Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive150

Category:Candidates for speedy deletion

Resolved

Backlog seems to be building up a bit if anyone wants to take a look. Guest9999 (talk) 22:14, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Guest9999 (talk) 23:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

:) Gwen Gale (talk) 23:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

IP 24.77.204.120

I am concerned about the attitude of 24.77.204.120. This user is badmouthing me about article Gliese 581 c. This user is threatening me with the WP:3RR (witch does not mention anything about IP user edits). I am simply requesting that you talk with this user or watch him for his actions, because I wish to now stay away from this situation because I was not aware of my actions and now wish to avoid any more conflict from it. — NuclearVacuum 01:48, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• User talk:24.77.204.120#Exoplanet image and artist's section
• User talk:NuclearVacuum#Exoplanet image and artist's section

Without comment on anything else, IP edits are the same as logged in users, we don't discriminate against anonymous users. John Reaves 01:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Voldemore keeps recreating copyrighted, previously deleted content

Resolved

As contributor has returned to editing but not addressed this further, the subpage has been deleted by WP:CSD#G12. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

This user keeps copy and pasting copyright violating text from www.scifi.com. The article Project Quicksilver has been deleted 4 times, so Voldemore has now recreated it as a userpage at User:Voldemore/Project Quicksilver and linked directly to that userpage from the The Invisible Man (2000 TV series) in a blatant attempt to run-around the deletions. (The text was copied from http://www.scifi.com/invisibleman/classified/index.html, when that url was working). I assume copyright still applies to userspace pages? 92.0.72.79 (talk) 04:54, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Prior deletion reasons don't mention copyright problems; it's true that a bot once marked the article as a potential copyvio, but absent evidence to the contrary, it currently looks to me like the off-wiki copy may have been the violation -- care to elaborate on that? That said, linking to userspace in that fashion doesn't sound acceptable. – Luna Santin (talk) 06:26, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

According to the note Voldemore left at the now deleted talk page, "The information presented in the article is actually taken from the official site of the Invisible Man television show." The archived versions of the sci fi channel seem to confirm that, noting that this is identical to text in the article. It seems like copyright violation may be a real concern here, even if the article was deleted for other reasons. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:11, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Just an additional note that I have blanked the user subpage pending resolution of this. I believe it should be a speediable copyvio, but review of the material through the history may be useful to this discussion. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:15, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

• I put a link to the information to be helpful. It's so informative I know that a lot of fans of the television show would appreciat it. I was just trying to do something nice! But since this anonymous contributor is having such a hissy fit over it, I won't put a link to my userspace in that manner every again. -- Voldemore (talk) 07:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Leaving aside the question of redirecting to userspace from mainspace, even if the official page has been removed from the internet, copyrighted material cannot be reproduced on Wikipedia without the express permission of the author or copyright holder. As this material comes from the official website, it will almost certainly need to be deleted unless there is some proof of that permission. It isn't likely that the official site borrowed the material from Wikipedia. Fans might indeed find it very interesting, but there are serious legal concerns here. I'd suggest that you read over Wikipedia:Copyrights and consider tagging the subpage {{db-u1}} to request its removal from Wikipedia. Otherwise, as this conversation wraps, it will almost certainly be speedily deleted under WP:CSD#G12. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:26, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The link works fine for me. (although it is slower than crap) Here is a screenshot. Now you can do your duty ;) J.delanoy^gabs_adds 14:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I misunderstood what is going on here? Sorry, now I'm confused. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 14:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not holding off on deletion because I doubt it is a valid G12. :) The immediate danger of displaying a copyvio is taken care of by the blanking. I didn't want to delete the subpage in the middle of a discussion about it, as it's a lot easier for other contributors to this discussion to understand the issue if it's still tucked away in history. My note above is simply a courtesy in letting the contributor know that he does have the option to have it deleted by request rather than as a "G12". --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Remember, in lieu of copyright vios, you can always link to the old pages from the Wayback machine to provide users that resource. --MASEM 14:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the problem is behavior and not merely content

Resolved

 – administrator attention not required

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

I don't think the above issue (Nasty Discussion) has truly been resolved. First, please note that this is far from the first case where TreasuryTag has been accused of bad behavior. It's not even the first case of such an accusation being brought to administrative attention this week.[1]

I think this situation needs more than just a "let's cool down, guys" response. These diffs speak for themselves; signs of an attitude of ownership, dismissive and rude behavior, an apparent belief that he is the ultimate arbiter of how policy should be applied, etc. [2][3][4] [5][6] He's even gone so far as to edit war(several reverts in a 24 hour period[7][8][9]), even after a warning about edit warring[10], the result of which was a 7 day lockdown on the article[11].

Meanwhile, his appeal here, and the resulting administrative response, is a tacit approval of his actions: he plays unfairly yet calls "foul" on others, his own offenses obscured by accusations. My question: is it appropriate for a user to act this way and have it go unnoticed? Shouldn't some action be taken, in light of all this, to prevent history repeating itself?

Mael-Num (talk) 20:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

He does not need anyhting. Stop trying to get editors into trouble and take part in the discussion on the talk page.--Phoenix-wiki 20:17, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict with Phoenix, replying to Mael-Num) The discussion had become heated, and you haven't been precisely a cool head either. If neither of you has any truly Bad Stuff to show, I suggest you both cool off and let it be. I made an informal recommendation there, which you seemed to have agreed with; also, Steve Crossin has offered to help and personally mediate the whole thing. I think that should be enough. Oh, and please also note that TreasuryTag didn't make any formal complaint against you above, I don't think you should take it personal. --Gutza ^{T T+} 20:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Surely you can't be serious...those 8 links aren't "truly" bad stuff? When does it get "truly" bad...does he need to come to my house and smash my computer over my head?

And no one's making anything personal. His edit warring was with other people, I pointed out other people have a conflict with him. Maybe you should reevaluate your take on this?

Mael-Num (talk) 20:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

You're asserting in my talk page that I haven't looked into it -- yes, I have. --Gutza ^{T T+} 20:43, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Then allow others to do so, please. This is an issue I am not taking lightly. Your comments indicate that you believe this is a content issue, but none of my complaints have to do with content. Please reread what I wrote, and take a look at some of the "bad stuff" I've linked to. Mael-Num (talk) 20:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

No, my comments indicate no such thing -- I was talking precisely about attitude, cool heads and Bad Stuff. As such, I would like an explanation for your reopening this matter. --Gutza ^{T T+} 22:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

• I think it should stay resolved. This is not an administrative matter, it's a content dispute I've said I'll handle. Look at the talk page of the article. Steve Crossin (talk)(email) 20:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, Steve, this isn't a content dispute. You're confusing the issue. Read my complaint, above.

I also made the point that since the balance of opinion is 2editors/4editors+2admins, it would appear that a workakble consensus has been formed. The 4editors+2admins seem to agree on the deletion of the info in question, and any further discussion between the parties (unless someone new comes along) will be frictive and un-necessary. This seems to be the route involving the least further communication, thus the least drama. ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 20:35, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

This isn't a content dispute, and moreover, I haven't even posted an argument there yet. Thanks for making my case for me. Mael-Num (talk) 20:43, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Mael-Num, you disagree with TreasuryTag's editing and about his views on the content dispute—this is clearly not a case that needs Administrator attention. I would prefer that you comment on the talk page of the article in question, and if you have a problem with TreasuryTag to take it up on his talk page. Please take this into consideration, Malinaccier (talk) 21:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we do disagree on what content to add, but that is an entirely separate issue. None of my complaints, above, have to do with content, save the example of edit-warring back and forth yesterday. Even then, the complaint isn't the content itself, but the behavior surrounding it. Mael-Num (talk) 21:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

• Content disputes commonly have tenacious editing in them, incivility, edit warring, I've seen it many times in content disputes. I still fail to see how this requires more than a mediator, where administrative intervention (other than page protection), is required here. Steve Crossin (talk)(email) 21:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree, and I appreciate your help in resolving the content problem. However, this editor has a history of tenacious editing, to borrow your words [12]. There also seems to be a trend of his going to AN/I or AN to complain about others during such disputes[13], which is wasteful of admin resources, and I think is a bad habit to allow, as it can surely intimidate other users into non-participation in Doctor Who related articles. Please also note that TreasuryTag's complaint that I cited was apparently in response to this[14], when another editor called for admin assistance in yet another conflict with TreasuryTag. TT's apparent modus operandi is to "take things personal", to borrow again from a fellow editor.Mael-Num (talk) 21:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Mael, are you openly stating, on the record, that (including striking out another user's conribution) you have behaved in an exemplary manner, not being remotely tenacious, disruptive, incivil, picky, assuming bad faith, and that you have acted soley in a manner constructive to useful discussion? ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 21:23, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Why are you attempting to shift the blame to me? Are you saying that I have no basis for complaint? Perhaps you should first answer your own question, now that you are here. Mael-Num (talk) 21:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

This may have become a behviour problem

In watching this conversation unfold it needs to be pointed out that Mael-Num has made the following entries. With this entry [15] Mael-Num attempted to delete an entry by Treasury Tag. Later with this entry [16] He added the strike through line to the same entry. No reason for either of these actions was given in the edit summaries. Even if they were altering other editors discussions should not occur. Later still M-N made this edit [17] altering the content of their own entry. This behaviour shows a lack of understanding about what is entailed in being a member of the wikipedia community. To take such actions in an ongoing content dispute makes it very hard to AGF in the continuing conversations. Perhaps warnings should be given but, as I am a part of the dispute, it is not my place to post them. Perhaps others will feel differently but I feel that this should be brought to someone's attention. MarnetteD | Talk 22:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I can retract whatever I'd like in my own writing. I can't edit my own stuff? Mael-Num (talk) 22:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Administrators- To you

• I have a simple request, with a simple reasoning. Can this discussion be closed. I am handling the content dispute, I see some disruptive editing, uncivil behaviour, yes. But most content disputes have these to some degree. I, personally can ask for adminsitrator intervention if it's really necessary, but at this time, I feel that administrator intervention is not required here. If you feel otherwise, feel free, but I'd appreciate it if this thread be closed. Regards, Steve Crossin (talk)(email) 22:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Blocking and any other administrative measures serve a preventative, not a punitive purpose. If the matter is being resolved and there is nothing to prevent, then there is no need for action. I've seen Steve's work elsewhere and am happy to leave this one to his judgement. Orderinchaos 06:06, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

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

Umm.....

Resolved

 – Message left explaining that I am not really an ageless immortal, regardless of what my userpage says :P J.delanoy^gabs_adds 04:33, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Neoonyxalchemist just made this post on my talk page. I replied and then started looking at the other posts on his talk page. Then I looked at his userpage. I came straight here. Although his idea is a little strange, that is not what worries me. Look at what he says about me. How should I deal with this? J.delanoy^gabs_adds 04:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Over-eager yungin. Say thank you and give him a welcome template :) Gwen Gale (talk) 04:17, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I left a note trying to explain that I am a mortal human :) Sorry, stuff like that just freaks me out. *shudder* I thought I was being scrutinized. I obviously am. What I was not aware of was that I was being worshiped.... J.delanoy^gabs_adds 04:33, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

It must have been your original sig--the blinding orange mesmerized him and made him your acolyte forever. Good thing you changed it, or there'd be armies of J.delanoy-worshipping zombie-warriors overrunning the wiki and cutting everyone down as vandals. (wink) Gladys J Cortez 16:41, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:AWB/CP

I know it hasn't been long, but could an admin please check AWB/CP. StewieGriffin! • Talk Sign 09:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Make that a technically inclined admin. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC) (sound of rapidly retreating footsteps)

 Done - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:24, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Need more eyes on an AfD

There is a non-notable band, Profound Intent, who are very insistent in getting their material onto Wikipedia, and have caused numerous issues where they constantly recreate deleted material over months.

Here's some of the (now deleted) articles that have been created by them, and deleted that are either directly related to them, or would coatrack them (for example, their albums, their members, their record company, etcetera)

Profound Intent (Deleted 6 times, currently salted)

South Capitol Recordings (Deleted 3 times)

Work It (Profound Intent song) (Deleted One Time)

Profound Intent (band) (Deleted 3 times, salted)

Street Profanity (band) (Deleted once,salted) (Band members from Profound Intent)

LaPret (Deleted TEN times) (Band member of Profound Intent)

Let's Get Krunk (Deleted three times) (Song by Profound Intent)

Still Profound (EP) (Deleted once)

This is not a comprehensive list of all their attempts to get Wikipedia, this is only what I have deleted or found on a quick search. Now, the latest one to pop up is at AfD

Get 2 Know Us (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I'm tempted to G4 the whole thing, but there is a number of possible Single Purpose Accounts disrupting the AFD on this article and making accusations of one and all. Could someone who is neutral in this whole thing look at the editors and determine if there is SPA's involved? (I wouldn't complain either way if the AfD is allowed to run all five days, or just simply G4'd as yet another spamfest. SirFozzie (talk) 20:36, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Scythed as blatant advertising. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:53, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and salted LaPret; after 10 creates/deletes, it's fairly obvious that he doesn't belong here. Some of the others may be candidates for salting as well. Horologium (talk) 00:55, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Reverse copyvio: when WP articles get deleted due to a website stealing wiki content.

I just want to post a note reminding everyone that, when checking for copyvio, please make sure that the website itself is not a uncredited/unacknowledged wikipedia mirror.

The example I'll cite here is this: http://www.banglavasha.com/ . This site blatantly copies Wikipedia content and images without acknowledging the source articles/WP. However, sometimes people are mistaking it to be the source, and the corresponding wikipedia articles to be copies!!

Just today, the article Kabi Nazrul Government College was deleted as a suspected copyvio of this. (King_of_Hearts has since restored it following a note from me). However, I have looked into many other articles from the site, and they are in most cases verbatim copies of WP articles (with just a sentence added at the top).

An example is Dhaka Central Jail, (corresponding page at the site: [18]). I quickly spotted the copy made by the site, as the photo of Dhaka central Jail from commons was taken by me, and I also wrote most of the article. Another example is Khan Mohammad Mridha Mosque (corresponding page [19]). This site has plagiarized the entire article and all the photos (which I had taken for Wikipedia on December 22, 2006 during a photo shoot with other Wikipedians in Bangladesh)..

So, before any other WP article is suspected to be a copyvio of this pirate site, please take a closer look. Please do check which one is the copy .... in this case, it is the *site* which is doing copyvio, not Wikipedia ...

Thanks. --Ragib (talk) 07:06, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I have flagged a lot of copyvios over the years. I have run into this same problem a few times, but it is generally straightforward to tell from the organic nature of the article edit history which is the copy (in most cases, Wikipedia is the one in violation, generally via straight cut&paste). Quatloo (talk) 07:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. WP:MIRROR has a list of such mirrors. King of Hearts has added this one there now, but in general, when checking/tagging copyvios, such problems might occur. So, we'd have to be careful about this. --Ragib (talk) 07:48, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

User Coren doesn't seem to give a shit whether his copyvio bot highlights a mirror or not, and neither does anyone else. Is he even in control of his bot? I doubt it. MickMacNee (talk) 15:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

It would be incredibly difficult to check for that. Even regular administrators, such as myself, have made mistakes. seicer | talk | contribs 15:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

If you have a way to code it so that it does, I'm sure he'd love to hear it. shoy 16:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Coren's bot only searches new pages and compares the text to a Google search, so the only way the bot would pick up on a mirror is if someone wrote the article, a mirror updated (or its a live mirror, which is technically forbidden), and Google updated their search results, all in the space of about a minute. The bot also allows for whitelisting of sites. You're more than welcome to ask Coren about it though instead of just complaining. Mr.Z-man 16:18, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

You know, Mick, I think everyone here knows how you feel about...well, everything, since I don't believe I've ever seen you make ANY attempt to moderate your opinions or the words with which you express them. The above comment adds no useful content--no insight on the situation, no viable question, just snarky rhetoric and a personal attack on a bot operator--and thus serves no purpose in this discussion. I suggest you refactor, and perhaps in the future you might, BEFORE you start typing, ask yourself "Of what utility to the discussion is this comment? Does it advance the conversation, or is it just a means for me to vent my opinions?" (I've kept this thought to myself for a long time, but your last remark was so devoid of useful purpose as to make my continued silence impossible.)Gladys J Cortez 16:51, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I usually use "The WayBackMachine" at Archive.org to check for the first appearance of content which is suspected to be copyvio. Of course, not everything is there - but if the external page in question has a copy on archive.org which is older than our page.. it's a useful clue.. --Versageek 00:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Sheepnacidadegrande (talk - contributions)

What should be done with this user? I believe he acts in good faith; he is extremely active but the quality of his edits are questionable at most. A ton of original research; and an incredible amount of images without source (mainly album covers that would otherwise be under fair-use), but nonetheless, quite disruptive for editors like me that are into music and forced to be on constant "clean-up mode". So what should be done? Do U(knome)? ^yes...|_{or no} · 21:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Well the first thing is to notify the editor about this post (which I've done). Exxolon (talk) 22:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, though I doubt that will any useful. If he didn't bother doing anything about his 50+ warnings, then...anyway, I got to know him through his edits on Eminem-related articles. He pretty much goes with no reliable citations, constantly creates bootlegs and also adds spam-like links reading Buy on Amazon.com. And does it all ignoring everyone and at an extremely fast pace. I nominated 2 of the bootlegs he created for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lullaby_Versions_of_Eminem and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Raw_and_Uncutt. Do U(knome)? ^yes...|_{or no} · 23:23, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Backlog

There's a backlog of images ready to be deleted at Category:All images on Wikimedia Commons ready for deletion. Spencer^T♦C 22:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

If MetsBot is 100% accurate, couldn't we just go for a batch deletion using WP:TW? Alex Muller 23:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I picked one at random, Image:Fishriver_nambia.jpg. The duplicate at commons is under a different name commons:image:Visrivier (Fish river) Nambia.jpg. So deleting the one here will screw the article Fish River (Namibia). --Stephen 00:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

MetsBot isn't completely accurate, no - I've seen it make several mistakes on the reverse, highlighting an image to say doesn't meet all deletion criteria when it actually does. Even with a so-called "perfect" bot, human eyes still need to act as a double-check to avoid issues. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 01:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

There are a couple of images left, but thanks to whoever was cleaning it out. Spencer^T♦C 02:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Need admin to delete page

Resolved

There is a discussion about the deltion of BME Pain Olympics Final Round located here. It has been up for a week, and it has three people asking for it's deletion. I think it is time to delete the page, so if an admin could come by and close it, that'd be great. --PlasmaTwa2 22:25, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Done. PeterSymonds (talk) 22:34, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Review of blocks

I just blocked Blackbeltstinky (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Blackbeltsmelly (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) indefinitely for edits like this and for being sockpuppets of each other. However because they both did this I would like a review. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 00:11, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Surely you don't think this is a COI? John Reaves 00:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely correct. If they'd had chances, they blew WP:AGF forever with that last diff. --Rodhullandemu 00:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, no worries. --Gutza ^{T T+} 00:17, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

John Reaves, I thought it common sense but I got an email from an admin before when I had blocked another editor who was doing the same thing across several talk/user pages. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 00:27, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Well that admin might need a good trout slap then. If you see an attack vandal, block them. Mr.Z-man 00:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. You have to go with your instincts for the benefit of the encyclopedia first (remember the readers? How many people do?), apply policy (remembering WP:IAR is there for a reason) and pick up the pieces later, if necessary. I may be a Category:Rouge admin in spirit, but it works for me. --Rodhullandemu 00:52, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

That an admin felt the need to email instead of posting their comments on a public board speaks volumes. Might you be interested in adopting my caveat? It could reduce the amount of off-wiki comment to you, if that is a problem.LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe your caveat is acceptable within our privacy policy, and recall somebody being forced to remove such a caveat once before. - auburnpilot talk 14:39, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

It has been previously discussed, and while some disliked it it was permitted (a couple of people have even adopted it) and it has been in place for six months now. Some people who have mailed me have requested clarification, but none have not ultimately emailed me. No email has yet been divulged. If you wish to discuss this further I am happy to do so, but I think it should be a separate thread. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:01, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, don't worry about me. I just won't email you or anybody else who doesn't respect the privacy of private communication. There are plenty of other admins and editors. - auburnpilot talk 17:13, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

To avoid conflicting with Wikipedia policy, I wonder if LessHeard could change his caveat. Instead of saying 'I won't hold your message confidential', he could say, 'I won't take action on any complaint that is submitted to me only by email.' You could coax the emailer to rephrase his problem and post it in some form on the wiki. (If they are unwilling to do that, ask them to write to Arbcom). When I see admins doing unexpected things, I sometimes wonder if they've received an email about something that I don't know about. EdJohnston (talk) 18:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm curious what privacy policy you think LHvU's notice conflicts with. Risker (talk) 18:31, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm honestly not sure if it is written in policy somewhere (too many policy pages these days), but it was a principle of the Durova Arbcom case that private correspondence should not be posted without permission from the author. - auburnpilot talk 18:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

It was precisely that matter which lead me to create the caveat, permission to disseminate is implicit when contacting me via email; that is what the wording means. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:14, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, what's next: "By commenting on this talk page, you agree that I may attack you in any way I see fit"? It may not violate the letter of any policy, but anyone can see how such a caveat isn't right. Implicit agreement to waive privacy is unjustifiable; it must be explicit from the author of the email. - auburnpilot talk 21:39, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I have posted on EdJohnston's talkpage suggesting opening a dialogue on this matter, with a view to consolidating practice into a guideline. Your participation is likely to be useful. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:46, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it's well established that an admin should have email enabled in order that users may communicate him if blocked, etc. The purpose of this is totally defeated if they must sign away their rights when they do this. LHVU further says "this may exclude me from certain aspects of the administrative remit" -- but blocking is one thing he does not abstain from. (that's a compliment, BTW). DGG (talk) 04:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know, I recently saw an arbcom case that made it clear that if someone insults you then you should not block them, then again I think that is a load of shit. Good block! _{1 != 2} 18:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC) Disclaimer: The preceding comment was pure smartassery and should not be taken seriously.

