to be restored. Newyorkbrad 00:53, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

• This is going to get me shot, but would anyone support his unblocking? I'd like to work with him, be his mentor on the strict understanding that any future disruption results in re-blocking. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:56, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, the original post at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive74#User:Flameviper_needs_a_coach suggested just as much, but somehow it turned into an impromptu votes for banning thing, which is utterly ridiculous. So yeah, I would endorse an unblock. --Iamunknown 00:58, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I see no problem with that. CattleGirl ^{talk | sign!} 07:36, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm all for one final chance here, I always felt bad that a banning discussion would be headed under "needs a coach." However Ryan as his mentor you need to be absolutely clear that this is his final opportunity to come back with some maturity, Flameviper seems to have an expectation of an infinite amount of chances to redeem himself, as someone with six infinite bans in his block log, and now serving a 3 year ban at Uncyclopedia, he needs to realize that all patience has been exhausted. --MichaelLinnear 22:36, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

And the comment on his talk indicates some degree of self-awareness, so... why not, I guess. Guy (Help!) 22:40, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I trust your judgement, Ryan; if you think you can talk some sense into him, by all means unblock, as long as you're equally willing to reblock in the (I'm sad to say, but entirely likely) event that he doesn't pick up the clue phone. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:59, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Unbanning is a bad idea. I remember dealing with this guy; he wasn't here to write the encyclopedia, just join an online community, participate in some web memes, etc. I don't see anything to be gained by unbanning him. He was very immature the last time he tried editing and not much time has passed in the intervening period, so it's very unlikely he's gotten any better. If you unblock, I predict more disruption and a not-so-distant re-banning. --Cyde Weys 15:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

To be fair, a timescale would help here. You seem to suggest he might mature at some point, so you could suggest a time after which he would be allowed to show this new maturity. Or you could just say that when he gets a clue, create a new account. Carcharoth 15:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll have to be with Cyde on this one, I really can't see any good coming out of unblocking Flameviper. As pointed out above, a reblock is almost entirely going to happen. If he is unblocked there will have to be very strict restrictions set upon his editing and behaviour, with even a little deviation outside those restrictions resulting in a new block. – Chacor 01:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Do we actually have a way of controlling or influencing Flameviper? His previous history shows him rejecting well-intended attempts to get him back on the right path. Anyone who hopes to work with him again should read through the set of comments about him in Archive74 and see if they still have the same hopeful opinion. Unblocking is not just an administrative action, all the rest of us would have to put up with whatever he unleashes on us, and clean up the mess. If this were an an Arbcom ban, he could apply to be unblocked after one year, which would be February, 2008. I think we can afford to wait until then. EdJohnston 01:40, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with those opposing an unblock. I was one of the editors who dealt with him very frequently in his last months on Wikipedia (I was the one who imposed the 1 month block that was later extended to the indefinite block by Yanksox) and don't think this is a wise move. It's been four months since he was blocked. That is hardly enough time for him to mature out of that mindset he displayed on Wikipedia for a very long time (remember this wasn't his first issue, see User:Flameviper/socks). He never brought anything productive to this encyclopedia. It's not like he was a prolific editor who snapped occasionally. Metros 01:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Please see the new discussion posted on

WP:CN. Ryan Postlethwaite

19:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Could an administrator please delete the account User:CamelCommodore. I posted a message on the user page a few days ago explaining the situation. An investigation revealed that this was an account created for the sole purpose of causing trouble in an arbitration case and casting a shadow of suspicion on another user. Maintaining this account on Wikipedia serves no useful purpose as it is a reminder of a very heated and sensitive situation which all parties have since tried to move past. -195.229.236.213 05:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Uh, at most, it can be indefinitely blocked, rather than be deleted. However, if you'd like it to be blocked, you'd better pony up some diffs. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