Risker is correct that the policy is not settled. Instead of "To avoid conflicting with Wikipedia policy..." I would say "To avoid criticism by editors who are concerned about the privacy of email correspondence..." EdJohnston (talk) 21:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Requesting further administrative opinion

Yesterday, I protected the Barack Obama article due to edit warring. Looking at the talk page, it is quite clear that efforts have gone on by various parties to judge consensus on this issue, but such consensus is certainly not clear in regards as to what material should be included/excluded, from what I can see. Today, one of the parties approached me and informed me that there was consensus here, but this is not apparent in my eyes. I do not really feel comfortable with bringing conclusion to this issue without the input of others, due to size and scale of the issue. I therefore would be very grateful for further opinions on this matter and what steps of action should be taken. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 04:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I will also note that it is this diff that is the source of most of the dispute: [20]. As one notes, it concerns a living person, but is not referenced to reliable exterior sources, so, by policy, it should likely not be included until reliable sources can be found. That is the line of action policy dictates, from what I can see. Therefore, I personally am tending towards the unprotection of the article, with the addition of a warning concerning BLP and relating consequences on the talk page. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 04:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

It looks like, based on further developments, that you've determined after all this is not a good time to unprotect. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I had originally thought that the problem regarded BLP solely, and that policy could keep the edit warriors inline and stop an edit war that didn't need to happen. But it seems I was not entirely correct in that assumption, and that the war is actually much bigger than the simple BLP violation here. I have pointed them in the way of WP:DISPUTE. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 01:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Right now the article is semi-protected. It should remain semi-protected for sometime. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 05:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Using fullprot to protect long-distance (but non-crystal ball) future work redirects

Commonly for video games, when any news of a sequel comes out, someone rushes to create a page for it, regardless of how reliable the source is. In some cases, it's from the developers directly, so a page for it makes sense, but ofttimes its a reliable source speaking of rumors or a word or two from a developer interview. In the latter case, it makes sense that the sequel should be discussed, but a full page for it is overkill, particularly for more popular games which then attract rumors. Redirections make sense (eg, see GTA V) to point back to a series or game article where a better discussion of the little news about the sequel can be made easily, though these redirects are often the target of newer editors that want to add their "super secret" information which is usually not reliable.

So the question is: is it reasonable to create such redirects for long-distance future works and get full prot on them, then when more news is there, requesting dropping the protection in order to expand the article? --MASEM 00:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

No. Preemptive protection does not assume good faith and degrades the principle that anyone should be able to edit. If and only if there is evidence of disruption through any particular redirect can protection be justified for that redirect. If there is good reasoning to suggest that a page could only be made in bad faith, however, an exception would be acceptable. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 04:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the clarification. --MASEM 04:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Another Backlog

Since we're tasking tonight, and CSD appears quiet, would some admins be available to assist in closing out some old Category for Discussion discussions? We have some approaching 1 month old. The list can be found at WP:CFD. Thanks, UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 03:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Possibly threatening statement?

Resolved

This article is nominated for speedy deletion, but apparently somebody took it kind of personally. TN‑X-Man 20:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, please let me know if this is the correct forum for addressing these concerns. Cheers! TN‑X-Man 20:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

This is a fine place - possible /Incidents if we're being picky, but no problem. In this case, I'd suggest there's nothing that can be done. It's a threat, but they aren't going to do anything about it, and neither can we really... Alex Muller 20:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

That's what I thought. The article has been deleted and the user blocked, so the issue is probably done and done. Thanks for the info. TN‑X-Man 20:34, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I shouldn't laugh, but I did. Orderinchaos 07:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Global Admins

I would like to bring attention to this meta proposal to create a new user right that would be admins on every project, though their use would be restricted on large wikis, such as this, by policy (but not on a technical level). Prodego ^talk 06:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• From memory, I think there is a difference to the Anti-Vandal fighter and what would constituite a global admin, if I'm not mistaken. Steve Crossin (talk)(email) 06:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• There is no access level difference, they have all admin rights. In fact, they are changing the name to "global sysop" as opposed to AVF. Prodego ^talk 06:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Global rights usage. Daniel (talk) 06:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Proxy checkers needed. Jumbo backlog at Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies

Someone reported a huge number of possible open proxies to check at Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies. Could some people with proxy-checking skills help? I can only check web proxies. Jesse Viviano (talk) 06:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Restricting the "move subpages" feature to admins

The discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Restrict the "move subpages" feature to admins may be of interest. Happy‑melon 11:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Query about the Tango (drink) article

Not sure this is the right place - but when I click on the Tango (drink) link, I get a message asking me if I would like to save something, instead of going to the article. Any ideas why? --204.4.131.140 (talk) 16:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Tango (drink). Works fine for me :/ J.delanoy^gabs_adds 16:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure you typed it correctly? J.delanoy^gabs_adds 16:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Try WP:VPT. ffm

1 year schoolblock - 24.244.192.130

Resolved

This school IP has already been blocked three times for 6 months, I've now blocked for 1 year. xenocidic (talk) 16:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks good to me, I wasn't far behind you. None of the June edits were of any use at all. Endorse. Bencherlite^Talk 16:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Also endorse. Looks perfectly reasonable (and unfortunate). Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks fine to me...marking thread as resolved. Tiptoety ^talk 18:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Conflicting blocks

What happens when two admins block an IP address at the same time? - [21]. Corvus cornix_talk 21:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Its an interesting glitch, its a good thing that both of them were thinking the same thing, now what would happen if the block lengths were different? would the blocks cancel each other? - Caribbean~H.Q. 21:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The block would be lifted with the expiry of the earlier of the two blocks, i.e. if one blocked for 1 hour and one blocked for 3 hours, the block is lifted after 1 hour. Leithp 21:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Grawpery

Can someone tell me: are these all TOR exit nodes? And should they be blocked accordingly? The Evil Spartan (talk) 08:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Most of those (in a check) were US residential IP addresses. In other words, a Zerg rush.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:57, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Spiritus Nirin

Resolved

 – Page deleted, user indef blocked by Ryūlóng. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

If you take a look at the WP:MFD at the above link, there seems to be a long discussion of about the the user page of User:Spiritus Nirin. In my opinion, I think that this user thinks wikipedia is a myspace. Well, it's not a myspace. Should any administrative action take place? Opinions? --RyRy5 (talk) 10:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

RyRy5, is there any particular need to bring this up here? Administrators regularly close discussions on XfD pages - it's not as though MfD is an obscure discussion page. Administrative action will take place in due course. Bencherlite^Talk 10:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe someone should explain to him what Wikipedia is? There's a whole lot of WP:BITE going on there. Did anyone talk to him before suggesting his userpage is deleted? I know its redundant to say, but he seems awfully confused. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 10:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec) :Well, I was wondering if this user has done any constructive editing to help the encyclopedia. This user seems to focus more on his/her user page than the encyclopedia. --RyRy5 (talk) 10:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, the user seems to be a rather troubled person overall, but... assuming good faith here, he's only been around for a day, has made some mistakes and seems to be rather... um... insane. Yes, he's probably indef bait, but maybe if we didn't just template him, he'd stand a chance at being something other than a sad story? Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 10:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

As the creator of the MfD i have to say i agree with Kyaa; it will be dealt with in due time. He actually exhibits most of the main signs of schizophrenia and is slap-bang in the middle of the correct age range, but wikipedia is not a GP, so i'll chalk it down to the language barrier and having found god (although some might consider that a sign of insanity :P). Ironholds 10:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Even though I agree with you about The Sky Moves Sideways, I think you might be straying dangerously close to a personal attack with your previous comment, Ironholds. You may want to consider rewording it or striking some of it. Best, ChaoticReality 11:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

<- I think there are a few issues here, and part of why I waded into the discussion was to bring it to point - the userpage is hinky, this is why, how can we resolve it? It's clear that there is a language barrier, and that's not helping anything. I stand mute on the user's possible mental issues, and WP:AGF requires me to dismiss those concerns in the absence of evidence (i.e. a declaration by the user). I don't actually think there's deliberate trolling going on, mainly because there are so many more effective ways to troll on Wikipedia. The other reason I joined the discussion was to attempt to engage the user in dialog as to what we expect here, including what articles are and how they differ from the userspace. I grant that MFD is not the best forum for that at all, but I also note that the user did not respond to talk page comments, but is responding at the MFD, so that's where the discussion has taken place. I was hopeful that a compromise - one involving removal of the essay in favor of a short statement, and productive editing thereafter - was possible, but that might not be the case. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 12:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, should I have not blocked him and deleted his userpage, and help the Commons in dealing with the mess he made over there as well?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 12:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

It's a good block, sad to say - I thought there might be something salvageable from the situation, and was keen to undo any WP:BITEing that had gone on. However well-intentioned the individual may be, your analysis is correct in that he is unlikely to work on building the encyclopedia. As for commons - what did he do there? UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 12:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

He uploaded the images he used on his various pages.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 13:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Good times. Not much I can do about that on this end, unfortunately - I'll mark this as resolved and put it to bed. Thanks. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Disruptive edits

My talkpage was vandalized by anon IP (User:24.205.234.250) sending me multiple 3RR warnings for supposed violations on Superpower and Potential superpowers articles even though I haven't edited these articles for the past 1 week or so. A look at the anon's history shows it is involved in an edit war on multiple articles (see [22]). The anon has already received 3 test warnings (including 2 from myself). The anon's edits are similar to that of User:24.180.3.127 which was blocked earlier for personal attacks and harassment. In fact, a look at this and this makes it obvious that both IPs are run by same person. I request an administrator to keep a watch on the IP's contributions and take any possible actions if necessary. Thanks --Emperor Genius (talk) 11:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Better to escalate to higher-level warnings and report at WP:AIV if they don't stop. Stifle (talk) 13:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Category merge ?

Resolved

Hi. Can anyone tell me if Category:California legislation and Category:California law should be merged ? I should point out I've no idea how to do it (even if I have the permissions) :-) CultureDrone (talk) 13:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Ahh hang on, I've just found CfD - I'll submit it through there - apologies :-) CultureDrone (talk) 13:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Commons photos of buildings and statues

I'm not sure if this is the right place for this but I can't think of anywhere else. If anyone has uploaded photos of buildings or statues in the USA to Commons, you should head over and download it to your computer as it will be deleted eventually. According to them, buildings and statues in the USA are copyrighted works of art and therefore photographs of them are considered derivative works [23]. I found this out when a picture of the Italian American Sports Hall of Fame (and a statue outside of it) that I uploaded there was nommed for deletion. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 16:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

As I understand it, a photograph of the statue outside the Italian American Sports Hall of Fame would be subject to the copyright of the artist, but a photograph of the building would not: "U.S. federal copyright law explicitly exempts photographs of copyrighted buildings from the copyright of the building in 17 USC 120(a)". - auburnpilot talk 16:41, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Please point us to a relevant discussion. Thanks, Cacycle (talk) 17:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec) That's quite right; freedom of panorama in the United States extends to buildings but not to other permanent installations, toward which one may see, e.g., Wikipedia:Freedom of panorama. The section of Commons:FOP to which NoC links properly observes that the "[t]aking pictures of buildings is...reproduction, which must theoretically be authorized by the architect", but only if "the right to reproduction is not in the national copyright law"; §120 roughly provides such a right of reproduction. When an image includes both a building (copyrighted but not subject to restrictions on the right of photographic reproduction) and a statue (to which, in the United States, FOP does not extend), the situation is more complicated (as would be the use of non-free photographs of buildings; there are certain circumstances under which photographs of three-dimensional objects, such as buildings, might be understood as not requiring Bridgeman v. Corel's originality, but we need not now undertake an inquiry as to what those may be), but we might safely say, I think, that Commons does not delete photographs of buildings that conform to Commons:FOP. Joe 17:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I read up on this a fair bit because of a photo I have on commons, Image:Seattle Art Museum 01.jpg. That's the Hammering Man, a copyrighted statue, and it was pointed out it may be a copyvio photograph. But the opinions seemed to be that as it includes other artistic elements, it's fine--it's a photo of the area, of which the statue just happens to be in. If I'd taken and framed the photo to be principally of the statue, then it would be a copyvio, is my understanding. Environmental factors seem to factor in too. That statue is 60 to 80 feet tall, and it's physically impossible to photograph that building or practically that entire street corner without catching it, and in fact you can see the statue for a tremendous distance, depending on how you approach. rootology (T) 04:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Just as an aside, if the Commons copyright policies are Foundation level, wouldn't the same ones apply to Wikipedia, or would the fair use angle let you get around it for photos of statues? rootology (T) 04:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Re the aside, the latter. Commons accepts only freely licensed media files, whilst other projects may, consistent with their respective EDPs, choose to allow the uploading and use of various restricted-use/non-free media. Joe 05:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, that makes sense, then, for commons to be more restrictive than individual projects, since commons has to serve images to all projects. rootology (T) 15:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

This crack-down of sorts would only affect me if there is some way in hell for a photo ("free"-ly licensed by the photographer) of a very old statue (one erected before, say, 1923) not to be 100% kosher. Yes, I did seek advice (not "legal advice" mind you) from one of our resident copyright experts before uploading... — CharlotteWebb 15:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Request for more eyes on and a speedy close to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/PIO (3rd)

Declaration of involvement to start with, but this SSP has become an unseemly squabble that Luigi 28 has edited 79 times so far [24]. The reason I'm asking for others to look in is due to the accusations of lying [25], later retracted [26], posting of personal info about one of the belligerents [27] [28] and the general urgent need to nail this issue with a CU report. Read through it in all its glory at your leisure. It now runs to seven different threads on my talk page, plus various others at User talk:DIREKTOR and User talk:Luigi 28 This SSP is full of hostile belligerent aggressive posts. Can this be sorted ASAP, with a CU or whatever? AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 21:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

1. I edited 79 times the SSP, because I speak a terrible English, I'm brand new here in Wikipedia and I don't know the tags, the markups and so on....
   
2. The User:DIREKTOR wrote that I can use his name: use it all you want[29]: no violation of Wiki rules.
3. User:DIREKTOR and User:AlasdairGreen27 run six different threads on my talk page[30]--Luigi 28 (talk) 22:34, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

No problem with using my "name" (as I said, its not really my full name in Croatian and should be useless), but the meaningless squabble should be concluded at the soonest possible opportunity. As has been previously reported [31], the User does not discuss the actual evidence of his sockpuppeteering, but instead continues on with variations on the theme: "I'm not PIO, you two are fools, you're crazy, you're a couple of kids" etc... The entire report is indeed now completely cluttered with text relatively irrelevant to the actual sockpuppeteering issue. I admit I may have contributed myself in a minor way but, as I'm sure everyone knows, provocations in bad grammar are lethal for one's self control. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:10, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

1. More than 20 times, User:DIREKTOR and User:AlasdairGreen27 said that I'm that banned User:PIO, without any kind of evidence, or reverted my edits. I put here only some examples[32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53]
2. They harrassed me from my very first edit, only because they think I'm that User:PIO. User:DIREKTOR reverted many, many times my edits (see above), without any kind of explanation. He violated this restriction: [54] and I ask that justice be done against him.--Luigi 28 (talk) 23:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• This SSP report has become long and rambling. If User:AlasdairGreen27 still believes that User:Luigi 28 is the banned editor User:PIO perhaps he could add his own brief summary of the facts (as they appear to him) in the Comments section of the report. Otherwise, since proving the equivalence appears to be such a challenge, we could start from scratch and ask whether Luigi 28 is editing disruptively. For this an WP:RFC/U might be considered. As an alternative, if you think Luigi is slanting articles, consider an article RFC.
• The evidence offered when submitting the RFCU on Luigi 28 didn't seem to prove much, and Alison didn't find any connection between Luigi and PIO on technical grounds. The IP data was not persuasive. PIO and Luigi both use Italian ISPs. EdJohnston (talk) 04:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Please note that I have never edited disruptively[55].

• From my first message here in Wikipedia, I was accused to be a sockpuppet:
  

1. When I wrote my first message: User:AlasdairGreen27 wrote immediately a request for checkuser[56]. Only few minutes ago (in Italy are the 03.28 in the morning - Saturday 06.07.2008) I've seen that! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Luigi 28 (talk • contribs) 01:29, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
2. Here:[57] User:AlasdairGreen27 wrote that I'm the banned User:PIO
   
3. Here:[58] Alasdair insinuated that I'm the banned user Agazio/alias PIO: seem pretty conclusive to me that Agazio and Luigi 28 are one and the same
   
4. Here:[59] Alasdair confirm that I'm PIO: I'm getting together an RFCU now
   
5. Here: [60] Alasdair wrote that I'm the banned user PIO: they're indeed the same person
   
6. Here: [61] User:DIREKTOR wrote that I'm the banned user PIO: they're the same person allright, the grammar mistakes are identical. When one listens to him long enough, one gets used to PIO's distinct "style" of expression. I have the PIO's style of expression!
   
7. Here: [62] DIREKTOR wrote that I'm the banned user PIO, and call me Venetian irredentist radical. Venetian irredentist radical !!!
   