My understanding is that it has already been blocked. Would like to see it removed from the site if that is possible for a variety of reasons, most of them off-wiki ones. -195.229.236.213 05:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not generally possible, for attribution reasons -- but see the Oversight noticeboard at the top if you have serious libel concerns. --Haemo 05:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, it's not at the top; it's here Wikipedia:Oversight --Haemo 05:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. That is very helpful. -195.229.236.213 05:40, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and I don't think the account should be deleted - unless the user himself is willing to log in and request this under

╦

15:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Accounts can not be deleted. The contributions might be removed by

Thatcher131

15:34, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you everyone above for the good information. I doubt the person who created that account could ever be talked into logging in like you suggest nor is the existence of that account serious enough to actually cause harm to the person it was meant to discredit. I suppose its fine the way it is with the statement on there about the suspected bad faith creation. Thank you again for the polite responses, even from those who thought they might have been dealing with someone that they once had problems with. Matter resolved. -38.119.112.187 04:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Glaring abuse of Admin Powers by User:Ryulong and unjustified blocking activity

I had to walk across town to use another computer in order to post this message, which I feel needs to be posted. The original inquiry was a legitimate concern and I approached the Admin Noticeboard in good faith and got what I thought was a good answer. However, within hours of my post, my ip address was blocked for an invalid reason and, quite frankly, what seems like someone with a grudge. Requests to get unblocked have gone unanswered and I am hoping that I am not breaking a rule by using another computer to post, but it seems to be the only way I can get on Wikipedia now. My formal complaint is as follows:

I was shocked that within a few hours of this exchange, User:Ryulong proceeded to block the ip address as a “banned account” in accordance with Husnock’s arbitration case. This was a completely invalid reason to block the ip address for the glaring fact that Husnock’s account, or any account associated with him, was never banned. I reviewed Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Husnock and there was absolutely no mention about a ban on this user. I then used a VPN (under a different ip address) to approach the blocking user in order to politely explain the situation and state that a mistake had been made [3]. Ryulong then blocked the VPN even after being told that Husnock was never banned and that the block was unfair and reverted the original inquiry from his talkpage without discussion (as if it were vandlism) [4]. So, I have to ask, why were these accounts blocked? As for any of these accounts actually being Husnock, bear in mind that the point of an anonymous account is that it is anonymous. There is no Wikipedia regulation which states that an anon ip account must identify itself and I will not confirm or deny that I am Husnock or any other user. And regardless of who is “behind the keyboard” in this case, the original concern was very valid which is why I came here in the first place. A member of an IT staff showed extensive knowledge about the Husnock Arbitration case and then admitted to creating the CamelCommodore account. He had knowledge of the account’s password and its edits and was, at one point, a subordinate of Husnock in the military unit which had used the computer facilities from where these accounts originated. I thank the users above for providing the information about the oversight, but ask the other users who launched into this “let’s get Husnock” campaign to step back and think about what you’re doing. I truly feel this was for personal feelings rather than any violation of Wikipedia policy. Finally, I ask that certain people get off this horse that Husnock is some evil user who should be blocked on sight. The arbitration case is over and Husnock hasn’t edited disruptively since last year. In fact, over the last year he has served his country's military in the Middle East. Yet, whenever any account appears which is perhaps in any way associated with him, it is attacked, harassed, and now apparently blocked without cause. This even being the case when ip addresses are spread throughout the world, from different countries, editing within minutes of each other. If Husnock were to return to this site tomorrow, and started editing again under his old account, would he be welcomed back and assisted to rejoin the community? A question to ask oneself, I feel.

Thank you for letting me vent this, it was just very disturbing. I again hope that I not breaking any rule or regulation by posting this. It simply seemed like an admin blocked these ip addresses without any cause, justification, or reason other than a personal dislike for Husnock. This is something that should be brought to other's attention. -213.42.2.22 15:19, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The IP addresss should not have been blocked. I will raise it with Ryulong.

╦

15:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

No response, so unblocked.

╦

19:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Seems like the right course of action, to me. I'm assuming Ryulong has a good explanation for his actions; he's generally pretty reasonable. --Masamage ♫ 19:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Or seems to be, for now. Feel free to remove this template if something new crops up. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:25, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Stumbled across The New Release today. Apparently the page has been speedy-deleted twice as spam, but is now recreated with the same content, by the same user. What's standard procedure here? --Alvestrand 06:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Tag it again. If it's recreated a lot in a short span of time, an admin may

salt the earth. Natalie

07:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

FYI, interesting piece of html inserted on kite that made clicking anywhere on the page go to the spam site. I've taken out the angle brackets to disable it: p style="font-size: 50000px; left: -50px; width: 100%; position: absolute; top: -50px; height: 100%; font-color: transparent" [5]. Cheers Clappingsimon talk 14:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

We already seem to have a name for it at WikiProject Spam: "invisible inkspam". Femto 15:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Sneaky IP responsible has been softblocked for six months.

╦

15:16, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Doesnt do anything on Firefox 2.0.0.4, nor on IE6. —Crazytales ^{(talk) (alt)} 23:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi everyone. I am concerned about the edits of the above user, for example, those here [6]. As I would like to be appropriate in response to issues such as giving "final notice" to an editor with no edit history, and I would like to avoid approaching 3rr with this editor, I am turning this case over to the collective for perusal. I think I may have become a tad frustrated with the user blanking communication on her/his user talk page as soon as it was posted combined with relative attacking behaviors such as that above, regarding a post in an AfD by an IP editor (User:81.14.178.73). For this reason, I will back away and leave it, if any communication is appropriate, to other admins to oversee. Thanks, --Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 20:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I on the other hand consider

Biographies_of_living_persons

. He questioned what I considered defamatory and I cited three examples on the talk page, and the fact that opinions on the article page had no source and should be deleted immediately as above. I of course removed the warning from my talk page as it was totally inappropriate.

This prompted User:kukini to troll my contributions for perceived errors. He found one, where I had mistakenly put the warning he refers to on the user page instead of the talk page. I felt justified in placing the warning because the user had shown him/herself to be an anonymous user that had vandalised a page during an edit war. This was shown because he/she subsequently signed a comment on an AfD page (Delete the article! HAJ 21:11, 7 June 2007 —The preceding comment is by 81.14.178.73) User 81.14.178.73 had made exactly the same edits as several other anon users who had already also been warned. If a user makes an anonymous comment, and then subsequently signs it, it is clear who the user is. The page was protected, so the anon user had no choice but to get a user name. Unfortunately, he/she must not have realised that it would not allow immediate edits.

There have been a couple of other issues which have been solved through dialogue with the other affected users to everyone's satisfaction.

I think it ill-behooves an administrator to wade in to past issues without ascertaining the facts. A simple note on my talk page asking why I did what I did would have resulted in dialogue and hopefully consensus.

Harry was a white dog with black spots

20:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Help is needed here if anyone is willing. It has been just me and two other admins working on this page, and it is getting quite backlogged. So, all you suckers who claimed in your RfA that you would help with whatever backlogs exist, get to work! --Spike Wilbury 17:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

And while you're at it, there also is a backlog at

Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images. Garion96 (talk)

20:19, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

And

Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion.  :-P --Iamunknown

01:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Aye aye, sir! (but working very slowly) --Alvestrand 07:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

OK, this is my first question as a newbie admin so go easy on me :) The lead image of