8. Here:[63] ">[[User:DIREKTOR|<font color="DimGray"[[DIREKTOR]] reverted my contribute without any explanation, except: reverting unreferenced info added by banned User:PIO
   
9. Here:[64] DIREKTOR reverted for the second time my contribute, without any explanation.
   
10. Here:[65] DIREKTOR reverted my contribute for the third time without any explanation, except: you're banned from editing remember?
    
11. Here: [66] DIREKTOR wrote that I was another guy, named PIO: What are we going to do about PIO? He's a real fanatic, this one. Please, note the word fanatic, wich is for me, 'cause he thinks I'm PIO.
    
12. Here: [67] User:AlasdairGreen27 is trying to insinuate that I'm that banned PIO
    
13. Here: [68] DIREKTOR wrote that I'm the banned Pio: Yep, you're PIO alright
    
14. Here: [69] DIREKTOR wrote that I'm the bannedo PIO
    
15. Here: [70] Alasdair wrote another time that I'm PIO and others banned contributors.
    
16. Here: [71] Alasdair insinuate that I'm PIO: If you click on the IP addresses, then at the user contributions screen click on WHOIS at the bottom left of the page, it tells us they are all the same and the others banned contributors.
    
17. Here: [72] DIREKTOR wrote that I'm PIO: I know, you're Luigi. Your Wikipedia name was PIO, though...
    
18. Here: [73] Alasdair insinuate that I'm another one: Yes, Luigi, you know who you are. Your problem is that everyone else also knows
    
19. Here: [74] DIREKTOR insinuate that I'm that banned PIO
    
20. Here: [75] DIREKTOR wrote that I'm PIO (hi PIO) and reverted my contribute without any explanation
    
21. Here: [76] DIREKTOR reverted my contribute without any explanation
    
22. Here: [77] DIREKTOR reverted my contribute without any explanation
    

• User:DIREKTOR reverted my edits [78] [79] [80] [81] [82] [83] [84] [85] [86] [87], without read one word, only because he thinks that I'm that PIO. This is a personal attack. User:DIREKTOR violated this restriction: [88].

• User:AlasdairGreen27 and User:DIREKTOR simply harrassed me. Thank you for your work.--Luigi 28 (talk) 05:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• As requested above by EdJohnston, I have entered a brief and hopefully user-friendly summary of the evidence at the bottom of Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/PIO (3rd). Many thanks -- AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 16:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Block needed per user name policy?

Resolved

I believe IiiiiiiiiiiiiSEXIiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii (talk · contribs) should be blocked per the user name policy? -- RyRy5 (talk) 09:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, done. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Next time, try WP:UAA. Bencherlite^Talk 09:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Gwen. Bencherlite, I'll report something like this next time at WP:UAA. I didn't know we had one. Regards, RyRy5 (talk) 09:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

You're not missing much. — CharlotteWebb 18:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I dont like to comment here mch normally but I just had to saty that thwat was very funny. :D Smith Jones (talk) 22:22, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

User merge/delete

Resolved

 – Not an admin issue

I would like to:

a) usurp User:Missingno000, since I no longer use this account, and b) delete Missingno000 on the testwiki, same reason as above.

CJ Miller. (^{That's my name.}_{Don't wear it out.}) 18:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, only bureaucrats can perform user-functions, and then only renaming users. Deleting and merging accounts is not possible; usurpation can likewise only be done by bureaucrats. ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 18:03, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

User contributions

Resolved

 – Blocked / baleeted - Alison ^❤ 19:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it might be worth considering blocking this user or at least giving them a very strong and specific warning considering the content of their only contribution . I have e-mailed oversight. Guest9999 (talk) 18:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

No warning, I'd say a block. Also that phone number info would need to be deleted. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 18:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked indef and deleted the page but it should likely be oversighted. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I've got a reply from oversight, they say it's been done. Guest9999 (talk) 18:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

 Done - Alison ^❤ 18:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Possible Grawp sock?

I just checked the new user log and saw this: User:ZZYYGGYY. It seems to be in character with him. He's created other accounts with all caps and near-nonsense. Might be worth keeping an eye on. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 23:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps worth keeping an eye on, but the user's not made any edits yet. PeterSymonds (talk) 23:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Grawp must be pleased with all the attention we've been giving him. Not really directed at you PM, just an observation. --Bongwarrior (talk) 23:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, I was just thinking the same thing. And from what I've heard of his MO, he doesn't even seem to be that effective at vandalizing. What happened to DENY? --Rory096 23:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right. Doggone it, I gotta lay off the RC and NPP, or at least not go jumping at shadows. If the guy starts in again, he'll get clobbered. As for me, I really will lay off the RC and NPP. Too much pressure right now. Thanks.  :) --PMDrive1061 (talk) 00:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

RCA Corporation

User talk:Guy1423‎ is tampering with the article about the defunct company RCA Corporation by tacking on information about RCA branded products being made by Thomson which owns the RCA trademark and other companies licensed to use the RCA name. I suggested that he start a new article about the current use of the RCA brand name such as "RCA (trademark)". Steelbeard1 (talk) 23:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• If you can show that there is stuff about the trademark that does not belong in the corp's article, then go ahead. But the stub I redirected didn't provide enough material to warrant a separate article. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 23:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

So far this looks like a content dispute to me. User:Steelbeard1, please be careful about 3rr. The edits you're reverting aren't vandalism. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Gwen. As you may have seen, I created the RCA (trademark) article, moving the material on the use of the RCA trademark today from the RCA Corporation article to the RCA (trademark) article. That should settle things, I hope. Steelbeard1 (talk) 00:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

User account with no accessible contribution history

Resolved

 – No admin action required. —Travis^talk 02:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Advertisement.reader (talk · contribs) was submitted to WP:UAA by the bot, because of the "advertisment" string. But I cannot pull up any contributions or deleted contributions for the account, not only as you can see here but from the side of the page. What's up with this? Daniel Case (talk) 14:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Could it be that they simply haven't actually made any contributions? --RFBailey (talk) 14:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

That's my thought. Am I missing something? ➨ ЯEDVEЯS used to be a sweet boy 14:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Any deleted contribs? Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 14:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Nope. Just looks like a newly created but never used account. Like 60-70% of our accounts. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS used to be a sweet boy 15:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

It happens purely because the name had "advertisement" in it. The bot picks up on this just after account creation, and reports it. It doesn't take contributions into account. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 15:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

No. This is the weird thing. Even when the account's never edited you can usually click the contribs and deleted contribs link to check on that, and get a page saying there's nothing there. But neither of these links show up with this account. Not in that template above. Not on the side of the page when you go to their user page. Is this some software bug? It's never happened before with a new account with no edits. Daniel Case (talk) 18:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, it seems to work fine for me, both the sidebar link to User Contributions and the links in the {{user-uaa}} template. Looks completely normal to me. Perhaps it is a browser or caching issue? --MCB (talk) 19:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Just a wild guess, but do you perhaps have an ad blocker installed on your computer? I can see how the string "Contributions/Advertisement" in the URL might be triggering some overzealous ad filtering. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 01:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I do (AdSubtract) and maybe that's why the word "advertisement" always disappears (I also don't see the linked "ad blocker" above). That could explain things. Daniel Case (talk) 02:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean they're not there? Do you mean it's a redlink? If that's it, then you can just click on the redlink and get that same screen you got before- it seems a feature has recently been implemented that makes the contribs page link red for users with no contribs. --Rory096 01:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

No, non-existent accoutns will show large red text if you try to edit the talkpage - this doesn't. For an example, see here. ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 19:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Alternatively, you could just check the user creation log. --Rory096 01:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Requested undeletion

Resolved

 – Image undeleted, now redeleted.--Graham87 14:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Could an admin please temporarily undelete the local version of Image:HoneyAnt.jpg? (originally deleted as a Commons duplicate). Would like to straighten out/confirm the Commons source/license as part of the FAC on the Ant article, and I need access to the original image to do that. I will flag with db-i8 again once I've finished. Thanks! Kelly ^hi! 13:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

 Done Graham87 13:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Request #2 for more eyes on and a speedy close to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/PIO (3rd)

Once again, could someone have a look at this matter (see above request [89])? Its really relatively simple, however, be advised that the accused User:Luigi 28 has a frequently used strategy of cluttering up a report in order to avoid Admin intervention. The User insists on adding tons of useless irrelevant information, such as a list of times I called him "PIO" to all reports to make them seem a complicated matter, and may do the same to this report. However, I hope this incredibly simple tactic will cease to be effective. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I have to say another time that User:Direktor reverted many, many times my edits, only because he think I'm User:PIO. So, I haven't a strategy of cluttering up a record to avoid Admin intervention: I only want that the Admin can see what's happened: the harassment of User:DIREKTOR and User:AlasdairGreen27 against me: a personal war. Best regards.--Luigi 28 (talk) 15:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Can you prove that your not User:PIO?

Show me a country where one guy must prove that he isn't another one guy, and I'll show you a dictatorship.--Luigi 28 (talk) 14:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• As requested by EdJohnston in the first thread on this topic, I have entered a brief and hopefully user-friendly summary of the evidence at the bottom of Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/PIO (3rd). Many thanks -- AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 16:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Open Proxies vs. Public Computers

I recently saw a claim from an admin that a Wifi Hotspot is "effectively an open proxy" and therefore not allowable for editing WP. I wanted to seek input on this issue: Open proxy defines an open proxy as a computer accessible by anyone on the Internet; I think we have a compelling reason to disallow access from those, but a Wifi hotspot, while accessible anonymously, is only accessible to people in the immediate area. It's not much different from an internet cafe or a computer in a public library. I feel that public computers should not be lumped in with open proxies... but I suppose it's a matter of opinion so I wanted to see what others thought. Mangojuice^talk 15:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

If we can let IP's edit then why not users of an open proxy.It's pretty much the same thing. Mr. Green^{Hit Me Up}About Me 15:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Mangojuice here; the wide-open abuse potential of proxies does not exist for wifi hotspots, because of the need to be physically present. If a specific hotspot becomes an issue it can be dealt with. GRBerry 15:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I know of an IP of a public computer that is hardblocked (an Apple Store in NY used by a banned user), but that has to be dealt with on a case by case basis (and only if CU shows some very concerning abuse coming from the IP/range). WiFi Hotspots, or school computers, or AOL proxies, don't have to be blocked without evidence of overwhelming abuse. -- lucasbfr ^talk 16:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Of which there is plenty. Certainly some hotspots, libraries, etc. are proven sites where vandals who are range blocked Anon-only go to create new accounts. Thatcher 17:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Apparently the IP we are discussing is User:204.13.82.149. Can you check whether it has been abused in the past? Otherwise a softblock should be sufficient, isn't it? -- lucasbfr ^talk 19:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Nothing recent. Thatcher 23:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Wifi hotspots are hardly like open proxies. The whole problem with OPs is that anybody can use them from anywhere in the world, which is not at all the case most hotspots. They are potentially vectors for abuse and problems should be dealt with, yes, but that's nowhere near anything suggesting we should throw the full weight and fury of WP:NOP at them in all cases. – Luna Santin (talk) 02:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

This was softblocked already, apparently. Daniel Case (talk) 03:01, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that public computers and hotspots do not need to be blocked on sight because the potential for abuse is geographically limited, and we can also contact the Internet Service Provider and and inform them of the abuse if necessary. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 03:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

More comparable to an AOL IP or any other floating IP. Blocking these would be a big disservice as they are the only way some users can edit. I'm thinking also of public libraries like the one we have in Largo, Florida, from which I sometimes edit. Dlohcierekim 15:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Eceresa (talk · contribs)

This user has unfortunately been caught up in a hardblock of 64.88.86.3 (talk · contribs), which I blocked as an open proxy. I've examined this person's contributions and so far, I don't see any concerns of abuse. I'd be willing to grant IP block exemption at Special:UserRights/Eceresa, but WP:IPEXEMPT says exemption from open proxies is only allowed in "highly exceptional circumstances". So I think it's worth bringing this here for a possible consensus to grant Eceresa exemption. Thoughts? Spellcast (talk) 16:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Doing my own check, I see no evidence that this is an open proxy. Port 8080 is filtered, 80 and 443 are open, but not usable as a proxy. Mr.Z-man 16:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Two days ago, I was able to edit the talk page using port 8080. If the IP is going to be unblocked, I hope a useable port doesn't end up re-opening soon. Spellcast (talk) 17:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

If this user is running a server on his/her machine, you might ask them to turn it off for a few hours, and then check back. If the user can do this, s/he owns the machine, and adding an exemption would be appropriate. If not, then the block ought to stay up. A surprisingly easy solution, IMO... The Evil Spartan (talk) 18:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Its registered to Macomb Intermediate School District - grades 6-7 or 6-8, its highly unlikely that its an IP address used by only 1 person. According to the user's page they are a teacher. The IP address is probably used by the whole classroom or the whole school. Trying to use the open telnet port shows that its using a content filter, so its probably used by students. Mr.Z-man 19:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and unblocked the IP. Although Zenmap shows open ports 80, 23, 443, 21, 554, and 553, none of them are useable. But if I happen to come across this IP again while testing open proxies, I will be hardblocking. Spellcast (talk) 15:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

New User: Torilee8

Resolved

 – I think we're OK here - Alex Muller 17:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I would like to post that this user has committed some vandalism on the Hoodwinked! page by adding unneeded song lyrics and deliberately replaced one of the characters names in the plot summary with the word Tori and replaced other words with similar material. Since this person is a new user I would think a warning should be sufficent. -71.59.237.110 (talk) 17:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to leave the user a nice note on their talk page - if this continues they should be left further warnings and reported to WP:AIV if they continue after they receive a "final warning". Cheers, Alex Muller 17:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

User:202.142.220.65

This IP had been blocked for a year for being an open proxy. The block expired in January. Recently a user has been editing from this IP, and their edits have not been obviously disruptive. So I removed the block notice (as it was out of date) and unprotected the IP's talk page.

But I am unfamiliar with WP's policy on open proxies. Should in fact the IP be blocked again? I hesitate to do this as it is not currently involved in any disruption. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 02:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

As I understand it, there are several less than enlightened countries from which editors can only edit WP using open proxies, although it's considered advisable for them to create accounts here to do so. Personally, I'd say let it be unless there is disruption. But, then, I may be wrong and I'm sure someone will let me know if this is the case. They usually do. --Rodhullandemu 03:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

It's a Thailand IP, and it does not show up as a tor agent. Suggest contacting Centrx, who blocked the IP before as an open proxy due to unusual findings; he's an expert in that area. Risker (talk) 03:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

A bit of examination shows it is still an open proxy.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

OK. As you've blocked it again, I've added a tag on the talk page. But I have not locked the talk page. I have also pinged Centrx, per Risker's suggestion. Many thanks. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 05:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

It does not appear to have any proxy ports open, nor is it on the list of tor proxies? Is it a Web-based proxy? If so, it should be stated in the block message. —Centrx→talk • 20:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, so what to do about this? Someone with the same IP did recently edit the page to change the block notice. Does that mean the issue is resolved? --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 19:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

It looks like someone here was able to connect to that IP as an open proxy and use it to edit the talk page, which would show that it is an open proxy. I am currently unable to connect to that cgi page, but evidently someone was in the past. —Centrx→talk • 00:25, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Grawpcruft nominated for deletion

Just dropping a short line that I nominated for deletion most pages related to our annoying "friend". The less worship, the better. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 18:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Not really, and I'm speaking from experience. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v E pluribus unum)} 19:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Damian Manso

Could someone restore the edit history of the Damian Manso article which was made in 2006 and then redirected to one that was made 3 days ago which is full of POV language, poor use of english and inaccuracies. I think the old version should be restored, but moved to the correct title, with diacritic. I can't do this, not being an admin. I also can't believe the brand new article went through AfD without anyone noticing the pre-existing and superior article which was only missing a diacritic in Damián. EP 23:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Done Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Why is www.postchronicle.com blacklisted?

I was just trying to replace an almost certainly untrue and clearly unsourced sentence in Gina Gershon regarding the Clinton allegations in Vanity Fair, and found that I could not add www.postchronicle.com/news/original/article_212151922.shtml as a http:// link. Their online masthead at www.postchronicle.com/about.shtml indicates that they have an editorial board and several reporters. I have no idea if they have a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" but it seems very likely from a quick perusal.

(1) Why is that site spam-backlisted?

(2) Why does the blacklist error message not say:

(a) which URL is on the blacklist keeping the edit from being saved, and

(b) why the URL is blacklisted?

The Mediawiki software is like a work of art, but the blacklisting mechanism is certainly an ugly corner in need of serious repair. 75.61.102.8 (talk) 06:35, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist&oldid=212705590#postchronicle.com . There is a log, albeit not conveniently, available here. There is no automatic logging function currently written when blacklisting a URL, though admins certainly pine for one. As to point 2a, it does tell you which URL is causing the issue. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:41, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

This line "You may also submit your own articles or commentary..." from their about page gives me the feeling that they are not a reliable source. Kevin (talk) 11:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Yea, I agree this seems as a pretty inconsistent and sketchy source. Look elsewhere if you need a citation. Sasquatch t|c 17:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

See this for more information on why it is blacklisted. Thanks, D.M.N. (talk) 18:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Undeletion

Resolved

Will an admin undelete Portal:The Sims. It was deleted for housekeeping?!? Also, I think Portal:Sims (created afterward) should be deleted. It has no content, however Portal:The Sims did. StewieGriffin! • Talk Sign 15:39, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I copied the code to Wikipedia:WikiProject Sims/Portal, since it was all red links. It doesn't render properly unless it's in portal space, so work on the redlinks before moving it into portal space. xenocidic (talk) 15:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

History merge

Resolved

 – performed the hist merge Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 17:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Could an admin please history merge User:Serviam/Triarii into Triarii? I'm finished the work in my userspace, thankyou :-)--Serviam (talk) 17:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Ill do it. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 17:06, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

 DoneChrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 17:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

New noticeboard

For nationalism: Wikipedia:Ethnic and cultural conflicts noticeboard. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 17:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh no, not more noticeboards. That reminds me after I bitched at you on the mailing list last year for the last one you created I completely forgot to watchlist it. How are things going there, anyway? — CharlotteWebb 18:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Good, very good. Since you ask :) Moreschi (talk) (debate) 18:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

So now who's going to watch this and be willing to hand out warnings and then blocks? For the sake of everything good, we really really need people to hand out more blocks (after warnings) on here, even if it means the blockee will wikilawyer to Heaven. The Evil Spartan (talk) 18:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Principally me, for starters. Hopefully some of the stuff that at the moment is winding up in truckloads on the talk pages of myself, Future Perfect, Elonka, and a few other admins, will wind up here for more general attention. It's not good to have such a small subset of people monitoring such a large problematic area. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 18:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I would be glad to help out, had I not been too stupid to apply for adminship a long time ago when I still could have passed ;). The Evil Spartan (talk) 19:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I have it on my watchlist - and I am prepared to swing the banhammer on any person who isn't Cornish (they get the Lightning Bolt instead...) LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to our attention, Moreschi. Unfortunately, this does beg the question: how can the well-meaning Wikipedian be expected to keep track of all the noticeboards, old and new, that now exist? And how does one go about deciding which noticeboard might be most appropriate for any given notice? You all know the solution, you just don't want to admit it yet: Wikipedia:Noticeboard noticeboard SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I sometimes get the feeling that every noticeboard should have a header saying "This is almost certainly the wrong place to report whatever it is you want to report". That seems to be the gist of this board's header! DuncanHill (talk) 23:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Assuming that each new noticeboard takes control over a new specific area not common to other noticeboards, then as the number of noticeboards tends to infinity, your statement becomes almost surely true. We can just add the header now: "We are almost sure you are in the wrong place". Splash - tk 12:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