The Commons picture has been restored - looks like a glitch. There was deleted copy of the image, but no one had deleted it. Might be an example of this problem. WjBscribe 02:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed—thank you. Should have thought of that... Fvasconcellos (t·c) 09:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I have just been catching up on wiki-news, and through the Signpost I read about Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Gracenotes, and have read the resulting pages of discussion. What I was wondering was whether the point about valid criticism and useful material (ie. not attack material) on dedicated Wikipedia criticism sites could be secondarily linked to? ie. Could a Wikipedia user post a statement elsewhere on the internet (eg. a personal blog site like those run by, among others, David Gerard and Kelly Martin) discussing and linking to the valid criticism at the controversial site, and then link to that blog post from a Wikipedia talk page? Would this 'distancing' of the controversial link, making it a click-read-click step away, help at all? This wouldn't of course help in the case of reliable parts of a site (well-written, sourced articles) that also has controverial parts (eg. an online forum) being used as a reliable source for a Wikipedia article, but that is a different issue, so I will leave that aside for now. The main question here is, would indirect linking help resolve the problem of not shutting out valid criticism? Carcharoth 12:00, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Generally, linking to a site that has attacks (even if it's via a chain) is a violation of

WP:NPA. If my userpage has a link to my normal blog, which itself links to my "Carcharoth is a complete Douchebag" blog, and I say "Hey - check out my [normal blog] - and click the link at the top" - that's a personal attack. If the New York Times runs a letter to the editor complaining that Jimbo has a terrible haircut ---- we're not going to delink all the references to the New York Times (well, most of us won't). It's a common sense application, of course. The end result is that you shouldn't link to anything that'd be inappropriate to just post. WilyD

15:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Um. I said secondary linking to valid criticism, not to an attack post. What is it about this subject that causes people to misinterpret anything that is written about it? That is exactly what Gracenotes said, and some people plainly just misunderstood him. Is there a simple way to say that you don't ever want to link to attack material, but want to be able to point out, very carefully, that there is a diamond sitting on top of that pile of stinking faeces? Carcharoth 20:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and I forgot the classic rebuttal. By this logic of a chain, Wikipedia mustn't link to Wikipedia articles, because they link to websites that link to websites that link to... with an attack site at the end of the chain. I think that makes the point clear. Case-by-case judgements trusting the person doing the judgement, and examining content, wins over blanket rules every time. Carcharoth 00:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Last week I was blocked 48 hours for 3RR violation. I already discussed at length on my talk page the mitigating circumstances in that case, which prove beyond a reasonable doubt that I should not have been blocked at all. Of course, I should not have needed to bother with such lengthy statements, as my note on the 3RR report itself was certainly enough, and in any case the record itself speaks the same ideas. Nonetheless, as a result of the contemptible behavior of the admins reviewing my block (with one exception whom I will not name for his protection), I am compelled to come here to seek satisfaction.

The lies and dishonesty used against me must in justice be called lies and dishonesty. Implying that 3RR is always enforced strictly with no discretion, as did Yamla in particular; use of the pejorative term 'wikilawyering' and falsely claiming that I was warned before violation, as did JzG; implying that I was not engaged in a civil discussion, as did the blocking admin; the block summary, calling my actions 'a repeated pattern', as well as falsely calling them 'edit warring' as did several parties; and lastly, ignoring my arguments - as did the blocking admin, all the reviewing admins, and arguably Viridae - could itself be termed dishonest, as there could be no conclusion reached by an examination of them other than that the block was unjust.

In addition to properly vindicating my personal honor, it is necessary to expose this to the entire community in order save my reputation from being ruined by this block. I am not a problem editor in any way and my edit history certainly bears that out - although I do use reverting perhaps more than normal, I am not regularly tendentious, uncivil, ignorant, or biased on any topic. In addition I have a rule, which I have mentioned before, of never reverting more than once without some kind of explanation except in cases of vandalism. The way, the truth, and the light 08:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring is not acceptable behaviour. Continuing to edit war whilst engaging in discussion is still edit warring. In future, please do not continue to revert other editors - instead, wait until consensus is reached via discussion before making further changes to the article. In order to give other editors a chance to contribute, it's prudent to wait at least 24 hours and sometimes up to a week before taking any action. Therefore there is no excuse for making 3 or more reverts within 24 hours. Waggers 09:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The evidence is there for anyone to see - if you dispute my characterizations, look at the record for yourself rather than repeating the lies. There is no doubt that the words 'edit warring', as well as 'continued reverting', simply do not apply. Also, the history of that article,

List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts, shows that no one was more diligent (perhaps equally, but not more) than I was at the time. The way, the truth, and the light

02:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

That you're reverting to different versions is not a mitigating circumstance. That you believe FeloniousMonk to misunderstand something is not a mitigating circumstance either. That you believe to be in dispute with Jayjg is grounds for

WP:RFC dispute resolution, but is not a mitigating circumstance with respect to edit warring. Et cetera. >Radiant<

09:01, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The reason for them being mitigating circumstances is that they show me to have been editing in good faith, and thus not 'edit warring', if that pejorative term means anything at all. I should not need to point out that mitigating circumstances of that sort are in some cases taken into account - including my previous violation on that article - making your claim dishonest for that reason also. The way, the truth, and the light 16:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

If you really were editing in good faith you would not be immediately accusing people who disagree with you of dishonesty. >Radiant< 19:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Immediately? No, only after trying and failing to get a reasonable explanation. In addition, I explained exactly what I believe is dishonest. The way, the truth, and the light 05:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The best way to avoid being blocked, in the future, is to not edit war. Hope that helps. Nandesuka 22:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

3RR is a technical rule, you break it you get blocked. All exceptions to this rule are listed at

Of course, that simplistic assertion doesn't explain why some violations - such as my previous one on that article - do not result in blocks. Nor does it explain why my block was longer than the standard 24 hours despite all other factors being in my favor. The way, the truth, and the light 05:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Blocks are intended to prevent further violations, such as trolling[7] in this particular case. After reviewing Pat's talk page, it seems to me that he is 200% sure that everything he does is perfectly right. I see no point in unblocking him unless he promises to stop his crusade against the communty's consensus. MaxSem 10:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe someone can talk him through the consensus? He really really does not accept that it exists. Guy (Help!) 11:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The only other thing I can think of is banning him from the Wikipedia namespace altogether, just let him contribute to articles. This may not be practical, but it's all I can think of. Every edit he makes to Wikispace is either trolling or useless, often a concoction of both. Other than kickbanning outright forever, this might be an option? Moreschi ^Talk 13:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I've been keeping an eye on his talk page; Pat certainly seems set on resuming disruptive editing should he be unblocked. The wikilawyering and word games on his talk page (his attempt to characterize this block as 'extortion' based on his interpretation of dictionary definitions comes to mind as a recent example) exemplify the reasons AMA failed in the first place. He's done some good and useful things, but until he's prepared to stop beating this dead horse, I'm not prepared to unblock. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:52, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

CyclePat did previously honor a ban regarding the

community sanction noticeboard. Perhaps placing a stronger ban (a ban on any editing related to the AMA) could be similarly effective? If he would be willing to honor such a restriction, it would be much better than blocking him altogether. I don't think hes a bad guy, he just gets a bit overzealous, but really we're probably all guilty of that at one time or another. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me}

19:49, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

If it's made clear to Pat that AMA is dead and that no call to bring it back is wanted, desired, or allowed, and he's willing to go along with it, I have no problem with that. I have a feeling that Pat will not accept it, however... SirFozzie 19:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd go along with that, provided he agrees. It's probably more realistic than a ban from the Wikipedia namespace. If he violates it, ascending blocks ending in indefinite. Thoughts? Can someone put this before him? We might as well get his views on such an arrangement before a full discussion of how it would work. Moreschi ^Talk 19:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I informed Pat of this discussion and invited him to respond at his talkpage.--Isotope23 20:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Sent him an email along the same lines, though less nicely phrased. If he replies to me in the affirmative, that should be OK for an unblock, as far as I'm concerned. Moreschi ^Talk 20:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if I am allowed to post here or not, but I wanted to tell that I have had a confilct with this user, recently. His alternative account (or maybe sockpuppet, not sure) User:CyclePat2, erased most of the Saturn Corporation article, because it was unsourced, Me, as well as a couple of other editors, continued to revert, when it teetered on the edge of being an edit war. He later trolled the talk page of it. He finally stopped, but not without a fight. (He got blocked because he attacked an admin by dropping a couple of f-bombs) I just thought that I would let you know that. I don't really think that he should be unblocked after my unfortunate run in with him. Since I am a non-admin, if me posting here is not allowed, then you can remove this comment. I just thought that I would inform you of this conflict. Karrmann 20:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Posting here is completely allowed, for everyone. Hmm...we are supposed to be forgiving. Clemency is the virtue of the great, etc. I'd say it's worth giving this chap one more chance. He is capable of making productive contributions. Moreschi ^Talk 20:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I protected his talkpage, just as a heads up. I set expiry of two weeks and told him that I hope by the end of those two weeks, he'll be ready to rejoin us and get over the AMA. ^