The correct solution would be to either a) switch to a *real* bulletin board system instead of a disorganised, hacky solution we have now, also integrating the BB to Wikipedia login procedures and interlinking, or b) Do the Wikia thing and set up a forum system within MediaWiki using Massive Template Rabuse (of Essjayuserpagific Proportions, may it rest in peace). Or, better yet, c) rethink the whole "discussion" thing and come up with a completely new software solution that serves better our needs. (I'm thinking of a system that would mimick WP discussion look and feel as much as possible, but provide all of the tools available in "normal" discussion forums.) Um, just a thought. Anyway, good luck with the new noticeboard, Moreschi - if there's one thing that won't end in WP, it's city naming debates =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 19:35, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Deletion request

Resolved

 – Page deleted. PeterSymonds (talk) 22:06, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

This page is a duplicate of Judith Barsi but with the names and dates changed (possibly to those of a real person), creator has removed the speedy tag once. Guest9999 (talk) 22:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

It's been deleted since (not by me). :) PeterSymonds (talk) 22:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response and the quick response to that response. Guest9999 (talk) 22:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Username Blacklist

For ease of email, I wanted to create the user account Radio Wikipedia. However it says it is blacklisted. I haven't requested an account because, it is blacklisted. Could you remove it and tell me, or make it for me? StewieGriffin! • Talk Sign 21:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Usernames containing the word "Wikipedia" or other trademarks of the Wikimedia Foundation are not appropriate. GRBerry 21:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Hang on, why do you want to create an account for this purpose? Surely just the one account's enough? PeterSymonds (talk) 21:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, Stewie, it comes across like this whole "Radio Wikipedia" thing is being used as a method of webhosting. Please note that Wikipedia is not your webspace. Thanks. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 21:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

No comment on the username, but I don't see how there's a WP:NOT problem here. How is it different than Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost, Wikipedia:WikipediaWeekly, or Wikipedia:NotTheWikipediaWeekly? - auburnpilot talk 23:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think WP:NOT applies as such to the project, so long as it's not disrupting anything. I am concerned that Stewie, whose block log shows problems with the user of multiple accounts in the past, wants to now... use multiple accounts. What would having this account do that using your own username would not? UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 18:01, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry#.27Role.27_accounts role accounts are prohibited, an account posing as the host of a radio show, would place itself in the appearance of a role account. Further this user has had a problem with socking in the past, and was unbanned by Jimbo/Arbcom, so I would urge against permitting them to have alternate accounts, when no pressing need appears to exist. MBisanz ^talk 08:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Fasach Nua and User talk:Fasach Nua

I've reverted from this and [90] this because I totally think that's a violation of What Wikipedia is not and the general principles of what the user space is for. However, the user has complained about it. Community thoughts? Sasquatch t|c 06:46, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Wholeheartedly support. These pages are to establish proper communication with other contributors, not to annoy them. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 06:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Which he's been doing without the page slowing... Sceptre ^(talk) 09:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

If he does it again, a short block under WP:POINT would be appropriate - spamming 144kb of image tags onto a page is not acceptable. Ignore his lawyering to try and identify exactly what he did wrong - he knows it was trolling, even if it was on his own talk page. I don't think he will do it again, though. Neıl 龱 09:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

With this and his whining at ANI, he's on a pretty short leash. seicer | talk | contribs 12:11, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Whining? Pretty short leash? Seicer, your comment, and in particular your choice of language, could be construed as an ad hominen attack. Voicing personal opinions on this page, and in this way, is not helpful. --Bardcom (talk) 14:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

"Short leash" is a widely-accepted and widely-understood figure of speech used to indicate that a particular individual's behaviour is being closely watched; it is not a personal attack. "Whining", while not tactful and bordering on the incivil, does fairly accurately describe Fasach's recent conduct here. "Disruptively attempting to game the 3RR to harrass another editor while falsely alleging misconduct and abuse in a petty dispute" might be a more technically-correct but much clumsier phrasing. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

It is the word "whining" that is objectionable. Admins should set high(er) standards. --Bardcom (talk) 16:31, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Boo hoo. Get a thicker skin. A short leash is a common term used to define a user's actions, that they are on a short leash and could be blocked or otherwise sanctioned for inappropriate activities. There is no way that can be interpreted as an "ad homiem" attack and you are only grasping at straws, especially since I was highly critical of Sarah777 (talk · contribs) in the past. Find someone else to complain about. seicer | talk | contribs 09:52, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

TfD is backlogged

TfD is backlogged and a couple days need closing. That said quite a few of listed items could do with a few more comments as well. Tfd25 (talk) 14:46, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

At the top of this page there are instructions that say you should not report backlogs to this board. Instead, you should use the appropriate template to flag it as such. --Dragon695 (talk) 02:08, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Beiswenger and snake oil

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Beiswenger might be a problem. Looks like someone is promoting Presymtec, which is proprietary software that is claimed to be able to make health predictions ("to detect infections in monitored individuals before they experience symptoms" using data supplied by a device that combines a peak flow meter and a basal thermometer) and is owned by the newly created Predictive Inc. John L. Beiswenger is listed as a member of the board of directors of Predictive Inc. at http://www.predictiveinc.com/predictivehealth/about.asp . I can find no evidence that supports the health claims made. What evidence I found indicates that it can not work. Prediction Model for Peak Expiratory Flow in North Indian Population says: "lung function varies with socio-economic, geographical, climatic, environmental and nutritional conditions." WAS 4.250 (talk) 11:13, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Rouge deleted the main article: clear spammy-nonsensey-sales pitchy rubbish for snake oil. All links appear to have been removed. Will happily take suggestions on what to say to/do with Beiswenger (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) ➨ ЯEDVEЯS used to be a sweet boy 12:45, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

His user page disappeared somehow too :) I'm bordering on block - I see the account as intentional with a view to publicising the product... --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

11:26, 13 June 2008 Herbythyme deleted "User:Beiswenger" (G11: Blatant advertising) WAS 4.250 (talk) 13:41, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I deny it, it wasn't me, the log lied, the cat did it..... I have quite strong views about people using Wikimedia for promotion. I have even stronger views about them using their user page in the hope that they will get away with it there. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:51, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

How could you be so unfair when Hoffmann–La Roche has an article! :) Gwen Gale (talk) 13:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Snake oil! Presymtec is a new technology which was tested successfully at Tianjin Haihe Hospital in Tianjin, China (known there as the SARS hospital), the very part of the world most concerned about respiratory infections. Presymtec's algorithms correlate BMT, PEF and other data to predict the likelihood of respiratory infections up to two days before clinical symptoms are experienced - in time to make Hoffmann–La Roche's TAMIFLU effective. There are two MD physicians on our Board, one a Board Certified Infectious Disease Specialist. Take out anything you think is promotional language, but leave in the definition of Presymtec. Removing it could cost lives! Beiswenger —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beiswenger (talk • contribs) 14:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Reliable, independent sources? Gwen Gale (talk) 15:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, pretty much anything that doesn't look like this would do. A successful, fully tested treatment being promoted on multiple pages of an internet encyclopedia by the CEO of the company that makes it... why do I have problems with that idea on so many, many levels? ➨ ЯEDVEЯS used to be a sweet boy 19:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Strangeness at Speedy deletion

I was going through the category for speedy deletions and found Talk:Field hockey but that article has no template on the page and hasn't been edited for 5 days. Men’s field hockey Qualifying Tournaments for the 2008 Summer Olympics is in the category as well and doesn't have the template. What's going on? Rmhermen (talk) 12:54, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Templates Hockeygreencard / Hockeyyellowcard / Hockeyredcard were created and then nominated for deletion. That had the effect of putting these pages, which mentioned them, into the CSD category too. It should sort itself out soon enough now that the templates have been deleted. Bencherlite^Talk 12:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Un-delete

Resolved

Could an admin undelete the first three redlinks at Portal:The Sims StewieGriffin! • Talk Sign 18:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

 Done xenocidic (talk) 18:47, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Is this image regarded as child pornography in the U.S.?

Resolved

I happened across an image http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Imene.jpg used to illustrate Hymen, and after expanding it I could see that this must certainly be an infant's! The image was transferred from an Italian server that may have a different legal situation. Could someone figure out whether this image will get a U.S. server (or even a reader) in legal trouble, and if so delete with prejudice so as to protect users. I am creeped out enough about this to delete cache and defrag the disk, let's put it that way. I hope there is protection for academic justification, but where this is concerned this might as well be Islam. Wnt (talk) 23:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

IANAL, but just because someone is nude doesn't automatically make a photograph pornography. Shell ^babelfish 23:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

IANAL coming from me too, definitely... but this is a difficult discussion. I'd hazard a guess (I'd hope) that this is fine because it's not intended for any sexual purposes (there may be some other more lawyer-speak wording). Would someone point to the relevant definition of child pornography if they know where on the interwebs it lives. Cheers, Alex Muller 23:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Potter Stewart said "I know it when I see it" in regards to what is pornography, which leads me to say that this definitely isn't. Out of curiosity, how do you know it was on an Italian server? John Reaves 02:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I see what you mean. Does the fact it's from an Italian user necessarily mean it was ever on a server in Italy? John Reaves 02:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Quite aside from whether or not the image is pornographic, there is something decidedly not right about it, in the purely anatomical sense of right, I mean. Do we have an anatomy student or a gynaecology resident, or something similar, who could take a look? I think that may be the "creepy" element because it strikes me as creepy, too. ៛ Bielle (talk) 02:43, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

How do you know it's from an infant? I agree that this picture can be replaced by computer graphics. But for the time being, it looks fine to me. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 03:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Where else are you going to find an intact hymen, seriously :P 75.91.211.200 (talk) 03:23, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

It's possibly from a minor, definitely looks like a poor quality screen cap from a porno, and we already have a far better drawn image. I've removed it from the article, and hopefully Commons will delete it (although they won't, as that would be CSNEORSIHP). Neıl 龱 09:22, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

To answer these questions: what first makes it apparent is the fingers present in the image, but also the clothing at the margin of the image is what would be typical for a very small child. The image said it was transferred from the Italian Wikipedia. It does not by any means seem implausible that such an image could find a place in a medical journal, and it was clearly being used in a medical context, and I am by no means an advocate of censorship - but I was worried that Wikipedia could fall under attack by such a means. If those with experience can say it would not, then very good. Meanwhile, I don't think removing the image from the article but leaving it on the server makes much sense. After all, if someone were going to use it as part of an attack they would arrange for some account to set up a user page, or third-party web page linking to it, in a context that would make it more clearly objectionable. Wnt (talk) 11:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm (possibly incorrectly) going to mark this as resolved as there's technically nothing that an en.wikipedia administrator can do here - it's not used in any articles on the English Wikipedia and would require an administrator at Wikimedia Commons to delete it. While the thought of "what if" is appreciated, discussion would be needed there to delete it. Cheers, Alex Muller 11:58, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes - the image is hosted on Commons, which is typical for most of the sexual images of dubious provenance and hilarious pictures of troll's penises. We can't delete it here. Neıl 龱 12:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

False Alarm. Just more of the usual from Anon's that are trying to cleanse us of BADIMAGES. Shoo! Take your whining elsewhere. --Dragon695 (talk) 02:17, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

About the most we can do here on en Wikipedia is list it on the naughty image list. Kelly ^hi! 02:21, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

May be best to make no assumptions about Commons unless you work there, I will say no more :) --Herby ^{talk thyme} 07:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

It appears to have been deleted - good. Dragon695, characterising concerns about images being illegal as "whining" is unhelpful - being uncensored doesn't mean we have free rein to host child pornography. Neıl 龱 09:06, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

If the shoe fits, wear it. I stand by my comment, given the level of external fear-mongering in certain quarters leaving our project subject to massive attempts at censorship. We do not exist in a vacuum. --Dragon695 (talk) 00:51, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Revert page move

Resolved

 – Move reverted. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:29, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, could an admin help revert this page move? The article is under deletion review and there also doesn't seem to be consensus for this new name. I was unable to revert it myself. Banjeboi 21:42, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

What's wrong with the new name? --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:47, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think one needs consensus for spell-checking... :-) --Gutza ^{T T+} 22:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

For one we had a discussion started that is presently split on whether to have the article about protests on the date of March 19 only or the 5th anniversary protests. The bigger issue is that the article is in limbo between AFD and deletion review. Banjeboi 22:14, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, do you mean you want it to be moved back to March 19, 2008 anti-war protest? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

(after EC) I think Benji was asking for a revert to the original title, which was March 19, 2008 anti-war protest. The page was moved twice; the second one was to correct a spelling error from the first move. I can understand why he has asked for a reversion; the new title is a bit unwieldy. Horologium (talk) 22:17, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

OK. The diff he presented was only the spelling correction, which is why I didn't understand why he wanted that reverted. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 00:00, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Also this article is a split off Protests against the Iraq War where March 19, 2008 anti-war protests seems to be the preferred format when using the date in this way. Banjeboi 22:18, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough; done. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:29, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Banjeboi 22:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Alistair Cooke's page vandalized -- appears to be generated not in page code but by wiki itself.

The page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alistair_Cooke has a picture of auto-fellatio that does not appear in the edit text for the page. The page source, however, shows it -- meaning this may be generated by the Wiki servers???

Haven't seen this before but though I'd call it to your attention. I tried to fix this but had no luck at the user-end.

Ciao.

Scantron2

75.167.160.15 (talk) 00:22, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

issue is in the infobox. --Samuel Pepys (talk) 00:25, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

fixed. --Samuel Pepys (talk) 00:27, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Seems like some vandal got into the journal infobox, as a way to vandalize the Tim Russet article. Other journalist articles may need to be touched to refresh the correct box. --Samuel Pepys (talk) 01:13, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Samuel Pepys!

Scantron2 75.167.160.15 (talk) 05:39, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Notifying histmerge requests

• I have become accustomed to look for histmerge requests in Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. But Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen has had no new request entries since 3 June 2008 (although I have since recorded there 3 histmerges that I found were needed whole obeying ordinary move requests). But calls for histmerges have been arising since: e.g. earlier today I found 3 histmerge requests in Category:History merge for speedy deletion (as linked to from Category:Candidates for speedy deletion#Subcategories) listed by {{db-histmerge}}. Has there been a change in official policy to use {{db-histmerge}} instead of an entry in Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen? Or should someone put in Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen and Wikipedia:How to fix cut-and-paste moves#Instructions for tagging a page for history merging text saying which template to use and how to put an entry in Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen#New requests? Wikipedia:How to fix cut-and-paste moves#Instructions for tagging a page for history merging tells us to put an entry in Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen#New requests in some types of case, but does not say how to do so. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:26, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

A spam-only user? (User:GRatHVTC)

• User:GRatHVTC has been active since 11 June 2008. Most of his edits have been:
  • Setting up in User:GRatHVTC a page advertizing a bookshop.
  • Copying it to page Greetings & Readings.
  • Setting up links and redirects to page Greetings & Readings.

See Special:Contributions/GRatHVTC and Special:DeletedContributions/GRatHVTC. His username looks like an acronym of "Greetings & Readings at Hunt Valley Town Center". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:56, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I've deleted the logo & tidied up some bit. An indef block on the basis that this is an advertising only account (there is deleted evidence to that effect) would not bother me or we wait for a bit & see? --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:28, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:RD.

Someone may want to go over my range block on User:71.100.8.0/21. More details here (note: 71.100 was spamming several desks, not just Humanities). · AndonicO ^Engage. 09:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know a lot about rangeblocks and potential collateral damage, but I know a little about 71.100... who also uses a number of registered accounts and has been disrupting the reference desks for a long time. There are discussions all over the place, but one recent centralized discussion at AN/I can be found here . ---Sluzzelin talk 10:04, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Revert war and ignoracne from an administrator

We really need help at some place. On the Russians page. A long time ago after a long discussion it was decided that a one-piece collage will be created. You can see it here. It had no problems, and it was agreed. Then User:Melesse for a not understood and not explaned reason for her did this. She was explaned on her talk page that she hurts a concensus and that we prefer it as a one piece collage, and you can see it here. Yet she ignored it and without explanation insisted on this. I dont want an edit was to continue so please explane her that even thought she's an administrator Wikipedia is not her private property, and that she can't go against a concensus and she must have a discussion before doing something.

Note that i'm not the first complaning on her one-sided ignorant towards the editors actions.[91] [92] [93] [94]. Please get into this. MaIl89 (talk) 09:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't really know where to start here. First off, this is a content dispute - there's no administrator action or discussion to be had here, as far as I can tell. Secondly, you started this discussion 3 minutes before you tried talking about the issue on her talk page. Maybe try dispute resolution to see if you can resolve the problem, or ask for input from other users. Alex Muller 13:14, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

The users are discussing this elsewhere. I'd consider it resolved as far as ANi is concerned, for now, and request that MaIl89 refrain from removing it and the comments of others from the noticeboad. Thanks. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:39, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Possible subtle vandalism campaign from 125.161.x.x

Beginning with Nero, which is on my watchlist, I've noticed edits from this subnet that increasingly appear to be efforts to subtly vandalize articles.