Perhaps it should be unprotected so he can respond to the offer. I don't know Pat very well, but from what I gather, if he is committed to pursuing a discussion on AMA now, he will be committed to pursuing it in 2 weeks as well.--Isotope23 20:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Unprotected. We need to him to make one more comment on this offer, yea or nay. Just one. Moreschi ^Talk 20:22, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

(EC) Non-admins are absolutely allowed to post here. "Administrators' noticeboard" means that the board is for issues which may require the attention of admins, not that only admins are allowed to post or comment. As to your specific complaint, could you please provide some diffs of the conduct you object to? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

An example of him trolling the Saturn Corporation talk page is here. What got him blocked is here. While I understand the idea of forgive and forget, it does get annoying to have an editor start a flame war whenever his edits are reverted. If an editor is just going to troll and attack other editors, then I find no use for them here. Wiarthurhu would make many useful contributions, but would always attack other editors if we changed up his edits or reverted any edits from him, so he eventually got blocked because everybody got tired of him attacking everybody. I say that an editor that is always attacking other editors is of no use here. That is just my opinion, though. Karrmann 20:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I have tried to talk sense into Pat on his talk page but for me (and this is really unfortunate) I'm starting to get a bad faith feel off of him, I even started an RfC on him in order for him to see that he was trying everyone's patience so he could stop, take a breath and move on a better editor. <sigh> I wish he would drop the subject on the AMA, it is gone it should rest in piece before this becomes the circus that the Espernza Closing was. It would be great if he could come back but his track record as of late makes me wonder if he can really ever accept that the AMA is done. Æon ^{Insanity Now!} 22:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

• Note: Pat has left a comment on his talk page, basically saying "I need to think about this". BTW, I would strongly oppose any attempts to get him involved in any other forms of DR, such as MedCab or MedCom. He can be a productive editor, but not when it comes to dampening down strife. His record seems to be more one of causing wikidrama than preventing it. Moreschi ^Talk 14:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Moreschi, Pat has had some serious issues with the DR process in the past and having him in any DR step could cuase a huge problem. Æon ^{Insanity Now!} 22:26, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

For once, I agree. --Hemlock Martinis 05:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

What a change in policy

Enough. El_C 03:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

More admins may wish to express an opinion on some pretty drastic changes that have been made to this page over the last 2 months. The page discusses when the main page FA should be semi-protected. Changes have been made (see this version [12] for example) to suggest routine semi protection for the rest of the day in the case of high vandalism. This does not to my mind in any way match our present approach (or the approach we should take). To my mind semi-protection should be reserved for extreme vandalism such that reverters can no longer keep up and should be for brief periods and reassessed every hours or so. There appears to have been limited input from admins (or indeed the wider community for some time). If interested, please join the discussions on the talkpage. WjBscribe 23:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

In case anyone feels inclined to compare the previous page to the current one: 11:41, 4 April 2007 and 22:06, 11 June 2007. –