• 125.161.135.116 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 125.161.134.220 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 125.161.129.197 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

At first, I thought this editor was testing and/or confused, but when viewed chronologically as a group, their edits seem less innocent. I'm posting here because there may be other IPs in this range whose activity hasn't yet been detected. Dppowell (talk) 15:53, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I DEMAND A CHECKUSER

Resolved

 – No requests for CU on self. A bit OTT here even if we did it. No need for further drama. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 23:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Im demanding a checkuser is done on my account RIGHT now. I have been accused of sock puppetry Here by an Admin. After making nearly 17,000 edits to this website I WILL NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Have my name muddied my this little sweety pie. Get it sorted please. Regards. --— Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 22:44, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

All is well, nobody accused you of anything. If anything, I recommend you count to ten (really, please do try that before the unavoidable rebuttal). -Gutza ^{T T+} 22:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I want it done NOW. Im a good editor and I won't be accused of that. She/he/it openly admits to considering blocking me in the past. Do it, I want my name cleaned. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 22:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Please accept my independent assessment: you haven't been accused of anything, there is no need for a checkuser to clear your name. --Gutza ^{T T+} 22:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Then request it on the RFCU page, instead of the Admin noticeboard, since admins can't generally checkuser. --Golbez (talk) 22:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Isn't there a different board for that request. Also, whyu all the drama? --70.188.131.89 (talk) 22:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there is a different board. However, requesting use of the checkuser tool on your own account is not acceptable. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

We don't checkuser users on request to prove they are not guilty. If someone really suspects you are a sock of another user, they can file an RFCU with evidence showing who you are a sock of, but I very much doubt it will come to that. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:01, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

You better take some cool-down time, you are acting agressively everywhere you go, calling someone "some bitter hormonal Admin" seems awfully sexist. - Caribbean~H.Q. 23:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

And you have no right to "demand" anything of anyone on this site. Mr.Z-man 23:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but on the English Wikipedia, we don't really do that - Alison ^❤ 23:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Great to know you can be accused of any old rubbish by an admin who has a lot of sway but cant get it discredited. Hmm I wonder what would happen if I did that? — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 23:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Fact is that any of us can be accused of any old rubbish by anybody (admin or not) at any time on WP and might have a hard time discrediting it. That's why Wikipedians need thick skins... -- Derek Ross | Talk 23:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I wish I'd kept the diff, but I've been accused of some very strange (and even conflicting) things at times. Orderinchaos 15:45, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Everything else aside, if a user makes a bad faith attempt to tarnish another user's reputation in the talk pages, there should be a good faith method to establish one's innocence (i.e. as opposed to getting back with a vengeance, or alternately just accepting to get thrashed around). However, in this case I have seen no such attempt to accuse anyone of anything, which is the point I was trying to make above. (I won't even try to touch sexist or aggressiveness here, I'm just pointing out a different POV.) --Gutza ^{T T+} 23:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Yep, I read the talk page too and I do not see anyone accusing Realist2 of sockpuppetry. Orderinchaos 15:45, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I've been accused of being pro-Korean and pro-Japanese at various times. I think it's funny, mostly. (^_^) ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:04, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I've been accused of being hard right and hard left in the same dispute by the same person before. Pretty crazy. Orderinchaos 20:09, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Request for withdrawal of community sanction

Hi; in November, I was placed under a sanction under which I can operate only one account. Given the fact that I have successfully completed mentoring and am now a good boy, could this restriction be relaxed so I can create another account for the purpose of "segregation and security" - since I've created a global account, and frequenly use the remember me checkbox, I feel that this would increase the account integrity (I'd obviously not globalise my second account). I won't say precisely what the new account would be - just in case some nasty IP registers it! - but it would be along the lines of TreasuryTag and 2! Thanks for your consideration! ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 13:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

To be clear, you would like to have a second account to edit from public computers? I, personally, would be okay with this provided each account references the other on their userpages. Neıl 龱 14:18, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes! For the userpages, I'd simply redirect to my "central account" pages. ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 14:30, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

So long as the "central account" mentions the existence of a secondary account, quite clearly, then that wouldn't be a problem. I can't see why you would need more than one "other account", though, so keep it at that. Wait and see what a few others think before going ahead, and run it by whoever set down the restriction back in November. Neıl 龱 14:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't planning to have more than one additional account; that is, I planned to create one further account than my current one, this one, and that's it. ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 14:54, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

That should be fine. I've asked Rlevse, who imposed the restriction, and Dweller, who adopted you, for input here. Neıl 龱 14:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

As long as this is out in the open, clearly stated on both the public and regular user pages, and only one public account is created, I do not see this as a breaking of the restriction. Note, this should NOT be construed as a withdrawal of the restriciton, simply as a clarification thereof. It is standard practice to permit an alternate public account if it's stated so on the two user pages. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I think I am OK with this under what is being described. On a side note TT, will you please not create a similar sig for your alternate account? I'm not sure why you are still using the current one. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 17:00, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes - TT, changing your signature, which takes up three lines on my browser, would be appreciated. Neıl 龱 17:21, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, his current signature, at 228 characters, is far shorter than his previous signature, which was 437 characters. 228 characters is too long, but it's not absurdly so, as was the older one. Horologium (talk) 21:52, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Breaking usual weekend silence to pop in and say I've no problem with this request. TT completed his mentor programme in exemplary fashion. --Dweller (talk) 00:48, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Good News

I thought I'd mention a slight antidote to the general complaining, doom and gloom that normally appears here. On Monday last, some minor IP vandalism to a few pages came to my attention, and I emailed the diffs to the abuse@ for the IP range as shown by WhoIs, without much hope of any response. However, after an exchange of emails and an explanation of the problem, I have had return emails not only from the IP owner (a Canadian government body), but also from the IT manager specifically responsible for the school involved, which turned out to be a Grade 6 - 8 establishment. I have been told that those responsible, although not necessarily directly traceable, will be given certain advice. The result is that those kids will now be aware that while anonymity is possible, some detection is equally possible. To those who feel that reporting anon IP vandalism is pointless, I'd just say that it's worth an email. Result! --Rodhullandemu 01:04, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

"Certain advice" mmmkay.... I know I wouldn't have bothered asking what they meant by that, but did you? — CharlotteWebb 01:54, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

No; I guess that's up to how serously they take it. I am just a humble whistle-blower. --Rodhullandemu 05:26, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Nice one! Tony Fox (arf!) 23:51, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Warren G Harding

Probably due to the Monday 6/9 episode of The Colbert Report, Warren G. Harding's page has been edited in several places (including in the footnotes) to list his middle name as Gangsta rather than Gamaliel. I can't get in to edit it as a new user; could someone check this out? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bazjack (talk • contribs) 00:49, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Appears to have been sorted out. Thanks for the notice. Tony Fox (arf!) 00:51, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Featured picture cited as original research?

User:CyclePat is being disruptive and pointy towards featured pictures. First, he added {{refimprove}} and {{original research}} to Image:Respiratory system complete en.svg,[95] which is a featured picture. The editor proceeded to list this image for deletion review, which is speedily kept and cited by the closer as abusive DR. A few days later, the editor went to the Features and Admins page on Signpost and hid the announcement that the image is promoted to featured status, citing the image as original research.[96] I would like to ask someone to step in and intervene this problematic user. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 00:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

This is probably also relevant; it's another (unrelated) image he's claiming is original research. --Rory096 00:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Images are traditionally given some leeway with regard to original research guidelines (see WP:NOR#Original images), but that doesn't mean users concerned over such issues are necessarily being "disruptive" -- it could just as easily be argued that such concerns are important to ensuring the integrity and accuracy of our content. While I do think the Signpost edit in particular was uncalled for, it's worth noting that it's over a week old -- is this an ongoing issue, anywhere? – Luna Santin (talk) 02:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I absolutely don't see how respiratory system diagram is original research. It is actually one of the things on earth that people don't debate about. Just go and flip open any human anatomy textbook and you cannot find any disagreement between textbooks. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 03:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

In which case the diagram author - or you - would not find it difficult to provide a citation for the image, in the image description page. OR is not about a work being accurate & factual, so much as it is about it being verifiable. --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

This is uncontroversial information, and probably not based on a single source. FWIW, CyclePat also requested a source at Commons. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 03:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

It demonstrably is not an uncontroversial image, since there is a controversy about it. I'm sure it is not a plagiarized image taken directly from a single source. But it is clearly, for the reasons cited above, capable of being referenced to any number of other occurrences of diagrams of respiratory systems. Lack of a single source does not diminish its capacity to be referenced. Referencing it is the simplest and most effective way to solve the controversy. --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

If the image had no problems on the commons, where it was originally uploaded, then there's no issue with sourcing. This is why the templates for sourcing here specifically mention "this article." Just because this diagram isn't taken from Gray's Anatomy doesn't mean it needs to be referenced to it. CyclePat has had issues with his behavior prior. Let's hope this isn't his new outlet from now on.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I slapped a pile of references on the talk page for the image. That should put this absurd attention grabbing to rest. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

To state that there is a controversy surrounding this image is laughable. A weak attempt at manufacturing one does not controversy make. Resolute 04:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Just out of curiousity, does Commons even have a policy analogous to WP:V or WP:NOR? As far as I know there isn't one. While I suspect that the Commons' community would choose to delete misleading imagery, as far as I know they don't have any policy requiring the sourcing of the information presented in an image (as distinct from sourcing who created the image). Dragons flight (talk) 04:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

For context, it should be noted that CyclePat has a history of disruptive activity around references. Some months ago, he was engaged in a great deal of nonsense on the MS disambiguation page, insisting that every entry on the dab page ought to have a reference proving that the term could be abbreviated that way. The silliness spilled over to a number of other pages, where he started demanding footnotes on millisecond and mass spectrometry to prove that these terms could be validly abbreviated as ms and MS, respectively.

Based on that sort of conduct – and his tilting at windmills over WP:AMA – I am very concerned at CyclePat's tendency to WP:POINT. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I've given CyclePat a note informing him of this discussion. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 14:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Until some meaningful and sourced disagreement about this image shows up I'd say there isn't much to talk about other than CyclePat's WP:POINTiness. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:24, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Btw, I found that his username is actually the name of a company he owns. See User:CyclePat#About Me and User:CyclePat/CyclePat's. Isn't that a violation of WP:USERNAME? OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 15:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

As long as he's not promoting his company, I don't see a problem with it. --Conti|✉ 15:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

He is promoting his company, in his userspace and on his main userpage. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Please see my comment at [97], which may apply to several of the comments displayed here... Also, I find it to be of bad form to bring up past incidents "which may or may not" even be related to this subject. In this case, I find it being quite rude. To put it nicely I will make reference to this article which talks about previous criminal records. It is absolutely un-called for and will humbly accept an apology for the grotesque lack of WP:AGF. p.s.: I mean this in the most sincere of ways... and there is no hidden humor or sarcasm... as some of my past conversations. ありがとうございました •••日本穣 for the constructive reference and spending some time to try and find something that could help us keep this image. b.t.w.: see the talk page where you may see that someone else then I claims it has a mistake! No matter the case this is not the proper venue to discuss content issue which, may be found (this exact subject) at Wikipedia:No original research/noticeboard#Image without references. --CyclePat (talk) 08:51, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:AN is an entirely suitable venue to discuss user conduct issues, which certainly and conspicuously exist here. Discussing your past conduct is perfectly reasonable where a pattern of behaviour exists and corrective measures are being – or ought to be – considered. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:14, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

If your point holds true, CyclePat, then the entire Wikipedia will be removed and there is no Wikipedia. Why? Because every idea was proposed by a human. For example, if we follow your original research standard, we have to remove the article gravity (because it is originally proposed by Issac Newton, which is an original research when Newton was alive). I find that CyclePat is following the letters, not the spirit of the OR policy. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 16:51, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Well lets get started then... DELETE DELETE DELETE --Samuel Pepys (talk) 16:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Come on guys! You're being supercilious. I honestly want to know if there is a mistake or not in this picture. I need some references. That's it! Wikipedia should have authoritative sources to substantiate this. Newton's law's are substantiated by "recognized", 3rd party, references. This graphic is an interpretation by an unknown user (who can't even step up and claim his/her sources... did they read this in a book, do an autopsy, pull the names out a the medical school class, etc.) which as far as we know has not been peer reviewed, so the least we should do is provide some references. There is no arguing that this is a respiratory system, because everyone knows this, but since not everyone is familiar with the minute details, it's important to note reliable, peer-reviewed (preferably) and authoritative source. Plus this is different than "any other image" because it has incorporated some "text" (which I believe places it closer to the category of "article"). I trust this explanation and the ones found on the related pages is sufficient to prove to you that I am honestly attempting to do what is right and to find a reliable source. Thank you. --CyclePat (talk) 18:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

It is not necessary to reference every single thing. I don't need references on a map of the world, the image is based on common and accrued knowledge that is easily verifiable on the articles where it is posted. Stop being an asshat. --Samuel Pepys (talk) 19:02, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

p.s.: I conclude that you are stretching Wikipedia's policies beyond common sense, i.e., I politely think that this maybe an interesting read for you. --CyclePat (talk) 19:14, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

The problem, CyclePat, is not necessarily in a simple request for a reference, or in a desire for discussion about the appropriateness of references for scientific diagrams. The problem – which you have yet to acknowledge or, apparently, to understand – is how you approach those requests or discussions.

As near as I can gather from digging through your contributions, this is the timeline:

---

• CyclePat sees the featured image Image:Respiratory system complete en.svg in the article Respiratory system. He removes it, with the edit summary Removed unsourced image. Reason: No reliable source provided for imbeded text which identified parts of the organ".
• He does the same thing (diff) to Image:Merrimack Valley Map.PNG from Merrimack Valley.
• Both edits are reverted independently, by different editors.
• Twelve hours later and with no discussion, he removes the respiratory system image from all the articles in which it appears:[98][99][100][101][102][103]. That includes repeating his edit (which had been undone) on respiratory system. No attempt was made to contact the editor who had reverted him, nor to expand on his reasoning on the article's talk page.
• CyclePat adds templates and various messages to the image description page here and on Commons (diff). In all cases, the templates are inappropriate ({refimprove} and {original research} specifically state that they are meant for articles, not images, while {bsr} is used to identify images which are missing authorship info). Even at the time, he acknowledged that it was unlikely that the image represented original research (diff) so it is unclear why he felt it needed to be removed immediately from all our articles.
• He also messages the image's creator on Commons, leaving a message ([104]) that is based on an incomplete copyright info template. The message is confusing, and refers to the need for further licensing and copyright information.
• A few days later, CyclePat nominates the image for deletion from Commons ([105], [106]) despite having identified no error in the image, despite the featured status of the picture, and despite having allowed very little time for sourcing to take place. (Various mangled deletion templates and pages appear on enwiki as well, at RfD, MfD, and IfD.)
• His various deletion nominations are closed immediately by sensible admins at enwiki and Commons. The Commons admin notes that the deletion request is "abusive": diff.
• He proceeds to strip the image from a Signpost article: diff.
• CyclePat then goes to Wikipedia:No original research/noticeboard#Image without references.
• He also attempts to file an RfC on the image talk page (diff). For some reason, he states that "Since the closing deletion discussion the fact that image was not listed in any article has come to light! Hence, in this case the image is not used in any article (and should not be used in any article) because it has no references." I don't know how it is that he forgot that he was the one who removed the image from articles in the first place.
• He removes references to the image from assorted Picture of the Day (POTD) archive templates (diff) as well as adding {fact} and {syn} tags to the image's POTD box: diff.
• Discussion continues in several places. Nihonjoe has provided several similar images and references from reliable sources on Image talk:Respiratory system complete en.svg. CyclePat is going through the references, but is badly hampered by either his lack of specific subject knowledge, or a failure to do any legwork himself. (For example, he compares our image to one provided by the American Medical Association, and offers the criticism "The "vocal fold" appears to be at the same location as the AMA's Larynx". Simply entering vocal fold into our search box would take him to our article, which says "The vocal folds...are composed of...membrane stretched horizontally across the larynx." Not surprising that they'd be in the same place in a diagram, is it?)

---

This is the second time I've closely examined CyclePat's conduct in a situation like this one. In both cases, he has chosen to zero in on a particular image or fact for which he believes a reliable source must be provided. So far, so good. (While others may disagree with the need for a source, opening a discussion is – within reason – a fair course of action.)

The problem comes with his approach. He is not content to add a {fact} tag and let things rest. Nor does he simply make a polite request of an article or image creator. Instead, he sprays inappropriate tags and templates everywhere, opens RfCs, posts to noticeboards, opens deletion discussions, edit wars, strips content from articles, and just generally makes a noisy, obnoxious nuisance of himself until someone either gives him the attention he wants (which seems to be what has happened here) or he is blocked after multiple warnings (which happened the last time around).

He seems either unaware of or indifferent – and I'm not sure which would be worse – to the disruption that his approach causes. He hasn't demonstrated that he has learned anything from the last go-round, at EgyptAir, MS, millisecond, and mass spectrometry. (This choice example shows Pat creating a footnote to demonstrated that ms really is an abbreviation for millisecond. The footnote is longer than the article's prose, and includes a comment that adding SI prefixes to SI units may be a violation of WP:NOR.)

The fact that he refers other editors to Wikipedia:Wikilawyering in his last comment above speaks volumes. How can he still not realize or acknowledge the tremendous amount of other editors' time and effort he has wasted over minutiae and abuse of Wikipedia processes? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:49, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, TenOfAllTrades, for making this extensive list to summarize CyclePat's disruptive behavior. Since CyclePat started this kind of behavior for over 6 months and did not show any sign of stopping, I would like to ask the community for a ban on CyclePat because 1) continuous disruptive editing 2) abuse of deletion process 3) following the letter but not the spirit of original research policy 4) being pointy 5) wasting editor's time and effort just to annoy them 6) destroying the editing atmosphere in Wikipedia. I haven't thought of the duration of the ban, but 1 month or longer sounds reasonable OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 05:44, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

If you must, block over this, to prevent disruption. Do it when relevant, not now when it's punitive. A community ban now would be frankly ridiculous, so I'm not surprised Ohana's proposed one (note he started this AN section). CyclePat does useful work unrelated to this dispute area (example), hence I oppose a ban. giggy _(:O) 05:51, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Also oppose. While I can't stand the north korean style 'accuse others of doing exaclty what I do' approach. A ban seems totally overkill here. --Samuel Pepys (talk) 05:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not indef though. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 14:09, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Speaking as an uninvolved party, while I can see the frustration CyclePat's approach to this matter causes, any sort of outright block or ban here would be unfair. A more fair approach would be to give CyclePat a warning -- which, if ignored, would be followed by a block for a week or two -- to knock off this foolishness. Although many reference works do provide cites for their diagrams, Wikipedia does not expect it for noncontroversial diagrams; demanding in this manner that we change our expectations won't persuade us to. I suggest to CyclePat that if he wants to effect a change that he investigate current practices, then research which sources best support this Featured Image, & add them to this diagram. If he does this in a skilled enough manner, then the rest of us will gladly follow his lead. -- llywrch (talk) 23:37, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I have so much to say... I could quote that "Citation required" image from my user space, but that would not be polite. Hence I refer you, once more, to 1) WP:V which states "All material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable, published source.", 2) WP:CITE which says "The credibility of your article rests on the credibility of the Web page, as well as the book." In our case, we are using Wikimedia "Commons" picture. Do you believe such a "source" is reliable? Such an image, to which the author her/himself can't even step up to provide any reliable source... or at least a proper reference? What authoritative or reliable source are their? The ones that we added on the talk page that currently contradict the image? It's obvious there will be some discrepancies. That is all the more reason to have the "Original Reference"... who claims that those words go in that location to identify those parts within the image. An image is worth a thousand words, but once you start adding words to an image, "We require" references. It becomes an article. I can understand for regular images there may be some different code, or "unspoken rules" whereas the images remain, but in this case we are talking about an image which identifies, again, with text, body organ parts. There is most likely going to be some sort of POV. I want to know exactly who it is that has this point of view! I am allowed to know... otherwise this information is pretty much useless... and it's un-verified, which means it shouldn't be used in any Wikipedia article. For example, is it a pharynx[SIC] (per the AMA source provided on the talk page) or a pharynx? And even if we did manage to somehow source all the information, what really concerns me is the complacency of the closing administrator, during the deletion process, to simply accept "fact as fact" without "any references". What I mean is that, by closing the deletion process of the image, there is an acknowledgement that the image is in fact sourced... when it isn't at all. So I ask you, is there still an acceptance that we "WP:CITE#SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT"? At this point, I acknowledge your complaints but would like to indicate that "Whoever brought this to this board is the one truly wasting time and I ask that my big brother, Tenofalltrades, please step aside and acknowledge that there is absolutely no mal intention in what I have done. This conversation regarding my mannerism and methodology of work is a true insult, a waste of time and I humbly requests it ends right now (which is taking away from my time to actually do productive editing and compare... and maybe even, throughout the several references added on the talk page (and perhaps my eventual loss of patience), sucessfully "VERIFY this IMAGE" (Requested approx. 18 days ago). Frankly, you guys can continue arguing here about whatever, but unless the next words are... "Here are all the verified sources for this image..." or "Let's work together at getting these sources verified" or "Yes! It's not properly sourced but where keeping it until it can be" I'll be ignoring your insults towards not only my inteligence but towards Wikipedia's widelly accepted policies. And again, thank you for those of you who did try to add some references, which I will now continue to verify. --CyclePat (talk) 04:29, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

(dedent for jimbos sake) Tis true he who WP:words last WP:words longest. --Samuel Pepys (talk) 04:36, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I'dd like to think of if more or less like agreeing to disagree and moving on... but meuh! :) At least we have a good sense of humour and I will pay attention not to enrage "big brother" next time I find an unsourced image. "B-B!..... B-B!...." (Love of big brother) Avoid the big Delete Delete.... "D-D!...."... do it qietly. Hey. I got the last word again :( Is that good? --CyclePat (talk) 05:20, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Having some issues viewing Wikipedia

All the Wikipeda policy articles have an image on the top left corner which locks the article from scrolling I assume.

For a quick look: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Civility or any other would suffice.

Is there an on-going problem? --HeaveTheClay (talk) 15:47, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Erm, no problems here (Windows Vista with Fx 2). And how can an administrator help with this? weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 21:13, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Someone vandalized Template:Nutshell. The template has since been full protected. Dave6 ^talk 05:27, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

ACC backlogged

Resolved

 – All done by Animum. giggy _(:O) 03:28, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

If there is an admin with ACC access. It is currently backlogged with 9 pending requests that need admin attention. Thanks.--Finalnight (talk) 23:06, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks like its been done now, thanks.--Finalnight (talk) 00:52, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Two seconds of your time...

Y Done Keegan^talk 06:21, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Salutations, I am trying to set up an assessment feature for WikiProject Objectivism and I need an administrator to edit the protected section here, replacing "Foo" with "Objectivism", clicking "run the bot" and then reverting their edit. Won't take a minute. Thanks in advance, Skomorokh 03:34, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Sneaky attempt at policy-making by ArbCom

Those interested in the ongoing development of BLP policy might be interested to read this current proposed ArbCom decision. It's been attached to a seemingly unrelated case regarding a boring, technical issue of formatting of reference quotes, where few would be likely to see it before it's a fait accompli, and it grants sweeping new powers to admins to impose their will unilaterally on anything pertaining to a BLP. Whether or not one agrees with this specific change, some concern is warranted with the manner in which ArbCom is trying to sneak in such a policy change with little community input. *Dan T.* (talk) 03:39, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

page move vandalism statistics

Bugzilla:14191 has some recent comments about changing autoconfirm to 7 days/20 edits. I think it might be a good idea to collect some stats about the number of page move vandalism from before the autoconfirm change (exists for 4 days), the current change (4 days/10 edits) and if it gets changed again (7 days/20 edits). If 7/20 turns out to have little to no change, we can jump back down to 4/10. Something to the extent of how much page move vandalism occurred in those three time periods would be simple enough. Thoughts? -- Ned Scott 03:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Any help on this would be appreciated.. Even if it's just an idea thrown out there on how to best collect them. -- Ned Scott 03:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Can be done - you just need to download the logs (from the database dump), and then get a program to analyse them and work out what constitutes pagemove vandalism - say a user moves [number] page in [amount of time], they were all reverted within [amount of time] and the user was blocked indefinitely. However, the most recent database dump was carried out on 24 May and the autoconfirmed change was made on 23 May we'll probably have to wait for the next database dump, which should be in about two weeks. Hut 8.5 09:49, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Consensus needed - ANI subpages

Please have a look and comment on this discussion regarding ANI subpages. Thanks, D.M.N. (talk) 08:39, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Community ban of Bsharvy

Already indeffed, new socks checkusered and indeffed today. Declared intent to violate the indef on my user talk page.[107] Requesting formal community ban so that editors who deal with the topics where he's been disruptive can revert new socks on sight.

As background, see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Bshanvy and this attempted arbitration request. Also Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Bsharvy (2nd). This was a troll so skilled that his maneuvers had gotten one editor sitebanned. When two productive editors tried to follow up with a second sock investigation request it went nowhere and he had gamed the system all the way up to an arbitration request against them. The main account has been indeffed since March, but this deserves to have a few more eyes upon it so he gets the idea that we mean business. Durova^Charge! 06:23, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Placeholder for block-evading post by the subject of this thread: if you object to the proposal, post a defense to your user talk page. Durova^Charge! 06:40, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Support full community ban. Having been deeply involved with this editor, some notes.

1. There was clearly a disconnect in the first checkuser request. User:Igorberger (a disruptive, now banned editor) actually presented a very persuasive case. I am surprised Jenochman declined it. Was it because he knew Igor was troublesome and then didn't take it seriously? If I had brought a request (which I kept meaning to) would it have been taken more seriously?
2. Should we reevaluate Igor's indef block? I don't know enough about the trouble he caused elsewhere, but on Anti-Americanism he could be cogent and occasionally helpful.
3. Bsharvy/Life.temp is skilled. We'll have to watch and perhaps tabulate where he is most likely to make an appearance. He would be stupid to come to Anti-Americanism again and I suspect when (not if) he reappears it will be elsewhere. At least at first. Marskell (talk) 07:57, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

A technical clarification: that was a sockpuppet investigation request, not a checkuser request. Jehochman is not a checkuser. David Gerard, who is a checkuser, confirmed yesterday that these accounts are operated by the same person. Durova^Charge! 08:26, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, sorry; I haven't been down these alleways much. What exactly is the purpose of a sock investigation request if not to run a checkuser? Marskell (talk) 08:41, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Better not to get into the details at a thread where an indefinitely blocked editor who has socked for months and has vowed to sock again is being considered for a ban. Suffice it to say that this was an easy call once the smoke generator got shut off. Durova^Charge! 08:51, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

(reply to Marskell) Not all SSP reports need a CU, if there are patterns/edits already familiar to the investigating editors. LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:00, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support ban, for what its worth - it at least puts down a marker. LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:00, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

While we're chatting, I'll note that I'll still be watching Anti-Americanism in three or six months. What other admins will be? Precious few do now. We need to better coordinate radar for people like this. Marskell (talk) 09:39, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support community ban, to help the people who will be reverting and blocking sockpuppets of this person. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 15:23, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Kaizer13

If you look at the User talk:Kaizer13 page, you will notice that he has a history of unhelpful editing. The latest example is with The Beatles in which he reverted the gatefold photo of the group from the album Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band which already has formal fair-use rationale included and thus is allowed for use in the infobox for The Beatles article. Steelbeard1 (talk) 11:04, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree with this guy, make me a martyr. --Kaizer13 (talk) 11:12, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

You do realize being blocked for vandalism isn't a worthy cause, and doesn't make you a martyr? Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 15:25, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

If you team tag revert, and both get blocked, it might make you both a "two-martyr". Pip! Pip! LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:54, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Assistance required

I have noted the actions of one editor who appears to be on a campaign to remove images. Despite the many challenges to his actions, he is relentless in identifying images for deletion. Please check the edit history of User:Fasach Nua who does not seem to make any substantive editing other than challenges and deletions. Bzuk (talk) 13:13, 15 June 2008 (UTC). (comment redirected from Village Pump)

I thought this page was for discussion of the village pump itself. My first impression is that the editor in question relies too much on the WP:BRD style of editing, but VP talk is not the place for Dispute Resolution. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 16:52, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

See also: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive338#Fasach Nua disrupting IfD. seicer | talk | contribs 17:13, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Interesting that, I nominated an image for failing wp:nfc, it was deleted as failing wp:nfc, how disruptive was that! Fasach Nua (talk) 06:42, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I had an altercation with this editor this morning, warned them against 3RR and other innapropriate behaviour, had the warning removed immediatley and was called a troll. In preparation for further action (which thankfully I have not yet had to take), I consolidated recent evidence (over the past few days and this particular incident) proving this editors disruptive behaviour, and feel that it might be worth posting it here:

• Reversions at Template:TardisIndexFile without discussion: [108], [109], [110], [111] (3RR: "Editors may still be blocked even if they have made three or fewer reverts in a 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive.")

• Reversions at CITV without discussion: [112], [113]

• Unfounded accuastions of threats and Wikistalking, when I was merely making user aware of 3RR and stating that their behaviour was, in ways, unacceptable: [114] ("Wikistalking refers to the act of following an editor to another article to continue disruption")

• Unfounded threats of trolling, when I was merely making user aware of 3RR and stating that their behaviour was, in ways, unacceptable: [115] (see edit summary)

• 3RR warning given here: [116]

• Preliminary warning for unacceptable behaviour given here: [117]

• Final warning given here: [118] (all three mesages removed here: [119], [120])

Having only really interacted with this user over the past few days, I cannot really comment on past behaviour, though it would appear that there is a trend. _TalkIslander 22:17, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I would not wish to call anyone a liar, but I feel I must clarify a few things:

There was extensive discussion of Template:TardisIndexFile on multiplae forums, including Wikipedia talk:Non-free content, and the consensus was to remove

The threats issued by Islander where using the 3RR template, when he was the sole editor wanting these copyrighted images included, when multiple users wanted them excluded. The "final warning" threat was issued for unknown reasons

Islander had wikistalked me onto Template:TardisIndexFile a page he had never edited, undid my edit using a legal determination which if the UK is deemed a legitimite country are unfounded

3RR warnings issued by someone to bully people off the pages they feel they WP:OWN is unfortunate, especially when this user has edit warred over this page.

Other warnings given for what ....?

I really would expect better of a sysop Fasach Nua (talk) 06:42, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Again with the 'threats' and 'wikistalking'. And I suppose we can add 'liar' to that - what a glittering CV I seem to have ;). Firstly, check out WP:WIKISTALK - I am most certainly not wikistalking. The contribution logs are public for a very good reason. As for the threats, 'tis a pitty that instead of taking the 3RR warning as you should have (a gentle hint to stop, or else face a block), you took it as a threat, but there you go. The consensus on Template:TardisIndexFile - looking at the edit history and discussions, you appear to be one of the only people to think that there is any kind of consensus. Most seem to agree that there is no consensus, with a few acting just like you but for the other camp. I don't WP:OWN any pages on Wikipedia, as you well know, and I wasn't using a 3RR warning to 'bully' you, merely (suprise suprise) to make you aware of WP:3RR. You seriously need to be less accusatory, or else you will face a block. I posted the links above to make the current situation clear to others. Your agressive response has done little more than cement these views I have of you. It appears that you are unable to accept that you are the least bit in the wrong - a pitty. I'll leave this to someone else to sort out. _TalkIslander 15:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Another case for you , Fasach Nua first put an imageoveruse tag on images showing history of station ident of RTE here . I reverted ,he reverted and I then left it for over a day until Copyrightdrone deleted them upon which I reverted and removed the tag .The editor a few hours later reverted thereby deleting the images again History of edits .At no stage has he put them up for any type of image review .Delete them if you will but let them go for review at least first .Garda40 (talk) 11:53, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Jeeze louise, when will it stop? Why can't these commons SULs understand that EnWp is not Commons?!? --Dragon695 (talk) 17:38, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 June 16

Hi. Could someone have a quick check of this - the most recent 20 or so AfDs all seem to have been incomplete and have been fixed by DumbBot - is there a current problem with the AfD process ? Thanks. CultureDrone (talk) 13:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I should also point out that the AfDs are by different editors, so it's not a case of one person getting the process wrong. CultureDrone (talk) 13:14, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree that it's multiple AFDs from multiple editors, but the couple I've spot checked look like they weren't properly transcluded to the log - which is step three of the process. DumbBot transcludes all of the AFDs it corrects at once, to avoid filling the edit history unnecessarily, so it makes sense to have a long run of corrected noms. I'm seeing a template error on most of them, though - it's not substing the Full page into the View AfD link - suprised DumbBot didn't catch that, but I don't know how to fix it. I'll look into it. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:19, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I've corrected the template errors; not sure why the (view AFD) links didn't parse properly. I've also sorted most of the dumbbot corrected AFDs. I'll try to keep an eye open, but it looks OK for now. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:51, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Backlog at WP:UAA

Resolved

13 username cases unresolved. D.M.N. (talk) 12:23, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

The backlog is virtually gone now. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 21:49, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Forgotten AFD

This AFD seems to have been forgotten due to a page move. Should I re-nominate it, non-admin close it, or just forget about it and go back to sleep? Apologies if I'm in the wrong forum. ascidian | talk-to-me 21:43, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I closed it as stale, but feel free to relist for more consensus. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 21:48, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Security notice (especially to admins)

If you leave the "remember me" box unchecked when logging in and rely on this to automatically log you out when closing your browser, you should instead manually log yourself out by either clicking "log out" or clearing your cookies. This is especially important if you login at a public terminal or on a shared computer. See bugzilla:14564. --- RockMFR 21:53, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Admirał Bum

This account has been blocked by User:Nlu for - as far as I can deduct - using non-English characters in the account name. I can also suppose the use of the word "Bum" which does sound weird in English, but in Polish is the equivalent of "Bang!" If we consider using non-English, local-alphabet-specific characters, the block doesn't seem to qualify per WP:U.

I approached Nlu on his talkpage (see entry), where he clarified that non-English characters weren't allowed, after which he archived the discussion, therefore effectively terminating the discussion on the matter.

So I bring this matter to the attention of more pairs of eyes. I suggest that the account should be unblocked due to the fact its name doesn't seem inappropriate. An additional argument here is the Single-User login. This specific account has not been blocked on any other wiki where it has been SULed, even though the non-English characters have been used. If English Wikipedia starts blocking account names that do not qualify because of that one single minor criterion, it will have problems with global-login users and will probably have to face the need of blocking gajillions of accounts of burdening the bureaucrats with massive user renames into such account names that use only the prescribed 26 English letters.

Comments, anyone? Wpedzich (talk) 15:47, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Bum has its English meaning nevertheless. Global usernames face global suitability worries. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:25, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Even if the username is inappropriate (and I highly doubt it is), a hard block for one non-English character is overwrought. I'm gonna be bold and change it to a soft block ... I'd unblock him myself, but in deference to Nlu we ought to wait until he contributes to the discussion. I'm also leaving a note on Nlu's talkpage. Blueboy96 16:31, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. The account never should have been hard blocked for this. I didn't even think of checking for that. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:34, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this block is unnecessary. Even if it was intended to be English, it would still be borderline. Non-latin characters are allowed in usernames and "bum" doesn't seem very offensive. Asking the user to be renamed because of the ł is ridiculous, especially now since he has a global account. This is an experienced user on other projects who was treated like a vandal here (and this is just now coming to wider attention, 2 years later!). I recommend unblocking him immediately. Mr.Z-man 16:39, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

(Note) as SUL gains more users we'll likely see more of these old incidents. --Samuel Pepys (talk) 16:47, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Apart from asking the opinion on this specific situation that's also a general comment I wanted to make with this message. Wpedzich (talk) 16:53, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I have unblocked the user since global usernames are swaying policies on this, the block was made two years ago and it looks like consensus is going to tend towards being ok with the word. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:20, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Endorse unblock. That being said, I believe 2 years ago non-english characters were extremely frowned upon and blocking for this wasn't all that uncommon. Since consensus has moved away from this, there are probably a lot more like this we need to unblock. VegaDark (talk) 19:42, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Clarification

I thought we have been allowing non-latin alphabet usernames for a while. Wikipedia:Username_policy#Non-Latin_usernames makes no mention of having to be an 'established user'. Sasquatch t|c 22:33, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

10:20, 22 September 2006 Nlu (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Admirał Bum (Talk | contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite ‎(Inappropriate user name). MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 07:02, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Just for reference: WP:U at the time of the block. See for yourself - one of the categories listed under "inappropriate usernames" at that time was "Names with non-Latin characters". We obviously don't do that anymore, but it was a perfectly reasonable block at the time. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 21:47, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, it is a latin character - just not Latin-1. --Random832 (contribs) 02:09, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Heads up

Be on the look out for people like this guy—he made a talk archive full of Avril Lavigne crap, and transcluded it here. Lots of pages affected for 11 minutes. giggy _(:O) 09:25, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Would Powderfinger have been acceptable? ;) --Stephen 12:41, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

There's been a rash of similar vandalism recently; I blocked another user who was reported at AN/I for the same shenanigans. I didn't see anything at WP:LTA, but I seem to remember reading somewhere about more of the same. Horologium (talk) 12:45, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

WT:RD - a few months ago the Ref Desk was hit by an "Avril Lavigne troll". Given his use of open proxies a checkuser probably wouldn't be out of the question. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 00:03, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

User:WBOSITG

Resolved

For an admin, this user sure has uploaded a lot of copyright violations. I was stunned when I saw how many deleted files he has that were deleted as copyvios. -Nard 01:38, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Administrators are not infallible, contrary to popular opinion. Was this post necessary? xenocidic (talk) 01:40, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

{{fakecn}}. Sceptre ^(talk) 02:10, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

My apologies - fixed. ;> xenocidic (talk) 02:14, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

My earnest advice to you is to study RFAs more closely. — CharlotteWebb 01:48, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm marking this resolved, for the simple reason that admin action is not needed here. Good night all...Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 02:32, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't doubt many of these would have been uploaded early in his Wikicareer. People learn and improve as time goes on. Orderinchaos 20:15, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Let me guess, another troll from commons. Man SUL has some downsides to it. Anyway, back to commons with you, no need to bother us with your copyright paranoia. --Dragon695 (talk) 04:45, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Grudge much? ... You do realize the person you're calling a "troll for commons" has had an EnWP account since long before commons existed, right? --Gmaxwell (talk) 13:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

New user creating a slew of nonsense pages

Resolved

 – Indef blocked by Gwen Gale. --Stephen 03:27, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

User Adub001 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been around for two days, busily creating content which heads straight for the speedy deletion bin. Someone should slow this one down but I mostly don't do blocks and don't want to take it on. Takers? — Athaenara ✉ 03:16, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! — Athaenara ✉ 03:33, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Review of a Davkal sock

Can anyone review the comments made by the following IP address? 65.173.105.243 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Blocked by another administrator as a sock of Davkal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), the user has made repeated comments and unblock requests with pretty much the same tag line, all within the period of one day, so I have protected the page for the time being until the issue can be resolved.

I came across the account from Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Davkal (5th nomination). seicer | talk | contribs 04:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

About five other Davkal (talk · contribs) socks were found, all exhibiting the same edit patterns as 65.173.105.243. See also Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/SUVx. Jehochman ^Talk 11:56, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Non-consensual removal of Generation IV merger proposal

A while ago I added a merger proposal of the article Generation IV reactor to be merged into Fast breeder reactor. This proposal is open for discussion at Talk:Fast breeder reactor#Merger proposal. Until now there has not been consensus on how to proceed. Nuclear is, and always has been, a contended issue, so it needs extra prudence when editing. But now my proposal was removed by User:Lcolson with the argument that all my edits are driven by my point of view. I don't think this is according to WP policy, but using these kinds of arguments blocks me out of the entire process. -- Eiland (talk) 11:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The mention of Eiland's POV by User:Lcolson may have muddied the waters, but the thread is still open at Talk:Fast breeder reactor#Merger proposal for editors to add their view as to whether this merge makes sense. Obviously Lcolson and Eiland shouldn't revert war over the placement of the merge banner on Generation IV reactor. Maybe this AN thread will serve to collect more participants for the Talk discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 14:41, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Lugina Of Leylana

• Lugina Of Leylana (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Zachsterdisaster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Rosslin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Not currently active, so I thought it best to express my concerns here rather than AIV. It seems as if this individual and at least two other accounts signed up for the sole purpose of using their talk pages as bulletin boards and/or text storage. The other accounts in question are User:Zachsterdisaster and User:Rosslin. The former used the latter's user page to launch a childish attack; the latter is using his talk page to store an original story as did the individual over whom I had the original concerns. In short, we have three kids using their accounts as Myspace/Facebook pages. Rosslin has a couple of edits to the article space to his credit, the others do not. Also, Lugina has created a second talk page of a non-existent account, User talk:Lugina Of Leylana2 for the purpose of avoiding disparaging comments by Zachsterdisaster. What a freaking mess. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 15:33, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

League of Copyeditors has been MFD'd

Hi there.