Steel

00:01, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

There has recently been reversion of changes to this page claiming there is no consensus to change policy, despite a large number of editors offering support for a change and very few supporting the current policy. A survey of opinions was also posted allowing users to place themselves on a continuum of position from full protection to never protect. This was deleted today as well. It has been suggested that the survey was biased and canvassed, and that the discussion has not been sufficiently advertised. Notification of the discussion has now been posted to all pages suggested. I request comment on recent changes to pages, discussion of the policy, and a notice appearing for registered users like the one I'm seeing above ('Early registration for Wikimania 2007 is open'). It has been suggested this is not important enough to justify such a notice, though I believe it's a very important policy and has wider impacts for its reflection of Wikipedia's philosophy. Richard001 08:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Wow, thanks for bringing this here. I had no idea that this guideline that metamorphosed into such farcical nonsense. Moreschi ^Talk 09:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I dunno, I'm starting to think protecting the main page FA isn't such a bad idea. It's currently vandalized at such a ridiculous rate that it's really making Wikipedia look bad. A good number of readers (higher than 1%) are clicking through from the main page and hitting on vandalism. I don't think it's worth it to keep the page unlocked at this rate. In the absence of stable versions, we need some way to always make sure to present the best version of the article to our hundreds of thousands of readers coming off the main page, and protecting the article as soon as it hits the main page is the best way to accomplish that. Maybe we could implement the stable versions hack using templates — move the article over to a working version and leave that editable, while copying over the best version to the main article name, protecting it, and adding a template to the top saying, "You are reading a stable version that has been identified as good. To see the most recent version, and to edit the article, see the working version." --Cyde Weys 09:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

How about we semiprotect it, and put a template on the article saying "This article is semiprotected to prevent vandalism while it is featured on the front page. If you are unable to edit this article, please suggest any changes on the talk page"? It's simple, but I don't see why it wouldn't work. Free editing of the featured article is a wonderful ideal, but it isn't working.

╦

09:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we decided yet, but certainly, if we do choose that route, it will need to be phrased in a manner that more friendly to newcomers who may well be puzzled by such terms as "semiprotected", etc. But this isn't a change to be undertaken on a whim. El_C 10:08, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

• One of the most worrying problems is that sometimes people are unsure what is vandalism and what is not, a kid doing a study project could easily believe a serious piece a vandalism was fact here is an example [13] I quite like Cyde's idea or failing that I cannot see the harm if the front page being at least semi-protected (established editors only) with others being asked to add any useful information to the talk page where it could be added to the article by an established editor.

  Giano

  10:01, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

• Hey, that's what I said.
  ╦
  10:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

• Ah you conflicted me when I first tried to post, perhaps we are psychic twins seperated at birth?
  Giano
  11:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

• Ooh, scary thought :)
  ╦
  19:43, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Or just get more people, especially admins, watchlisting the Main page FA? I don't think many do. Put a note on every one's watchlist saying "Please consider watchlisting and reverting vandalism on today's FA. Help save the wiki!". Would probably work just as well. Many of the best edits to main page FAs do come from IPs, I've seen a number of examples. Moreschi ^Talk 10:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

It certainly would be better for our image if we could keep Main page entries stable and open. El_C 10:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Which reminds me,

After sympathising with User:Dave souza for having to revert so much vandalism on a main page FA, I found he was rather enjoying the work! User_talk:Dave_souza/Archive_7#Congrats_about_Charles_Darwin Thincat 11:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I always watch the main page FA when I deny a protection request for it at

Is there a way to put Wikipedia:Today's featured article/{{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTDAY}}, {{CURRENTYEAR}} on my watchlist? --Aude (talk) 11:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

It wouldn't matter; that page you're referring to is protected anyway (you're talking about the summary that appears on the main page, which is always fully protected). --Cyde Weys 11:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

You can check [[Special:Recentchangeslinked/Wikipedia:Today's featured article/{{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTDAY}}, {{CURRENTYEAR}}]] though, which is mostly the changes to today's FA: Special:Recentchangeslinked/Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 27, 2024. Kusma (talk) 12:26, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