I've just started this discussion about possibly MFD'ing and closing the League of Copy-Editors project as a whole. Any opinions and thoughts are welcome. Regards, D.M.N. (talk) 16:06, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I've opted to take the bold route, and have nominated it for closure at MFD. Input from the wider community regarding this is welcome. Regards, D.M.N. (talk) 18:20, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

A discussion page deleted

Resolved

A certain user deleted the Talk:Belarusians. Now the Belarusians article misses a discussion page with such important topics like the image created for the article, and many more. Please restore it. It's an absurd and i have never seen anything like it. I was really temp to delete everything written on that administrators talk page, but it's not worth being blocked for. Please restore it. MaIl89 (talk) 17:54, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I found your wandering talk page and moved it back. xenocidic (talk) 17:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

John Paul Neil

I assume that User:John Paul Neil has done enough to slander me to deserve a block, per this edit?--Bedford ^Pray 19:55, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Blocked indef due to "promised harassment" of an established user. Lradrama 19:59, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Given that that appears to be the account's only edit, would a checkuser be in order? UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 20:08, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't it appear it is a vandalism-only account? Why can't a person do a good job on Wikipedia without someone contradicting him all the time? Lradrama 20:10, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter that much as the account is now blocked indef. Bedford, have you had any messages like that before, or been in any disputes with sockies? D.M.N. (talk) 20:11, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I had some harassment a few weeks back. I think its some people from a website I belonged to six years ago that never liked me, and they have just discovered I'm on Wikipedia, so they have decided to harass me here. They even moved my user page and put links to some website that keeps opening browser pages until your computer crashes, or at least your browser does.--Bedford ^Pray 20:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Just reverted this edit. A block's in order. D.M.N. (talk) 20:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser is in order too. This sort of thing is really dickish. _{1 != 2} 20:34, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

It's an obvious sockpuppet of Delaylucky. I warned Bedford of such a campaign threat on his talk page. I'd recommend a swift block, ta. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 20:37, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

User's already blocked, apparently - and a good block, as well. When I mentioned checkuser, I meant that we should find out on whose behalf the threat was being made, as it's obviously a throw-away sock. Being unaware of the history, that made sense, though since it's an obvious sock I'd leave it be. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 20:41, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Unblock request. D.M.N. (talk) 20:44, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Declined. Maybe a checkuser is in order after all. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 20:44, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Is account creation blocked? Corvus cornix_talk 20:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes (I think). IP range-block needed? D.M.N. (talk)

Possibly. Add Christopher Paul Stephenson (talk · contribs · logs · block log) to the list as well, though now he didn't even bother to get blocked before requesting an unblock. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 20:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Judge Mark Libby (talk · contribs · logs · block log) - 'Nother. D.M.N. (talk) 21:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Quick heads up

Apparently Hot 30 Countdown just broadcast a call to its listeners to "brighten up" the Wikipedia page. Expect the SPAs to start paying a visit. – iridescent 22:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Apparently nobody listens to their show... -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 23:12, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

suspected sock of blocked IP

An IP 70.100.142.209 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) who relentlessly spams the Sandbox was just blocked for a month. They appear to be engaged in some kind of test edit game with another editor Tailsic (talk · contribs), who has essentially ZERO edits to mainspace and since creating his account on June 5, has done nothing but play with various sandboxes and his/her own user page. Personally, I think it's the same editor. WP:DUCK? Nobody of Consequence (talk) 22:51, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Could be. I've never seen one of these sandbox editors grow into the article space: They tend to only become more disruptive and daring in sandbox spaces, even trying to WP:OWN them. The user has already been warned twice, politely, which seems not to have swayed a thing. Hence, given the likelihood this user's IP has indeed already been blocked, I've blocked for 31 hours. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:07, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Betos01

Resolved

 – thanks --Rodhullandemu 13:55, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I have to go now, could someone take a look at this page and maybe do the necessary. Thanks. --Rodhullandemu 02:00, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Pikachu hobbes

Resolved

User has been indefinitely blocked and their userpage deleted so I doubt there's much more to be done. Guest9999 (talk) 05:35, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Slightly bizarre case, here. I stumbled on this account while reverting some vandalism by some other accounts. Almost all edits in the past year are to the user page. One edit is to an article that one of the blocked accounts edited, leading me to believe the person with this account is acquainted with the blocked users. He's using the page more like Myspace or a text dump site much as did the other users. Weird. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 03:01, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Cody Potter

Resolved

Not sure what to do... User:Faroutguy1212 and User:Task Commander (the same person) keep removing db templates for Cody Potter, which they have just re-created after it was deleted. It's excessive, and it was even more so before it was deleted (though that history is gone). Any help would be appreciated. JohnnyMrNinja 10:11, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Deleted and salted, was a load of rubbish. Neıl 龱 10:14, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Seems to have solved it. JohnnyMrNinja 10:18, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Complaint about user Majin Takeru

Resolved

 – taken care of

user Majin Takeru is going around to as many wikipedia entries as he can to change all Commonwealth English spellings to US English spellings under the pretext that Commonwealth English Spellings are "incorrect" uses of "Old English." Please put a stop to this. Commonwealth English is not improper English.

Several messages left by others and constructive dialogue concluded with editor. Dlohcierekim 04:36, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, the user was a bit "bitey" but appeared to be acting in ignorant good faith, and appears to have been generally unknowing of the different varieties of English. It is clear that they understand now, and have pledged to stop changing between them arbitrarily. Marking this as resolved. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 13:17, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Housekeeping required

Resolved

 – All done.

Graham87 05:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Portal:Green Politics has been deleted as a result of a recent MfD, but I neglected to include its subpages in the nomination and they remain extant. Can someone delete those for me? Muchas gracias, Skomorokh 05:21, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

 Done Graham87 05:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Threat to block

Resolved

 – User blocked for disruption Gwernol 12:53, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I asked my former account to be unblocked. The reply of User:Gwernol was –-

“This account will not be unblocked. If you are not going to use it, having it remain blocked has zero impact on you. It was blocked for good reason. There is no reason to unblock the account. Multiple admins have said this, now please let it be. Further requests may be seen as disruptive and could result in your current account being blocked.”[121]

How can I contribute positively to this encyclopedia when an administrator threatens to block me for merely asking someone to unblock my former account? I have made mistakes in the past & I have said so many times that I will not repeat them. Why don't WP:CIVIL & WP:AGF applies to administrators?

Nobody likes their former account to remain blocked. If other administrators also feel that the account should remain blocked, please change the reason for block. Please change the reason to “The user has lost the password of the account. Therefore the account is blocked.” Thank you. RS1900 12:35, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

But that isn't why the account is blocked, and losing your password is not a reason to unblock an account. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 12:43, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Everything looks pretty good - I agree with Gwernol 100%. Looks like you've made this request numerous times and your reason of "Nobody likes their former account to remain blocked" borders on the bizarre. Do you know a bunch of people who are unhappy because their former accounts have been blocked? I'm curious why you were allowed to evade that indefinite block at all, esp. given your disruptive persistence in this matter. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:45, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec) RS1900, you were very lucky indeed to get a second chance given the reason for your old account's block. It was blocked for very good reason, not because you lost the password. I really do suggest you leave this alone. Neıl 龱 12:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

(after ecs)You were being disruptive and abusing the unblock template unnecessarily on an account you no longer use. This happened a week ago and Gwernol didn't block you so I'm not sure what action you're expecting here. But you requested multiple unblocks, Gwernol answered you 3 times and Sam once, telling you that the account wasn't going to be unblocked but you persisted. You didn't "merely ask someone" for the account to be unblocked, you asked repeatedly and persistently and refused to accept the answer. As I said to you last week, please consider going and focusing on the mainspace because I think it is a matter of time before you end up being blocked for disruption. Many of the new administrators who weren't here last year don't know you and so you have the opportunity to make something of a new start but you are wasting it by being disruptive. Please consider. Also, if you have a problem with Gwernol, it would be fairer to try to discuss it with him first instead of running straight to ANI. But I think you would have a better time here this time around if you changed your approach. Sarah 12:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked RS1900 for 1 week for persistent disruption. He has been warned multiple times, by multiple admins that his behavior on Wikipedia is unacceptably disruptive and he has persisted. If this continues once the block expires, we may be close to the point where a community ban of this editor should be considered. Gwernol 12:53, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Generally speaking, I think it is a dangerous precedent to block an account right after coming to the noticeboard, especially if they've only made one potentially disruptive post this week. The post may be misguided, but it appears to be in good faith and asking a question. I'm trying not to discount the problems that RS1900 and socks have caused, but at the same time, even the most problematic of accounts shouldn't be afraid to come to the noticeboard for a good faith question. It seems a bit strong to consider the creation of this thread as a last straw before a block. Also, as this is clearly public to admin's eyes now on a noticeboard, any number of admins could have made the decision as to whether this constituted a block (which I really don't think it does), not the single most involved admin. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 13:33, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Generally speaking, perhaps, but this is a specific case, where the editor has been given multiple "second" chances. He has been warned multiple times by multiple admins that his behavior is disruptive and merits a block if repeated. It is not the case that I am the single most involved admin, despite the fact that I was named above. It is not true that his only recent disruptive edit was this "question" - he is continuing to try to get his old userpage deleted. I didn't see this ANI post until after I had blocked him for continued disruption of the User:Devraj5000 userpage. Gwernol 13:54, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Gwernol, for implying that you must be the most involved admin. I guess I meant in reference to this thread. I've read what RS1900 posted here a few times over, and I just can't see it being grounds for a block. While he may have abused unblock requests, this is simply, in my mind, not an abuse of the administrator's noticeboard, although I imagine it might be quite annoying for recently involved admins. I felt the responses to his post were adequate. Though I understand your intent, the idea of the admin he is questioning then being the admin to block him for creating this thread? That's quite unsettling to me. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 14:03, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Except he wasn't blocked for creating this thread. Gwernol said he wasn't aware of this post until after blocking. He was blocked for his continuing disruption concerning the status of his blocked sock. At least, that's how I understand Gwernol's response. Sarah 14:09, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

So he was blocked for attempting to db the old sock account? Just to clarify. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 14:13, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

He was blocked for deleting the contents of the User:Devraj5000 userpage and replacing it with an inappropriate request to delete the page after being repeatedly warned to leave that account alone. This was done before I read his post to AN. If you want to grant his latest unblock request, I won't object, although I continue to believe that his continued disruption of Wikipedia is becoming an issue that we should not ignore, and I see from the comments above and elsewhere that I'm not the only person who believes this. Gwernol 14:21, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, and I wouldn't overturn your actions even if I were. I was trying to get at the exact reason for the block. The last unblock request was a week ago, and in my mind, it isn't obvious that requesting to delete that page account is wrong, even though it is. My concern came from the fact that the AN thread was worded in good faith by a misguided user, and I really felt here that blocking wasn't the 100% best way to go, but non-the-less, might prevent further disruption. I suppose I've been satisfied in terms of explanation now, Gwernol, appreciate the responses. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 14:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

It might have been a week ago, but it was also the "next day" in terms of his editing because he hadn't edited at all in the days since. He made disruptive edits last week, didn't edit again after that day, then returned today and immediately went back to trying to complaining about his sock being blocked. Sarah 15:00, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

<--I was asked to comment here as an outside view, I believe that Gwernol's actions were quite justified and above board. The old userpage had several unblock requests, with no valid reasoning given, declined by several admins that likely would've (or should've) taken the same action as Gwernol. All that to say, RS1900 has however, "apologied" for his recent action, (and I see that his unblock requests aren't incessant, they're weeks apart), he seems to be feeling misunderstood, and seems to be admitting that he was misunderstanding the situation. He seems contrite. Would any admin that is involved as an "unblock denied" admin (Nick, Sarah, Gwernol, Sam Korn, maybe others) be agreeable to shortening the block to prevent other socks from arising? Besides his infatuation with "changing the block reason" for his former account, as far as I can tell he was being productive, or at the very least, non-disruptive. I'm thinking that a reduction (maybe 24/48 hours), plus a firm warning that if he revisits his old talkpage, or revisits this issue in any form on any page other than to apologize for his misunderstanding, that he is reblocked for a month or more as disruptive. Thoughts? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 14:22, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd be fine with this outcome. Thanks, Keeper76. Gwernol 14:27, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify, Keeper, I wasn't one of the admins who declined the unblock of his sock. My conversation with him was about his community ban and how when he resumed editing last week, he began spamming admins (myself included) who participated in the ban discussion last year lobbying for the user he threatened on-site in the incident that eventually led to the ban to be banned themselves as "punishment" for a comment alleged to have been made off-site more than a year ago. He stopped the posts when I asked him to, but then refocused his attention on his sock. That's what my conversation with him was about and I never declined to unblock his sock (although I would have). I have no objections to shortening the block to 48 hours, but I would only note that his "contrite" and "sincere" apologies are only going to carry weight for so long and he needs to be aware of that and if he insists on continuing to edit disruptively yet another apology simply isn't going to cut it. He has a range of socks with numerous disruption blocks and there's only so much room he can expect to be given if he is simply going to continue to return each time with more disruptive behaviour in any space. Sarah 14:53, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying, Sarah, sorry to lump you in there. Like I said, I'm truly an outside view and I'm not at all familiar with this user or any of his socks (why do I also presume an abusive sockpuppet is a "he"? Hmm...) A long history of abusive editing surely deserves a very very short leash, we all have better things to be doing even right now. Unless an objection comes in the next hour, I will shorten his block to end about 24 hours from now (making for a 48 hour block I believe), and I will put a very firm, very direct, and very very very very very final warning on his talkpage. I'm also going to full-protect the userpage/usertalk of the sock that he is trying to get deleted, to "help him move along", and I'll explain to him why. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 14:57, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I guess I weakly object to the shortening. S/he's already had more than one indefinite block handed down to both the old account and this new one (why two accounts have been allowed confuses me), been given second and third and fourth chances for reasons I'm not aware of, and yet continues to be disruptive for no good reasons. I think going a week this time and not doing another indefinite block is a gift. But I don't feel strongly enough about it to put up a fight. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:24, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't say the accounts were allowed, they were socks, and the user he threatened in the incident that led to the community ban revealed his use of sockpuppets which is what sparked his whole vendetta pursuit against the other user. There were other socks, as well, but I don't remember them all now. I know one was Jai_Raj_K (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), also indef'd for harassing users. Sarah 15:48, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

<--thats enough objection from me, as I saw Gwernol's actions as justifiable. Not reducing the block at this time. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:27, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Never mind reducing the block. According to Sarah, he was basically caught using socks and now there is a third account that has been indefblocked. Why in the world isn't RS1900 indefblocked as well?! Did I misunderstand all that? —Wknight94 (talk) 17:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

His RS1900 account is his last last chance. I may be mistaken, but it was accepted a long time ago to let him have it. He'd gone (relatively) unnoticed until he started campaigning for the unblock of one of the others. Believe me Wknight, I'll be the first to indef next transgression. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:59, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Possible copyright violator

Resolved

 – copyvios deleted, user warned

As I am an administrator of the French speaking Wikipedia, I was made aware that a contributor, Utilisateur:Jbw, had repeatedly introduced copyrighted content on Wikipedia through new articles, despite several warnings, and has later lied to the administrators concerning his contributions, which exemplifies his/her bad faith. I have discovered that the same user is present on the English speaking Wikipedia, under the name User:Jbw2, and has also created articles on this wiki. It would be a good idea to check the user's contributions to make sure that copyright infrigements haven't found their way here as well. Have a nice day. Zouavman Le Zouave 13:39, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear. First one of Jbw2's articles I looked at was Nuclear micro-battery, which he created recently. And it's a almost word-for-word copy of [122]. Neıl 龱 13:55, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I've deleted all the copyvios I could find, and warned the user. He hasn't edited in months, other than to add one interwiki. Marked as resolved. Merci beaucoup de transmettre cette information tres utile, Zouavman. Neıl 龱 14:34, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

A note (following the archival of this thread) - following this, I was contacted by User:Jbw2 - the information he has added to articles was directly from books he had written and held copyright to, as was the image he had added. I confirmed this via email. Jbw2 understands why we had to be careful. I have restored the content, and left a note for Zouavman Le Zouave asking him to also reconsider this situation on the French Wikipedia. Neıl 龱 10:03, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

e-wikipedia.net - live mirror masquerading as WP-EN

Resolved

 – It was a remote loader and has been knocked on the head from our end

The site e-wikipedia.net is a live mirror site which is masquerading as WP-EN. See http://e-wikipedia.net/w/en/Wikipedia:About for example. Note the text link ads at the extreme bottom of the page. This probably isn't the right place for this, but WP:MIRROR seems useless. Can someone please report this to the appropriate WP authority for action? Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:48, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Heh, notice how you get a nice Error message now. ffm 13:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Still working for me. Perhaps you could try it again? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:19, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Whois:

Visit AboutUs.org for more information about e-wikipedia.net
AboutUs: e-wikipedia.net

Registration Service Provided By: NameCheap.com
Contact: support@NameCheap.com
Visit: http://www.namecheap.com/
	
Domain name: e-wikipedia.net

Registrant Contact:
   WhoisGuard
   WhoisGuard Protected 
   
   8939 S. Sepulveda Blvd. #110 - 732
   Westchester, CA 90045
   US

Administrative Contact:
   WhoisGuard
   WhoisGuard Protected (036ffa97c3c54f8aafed443612d2a49f.protect@whoisguard.com)
   +1.6613102107
   Fax: +1.6613102107
   8939 S. Sepulveda Blvd. #110 - 732
   Westchester, CA 90045
   US

Technical Contact:
   WhoisGuard
   WhoisGuard Protected (036ffa97c3c54f8aafed443612d2a49f.protect@whoisguard.com)
   +1.6613102107
   Fax: +1.6613102107
   8939 S. Sepulveda Blvd. #110 - 732
   Westchester, CA 90045
   US

Status: Locked

Name Servers:
   ns1.trool.pl
   ns2.trool.pl
   
Creation date: 28 Feb 2008 20:23:45
Expiration date: 28 Feb 2009 20:23:45

How are these normally dealt with? Neıl 龱 13:57, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

If you take a look at Wikipedia:MIRROR#Steps, you'll see that someone should send a standard GFDL violation letter, followed by a reminder a week later, followed by a take down notice. Any volunteers? Ryan Postlethwaite 14:01, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd do it if I had access to another account besides my gmail ones, but my university account is offline right now... I'm assuming we want a little more 'officiality' behind it. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 14:04, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, there needs to be a note at m:Live mirrors, if anyone has a meta account .. ? Neıl 龱 14:06, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not the GDFL or live mirror issue so much as it is that the site claims to be Wikipedia itself. See example link above. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:09, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

It's a live mirror of the entire site, articles, project pages, user pages, and all. You can tell it is by going to (e.g.) Special:MyTalk - compare what you get here to what you get there. I've added it to the meta list, I don't know if this means the devs will block it? Neıl 龱 14:11, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that's why I put "live mirror" in the section heading. ;) My point is that simply blocking the site or sending a GDFL-related email doesn't address the whole pretending to be Wikipedia part. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:19, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

But that's what live mirrors are ... Neıl 龱 14:21, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Live mirrors use the content of WP but appear to be a different site. This site uses the content and the layout and graphics of WP to deceive users into thinking they are viewing WP. In the example posted above, they reproduce the entire "about" page of WP-EN. This is not a simple case of a live mirror. Check out the example link [123]. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Per WP:BOLD, I have notified the foundation’s general counsel of this thread. —Travis^talk 14:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Nice, they even have a live-updated recent changes feed that is a near carbon copy of en.wp's Special:Recentchanges. All the diff links and history links are http 404's, though. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 14:52, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Strike that. It is an exact carbon copy. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 14:54, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Except that the font and interface looks like boiled ass an imperfect mirror. My browser has images over text and navigation bars floating below the page. I wonder how they're typing in to our servers, and if that's creating a noticable load. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 15:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and sent the first violation letter via e-mail. And I will go up to a DMCA takedown notice, if needed. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 17:04, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Great, but you can only complain about your own content, not the misuse of WP logos, etc. TravisTX has notified the foundation's lawyer, so this is probably as resolved as it can get here. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and since the offending website has a login link that could be used for the theft of passwords, I hope he does something about it posthaste. —Travis^talk 20:26, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Login link causes a 404 error. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 21:46, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