That's more what I'm looking for. It would be great if those pages linked to Wikipedia:Today's featured article/{{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTDAY}}, {{CURRENTYEAR}} could automatically go on my watchlist and possibly be taken off when no longer linked there. Maybe that's a bug request. Otherwise, I can't remember to always add the featured article of the day. --Aude (talk) 12:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Such capability would also help enormously in watching Portal pages like {{Portal:Mathematics/Featured article/{{CURRENTYEAR}}_{{CURRENTWEEK}}} which tend to experience a lot of vandalism, but not always watched that closely. --Aude (talk) 12:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, a cascading watchlist. I want one of those. — CharlotteWebb 13:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Isn't that what Special:Related changes does? Carcharoth 15:12, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I check my watchlist much more often. If the main page article is on my watchlist, I'm likely to catch vandalism quickly. But, I can't spend all day clicking on Special:Recentchangeslinked/Main_Page to promptly catch vandalism to the main page article. Same with all the portal pages. --Aude (talk) 15:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

• It would seem to me that, given our current size, whether or not the main page is protected does not make a meaningful difference to our impression of being "open and free to edit". >Radiant< 12:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
• I'm a little dismayed that no attempts seem to have been made to encourage administrators to take part in the discussions on Main Page protection. We're the people who have to deal with protection requests and have the most experience in whether protection requests are appropriate. From my experience, people just start pushing all the buttons on their latest Javascript edit tools without actually checking to see whether there's a large amount of vandalism coming from different IP addresses or accounts, or whether simply blocking one account or one IP address is likely to solve the issue. Sometimes a school classroom will decide to all target the same article, simple rangeblocks and such can cure these problems almost as quickly as blocking just one IP address. I know some editors would like the Main Page to be a shining beacon to all our new visitors, but I'd much rather have the main page being used as a honey trap for vandals, with vandalism being quickly and effiencently dealt with on the Main Page and with the perpetrators blocked. It's much better than having to read complaints from readers who have contacted us because they've come across an article that has remained vandalised for weeks or months. If we do routinely protect the main page, they'll just hit Random article much more often and vandalise the first page they come across. Nick 13:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  • That assumes that vandals want a certain amount of vandalism, and they will spend as much effort as they must to get that amount of vandalism. Admittedly, some vandals truly dislike Wikipedia, and they have that mindset, but they also already know that main page vandalism is useless, since it will just be reverted. Most of the vandals we get are just passing by and being "cool", so they're willing to spend only so much energy vandalizing. They won't do a lot of work finding a page to vandalize. -Amarkov moo! 14:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

In my mind semi-protection should be reserved only for the most extreme instances of vandalism and then used for no more than 5 minutes (or however long it takes to block the dozen tagteam IPs, whichever is less). If policy must be bent, it is less damaging to the encyclopedia to block TFA vandals with fewer than optimal warnings than to leave the main page semi-protected. Vandalism to TFA is very often blatant; if someone inserts a shock image into the article by very tricky means, there is little need to warn them four times before blocking them. Semi-protecting TFA should be considered extremely damaging to the project; not only do the articles actually improve, and often from IP edits, but its a symbol of a fundamental principle of our community. Savidan 14:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I block clear vandals (obviously malicious intent, not testing) on the Main Page without warning if necessary. I prefer that approach to protection. Kusma (talk) 15:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Ugh, back in December there was a study done on about a week's worth of featured articles. (its in the talk page archives of that page.) If I recall correctly the featured article then was in a vandalized state greater then 2% of the time. Some days even saw times when the page was in a vandalized state for more then 4 hours if I recall correctly. I think about 90% of the anon edits were vandalism. In any case you guys should look at that survey, and consider doing a second one if you like. (I don't really see how things will have changed, but they could have). In any case we do have objective data on this, so I'd suggest that when talking about this you guys point to that, rather then using words such as many IPs help expand large parts of the article, and no evidence. I don't recall that many IPs helping during our study. Just a heads up, we do have some hard evidence :D. ——