As do Special:UserLogin submission attempts. However, the page is still up, so the output could potentially be redirected. --Bfigura ^(talk) 22:01, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

The site was a remote loader which has been knocked on the head. See Slashdot's Wikipedia's Content Ripped Off More Egregiously Than Usual. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Haha! Not only that, but it is currently being Slashdotted into the ultimate of slowness. —Travis^talk 23:34, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

IPs removing their block templates while the block is active

Resolved

I could've sworn I read somewhere that block notification templates should not be removed for the duration of the block. This question is related to a thread at my talk page here. Am I off my rocker? xenocidic (talk) 15:43, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Read through that. Not sure what policy specifically says on this, but it can clearly be seen as disruption to remove these templates during the block. So, keep them, protect the page if absolutely neccesary. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 15:49, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

The "policy does not prohibit users from removing comments from their own talk pages" bit has been in the WP:USER guideline for 495 days [124], and it has been part of the official WP:VAN policy for at least 895 days [125]. However because people (including me) were still getting it wrong, this issue was extensively discussed at length at Village pump policy (see Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 42#Wikipedia:User page and IP's) earlier this year, where the consensus decision was to update WP:USER to explicitly state that "both registered and anonymous users" are not prohibited "from removing comments from their own talk pages." The WP:BLANKING section of WP:USER states that the only types of messages that editors may not remove from their talk pages are declined unblock requests (but only while the blocks are still in effect), confirmed sockpuppetry notices, or shared IP header templates for anonymous editors ... and these three are just to prevent editors from gaming the system. --Kralizec! (talk) 16:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Hrm, thanks for the link to VPP, I'll go check it out. Just to clarify my intent here, it is my opinion that block notices should be one of the "Important exceptions" noted in WP:BLANKING (as I said, I thought it already was codified somewhere). Perhaps this si best raised at VPP again, though. xenocidic (talk) 16:34, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Since the current three exceptions only exist "in order to keep a user from gaming the system," I am not sure what benefit would be gained by prohibiting editors from removing block notices. You may also be interested in the previous big discussion on this topic, Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Removing warnings (and its massive talk page), which failed to gain consensus back in 2006. --Kralizec! (talk) 16:59, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to mark this as resolved (and let sleeping dogs lie, for now - damn sleeping dogs), as it seems I was indeed, imagining it (or confusing it with not being allowed to remove declined unblock templates). xenocidic (talk) 17:33, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

User's Comments

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

Comments are becoming less and less constructive and it would be best if everyone moved on to new and better things.... Ryan Postlethwaite 19:36, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

• See Also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive121#Daniel.27s_comments_about_me

I just want to say, the way Daniel is commenting, I don't like. I don't think he is being very kind. A lot of you people will say "Move Along" and "Grow a thicker skin" but I am getting sick of him. StewieGriffin! • Talk Sign 15:48, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

The feeling is mutual. Please go edit some articles rather than pointlessly parading around in user/user talk space and proposing new userrights for yourself and whinging when they are shot down. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 15:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't say thanks. Wikipedia is based on contributions like that also. If you are telling me to edit articles, why are you an admin. If you advise people to edit articles, why don't you do that. Why don't you give up your admin tools? StewieGriffin! • Talk Sign 15:54, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Erm... what on earth are you jibbering about? Daniel (talk) 15:55, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Stewie, you were given a second chance after causing a lot of disruption. It seems you haven't exactly embraced that chance and you continue to disrupt. You're going close to an indef block anew. Maxim_(talk) 15:57, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I also have some concerns about Daniel's interpersonal skills, but nothing will be resolved here at this noticeboard. A Request for Comments would presumably your best recourse at this point. Kelly ^hi! 15:55, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd prefer to use my interpersonal skills dealing with the subjects of articles rather than people who aren't contributing constructively, such as StewieGriffin!. Daniel (talk) 15:57, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank You. StewieGriffin! • Talk Sign 15:57, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Stewie, I'd advise you to disengage and calm down - you obviously feel strongly about the proposals you've brought forward, but they do not appear to have achieved consensus, so I'd let it go. I believe Daniel's comment was that, if you're frustrated about a lack of progress on the meta side of the project, do some work on the article side. Asking him to set aside his tools isn't helpful, either, really. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 16:00, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

(ecx3)Yes, I would echo the above in regards to StewieGriffin!. I'd also recommend this reading for Daniel - there's no need for an administrator to be rude to effectively get a point across. Kelly ^hi! 16:06, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I tried being overly-nice. It failed. From experience, being slightly more adverserial with young Wikipedians like StewieGriffin! ultimately leads to a better outcome for the encyclopedia (ie. out of project/userspace and either into mainspace [as normal contributors] or to Simple Wikipedia). Daniel (talk) 16:07, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. Kelly ^hi! 16:11, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate that my approach may seem unusual, but I have experience with three "generations" of users like this. I tried two different approaches in the first two, and this one worked the best. Daniel (talk) 16:12, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec)How am I not contributing constructively? It's you! You are making nasty comments, and wasting your time. Why don't you go and edit articles. StewieGriffin! • Talk Sign 16:02, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Wow, the hypocrisy here (and with many of this user's edits, as noted here) is damning. Daniel (talk) 16:03, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

EC - Stewie, time out. Deep breath. Please have a cup of Tea and sit down for a minute. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 16:04, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

If I can be adveserial with Daniel for a second: we've grokked your point; please stop heaping coals on the fire. Your interventions in this discussion are not IMO helping. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:12, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

When StewieGriffin! stops disrupting Wikipedia- and User talk-space will be the moment I stop interjecting myself into his disruption. The ball is in his court. Daniel (talk) 16:13, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Daniel's assessment of this situation, and his methods. StewieGriffin!, could you please just calm down, take criticism constructively and realise what we are here for? J Milburn (talk) 16:20, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

From seven minutes ago, by Risker on his talk page:

"...Your talk page (and its archives) is littered with messages similar to this one, Stewie - asking you to slow down and to start focusing on adding content to the encyclopedia, rather than thinking about the administrative end of things. You need to start taking these messages to heart."

Amen. With that, I'll let everyone else sort this out. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 16:23, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with my speed or anything. It's Daniel's insulting behaviour. You are getting away from the point now. StewieGriffin! • Talk Sign 16:49, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Stewie, you can't justify bad behavior by pointing to other people's bad behavior. Please drop this (you're only hurting your own case by being so strident) and move on. Kelly ^hi! 16:52, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

While I may not always agree with Daniel's methods of getting stuff done, I must say that he has a high success rate. I think you're getting yourself worked up in to a huff over nothing. Have you ever heard the expression that you have to be cruel to kind, Stewie? Daniel only wants the best for you here, although you may not think it. I happen to strongly agree that you are not editing constructively at the minute, and you're worrying too much over your userspace and adminship. At how you have been behaving recently, I can tell you that your dreams of getting adminship are not going to come true for quite some time, and every time you make comments such as "but its so good," the chances of you getting adminship in the future are decreasing. Daniel's no-shit techniques and Ryan's mentoring when I was unbanned worked like a charm for me, and got me to where I am today. Don't worry about adminship, its nothing; go and edit some articles, turn yourself around and get to work, otherwise we're just going to keep going around in circles. Please don't be so immature and emotional over such small and petty things. Please. Qst (talk) 17:01, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

To be honesty, I think you are only defending him because he's an admin and I'm not. I get it... StewieGriffin! • Talk Sign 19:31, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

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

Assistance on BLP please

Hi, per prior discussion Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive432#Possible WP:BLP issues at Chris Crocker (Internet celebrity) the same editor is again adding identifying content to a BLP of a person who has kept their identity and location hidden due to stated ongoing death threats. The editor has had this explained quite a few times that we need reliable sourcing and concensus to do so, of which there is neither. Banjeboi 22:22, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

As a courtesy, please inform other users and editors if they are mentioned in a posting, or if their actions are being discussed. --Stephen 00:02, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I have issued User:WillyJulia a final warning over the issue. [126] At this point, his editing has crossed the line into pure tendentiousness, and it needs to stop. There are legitimate concerns about the privacy of the article's subject, and considering that WJ has not been able to provide reliable sourcing, the information he has repeatedly added needs to be kept out of the article. Horologium (talk) 00:52, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Apologies for not notifying WillyJulia to this thread, I will try to remember to do that in future use. Thank you for looking into this, on the original thread it was suggested this was a single-purpose account and it would seem that may be the case. Banjeboi 01:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

If this has the background Benjiboi describes then this is quite serious. Recommend de-linking and seeking oversight. Full page protection may be advisable. Durova^Charge! 01:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Listing a city and state is not grounds for oversight Durova. In fact, should they be reliably sourced, listing city and state is quite appropriate. What is not appropriate would be to list street address and phone number, items which are grounds for oversight. Let's not blow this out of proportion. --Dragon695 (talk) 04:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Please see WP:HARM. --jonny-mt 05:20, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:BLP, WP:HARM, and if necessary WP:IAR. Ethical decisions where good people disagree belong in the hands of the individuals who live with the consequences. Death threats, Dragon695. If the subject requests it I will also nominate for WP:AFD. Durova^Charge! 06:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

For the meantime, I've gone back and deleted the relevant edits from the talk page history. I haven't yet tracked down when the information first appeared in the main article, though, so I'm a little hesitant to do the same there unless it's possible to do so in such a way that all the relevant versions are deleted without losing GFDL-significant contributions. That being said, the information has been removed and the relevant edit summaries are reasonably innocuous, so it might not be necessary to go as far as deleting them. --jonny-mt 07:48, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

The information was in the article for quite some time, as I discovered when WillyJulia responded to my warning on his talk page. It appears that his hometown was originally added by Benjiboi (!) in this edit, and updated with the correct spelling in this edit. There are over 300 revisions since it was added, which makes for an extremely unpleasant cleanup job, if it's even possible. Horologium (talk) 08:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

By Benjiboi? That is interesting. He hasn't logged back in yet. Durova^Charge! 15:31, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm somewhat confused, we have this discussion going on on the talk page a couple days ago, but now adding anything more than the country he lives in is a BLP violation? Mr.Z-man 16:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Special circumstances: the subject is in hiding due to death threats. Durova^Charge! 17:15, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Looking on Google news, the death threats started in mid-2007, has something changed in the past 2 days? Mr.Z-man 17:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

A year of sustained death threats is something to take seriously. Err on the side of caution, if necessary. Durova^Charge! 17:27, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

We should not be doing this, it beyond our scope to judge or get involved in these matters. I don't give a damn about WP:HARM, all that matter is WP:NPOV. Adding city and state is not a violation of WP:BLP, please stop moving the goal posts. This is an encyclopedia, not crimestoppers. --Dragon695 (talk) 17:31, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Dragon695, you might want to take a few steps back. Privacy and threats on someones life are very important factors. if one cannot respect the life of another human then that shows a persons true color. Internet Identies should not be linked unless there is 110% proof. otherwise the resulting risk could lead to physical harm or even loss of life. Canis Lupus (talk) 18:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

It's becoming increasingly clear that you have little or no respect for other people's lives, Dragon695. May I suggest that you take up a more suitable vocation than Wikipedia editor; say, National Enquirer staffer? FCYTravis (talk) 21:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

FCY, would you consider refactoring that? Durova^Charge! 21:05, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

It's ok Durova, we disagree about WP:BLP. I'm finding pleanty to do over at Wiktionary anyway. --Dragon695 (talk) 22:55, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Dragon695, Verifiability trumps NPOV, and there are no verifiable sources that state that the subject is from the town that was listed in the article, just blogs and Howard Stern. There are sources that identify him as being from a southern state (the article from The Stranger states that the author of that piece flew into a former confederate state to interview the subject), but nothing specific. I think we all know which state that is, but without a reliable source to back it up, we've got no justification to add it to the article. Additionally, take a look at WP:BURDEN, which is another policy page, and requires proof to add material that is likely to be contentious. I don't need to cite essays when existing policies support my position. Horologium (talk) 20:45, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for clearing that up. I agree that WP:V is lacking enough in this case that the city and the state should not be added. My only objection was to merely removing it because of events beyond our scope or because the subject said so. Taking sides or being sympathetic can lead to WP:NPOV problems. --Dragon695 (talk) 23:00, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that we should err on the side of caution with BLPs and if there isn't a really good source it should be removed, but I'm trying to understand why 2 days ago the state was being added to the article with a source after a short discussion on the talk page by the person who started this thread, and now its a BLP violation possibly worthy of oversight and full-protection. This isn't moving the goalposts, this is switching to a new stadium. Mr.Z-man 22:33, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, whole different ballgame. If I'd been aware of this situation 2 days ago I'd have made the same comments then. (Wondering what this strange pointy ball you've passed me is, shrugging, putting it through the basket anyway...obvious slam dunk). Durova^Charge! 23:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I should state for the record that I have never edited the article in question, its talk page, or any related issue; my involvement stems solely from the two ANI threads over the issue. I have interacted with Benjiboi on Matt Sanchez-related issues, but nowhere else; I have not interacted with WillyJulia anywhere on Wikipedia other than his talk page. I have to admit that I was a bit surprised that the alleged BLP-violating text was added by the initiator of the complaint (hence my "!" after the link to the edit which added the information). Nonetheless, looking at the situation as a relatively disinterested observer, I understand the concerns raised in the original complaint, and actively support any effort to scrub the data off WP servers entirely. Note that after my final warning, WJ identified and removed the relevant info from the article (for which I commend him), but it was his addition of that information to the userbox which precipitated the entire complaint. I don't retract my warning, but I do think that WJ got a bit of a raw deal in this entire affair, since he really wasn't adding anything that wasn't already in the article elsewhere, added by the editor who was the initiator of two separate complaints against him. This does not excuse the personal attack he launched afterwards, which is why I refuse to strike the warnings I issued. I am of the belief that some serious oversighting may be required to fix this article, but I'll allow community consensus to determine the correct course of action, considering that the information was added to the article in February, and it's now June. Horologium (talk) 22:54, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Wait, I'm a little confused. Based on what I read on the talk page, the issue was not adding the state (which was verifiable) but rather adding the specific town--the diffs I deleted all have to do with the latter. --jonny-mt 23:38, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

No, you're not confused at all; I think my comments may have clouded the issue. The article had a specific town and state explicitly identified in the narrative, and the whole argument started when User:WillyJulia started adding that information to the infobox. (He had previously been identifying the subject by his real name on the talk page, but those edits have been oversighted.) When I started digging, I found out that the information about the subject's home town was not identified by any of the three references listed; in fact, none of them even identified the state where he was located, let alone the town. That is why I support leaving the information out of the article; setting aside the potential threat to the article's subject, there is no reliable sourcing for that information. In this case, it's not a WP:BLP issue, or a WP:NOHARM issue, but simply a WP:V issue, which is policy. The fact that excluding the information protects the subject is just a beneficial side-effect. Horologium (talk) 00:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Outdent. I may be able to clear this up a bit. In a past version of the subject's webpage the town in Tennessee was listed, ergo I added it at that time. My concerns with WillyJulia was adding the alleged name of the subject for which, I believe, we should have strong reliable sourcing for. I also think having the name of either the town the subject is in or grew up, etc or their exact birthdate also needs to be well sourced and adds little to the general reader's understanding of the subject. Mr.Z-man, you also have it right, after a short discussion and finding yet another reliable source I agreed that having the state was no big deal and then quickly reported that the state was already in the article. I have been topic-banned about 2.5 months ago and have generally walked away from wikipedia due to the stress and disgust of it all and have mostly stayed away with some exceptions. This article was one of them. I remain convinced that harm beyond generalized harassment will indeed come to the subject of the article if their identity and whereabouts is revealed and see no rush for wikipedia to report that information until reliable sources have first clearly done so to the satisfaction of WP:BLP and WP:HARM. Banjeboi 01:07, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

This is an internet celebrity, not a real one, so what precise town they're in and what their real name is (given their notability attaches solely onto their online persona) is trivia at best, and in the case of BLP issues should be removed. Orderinchaos 03:15, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually I think internet celebrities are as real as any others. What makes a celebrity is fame not just the route towards that. Marilyn Monroe would be a photo celebrity and then a movie celebrity had wikipedia been around then to track her career from the beginning. And Paris Hilton was essentially an online celebrity until her real-world activities eclipsed her notorious beginnings. The subject of this BLP, like many preceding them, is also making real-world inroads (TMZ on TV and Jimmy Kimmel Live for example) so as long as we stick to policies already in place the article should be fine. Banjeboi 04:03, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I've contacted the article subject and he doesn't want any personal information displayed. Durova^Charge! 15:02, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

You could also advise the subject that if he is in hiding due to death threats, then responding to e-mails from pseudonymous Wikipedia editors is not a good idea. Anyone can create an account. Carcharoth (talk) 23:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for responding to the thread, Carcharoth. Does this mean you're volunteering to remove the remaining 300 edits in the history that disclose inappropriate information? I've done my part by contacting him in a credible manner and earning his trust. You have the tools to handle the rest. Cheers, Durova^Charge! 03:40, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Assistance on BLP please

Hi, per prior discussion Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive432#Possible WP:BLP issues at Chris Crocker (Internet celebrity) the same editor is again adding identifying content to a BLP of a person who has kept their identity and location hidden due to stated ongoing death threats. The editor has had this explained quite a few times that we need reliable sourcing and concensus to do so, of which there is neither. Banjeboi 22:22, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

As a courtesy, please inform other users and editors if they are mentioned in a posting, or if their actions are being discussed. --Stephen 00:02, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I have issued User:WillyJulia a final warning over the issue. [127] At this point, his editing has crossed the line into pure tendentiousness, and it needs to stop. There are legitimate concerns about the privacy of the article's subject, and considering that WJ has not been able to provide reliable sourcing, the information he has repeatedly added needs to be kept out of the article. Horologium (talk) 00:52, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Apologies for not notifying WillyJulia to this thread, I will try to remember to do that in future use. Thank you for looking into this, on the original thread it was suggested this was a single-purpose account and it would seem that may be the case. Banjeboi 01:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

If this has the background Benjiboi describes then this is quite serious. Recommend de-linking and seeking oversight. Full page protection may be advisable. Durova^Charge! 01:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Listing a city and state is not grounds for oversight Durova. In fact, should they be reliably sourced, listing city and state is quite appropriate. What is not appropriate would be to list street address and phone number, items which are grounds for oversight. Let's not blow this out of proportion. --Dragon695 (talk) 04:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Please see WP:HARM. --jonny-mt 05:20, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:BLP, WP:HARM, and if necessary WP:IAR. Ethical decisions where good people disagree belong in the hands of the individuals who live with the consequences. Death threats, Dragon695. If the subject requests it I will also nominate for WP:AFD. Durova^Charge! 06:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

For the meantime, I've gone back and deleted the relevant edits from the talk page history. I haven't yet tracked down when the information first appeared in the main article, though, so I'm a little hesitant to do the same there unless it's possible to do so in such a way that all the relevant versions are deleted without losing GFDL-significant contributions. That being said, the information has been removed and the relevant edit summaries are reasonably innocuous, so it might not be necessary to go as far as deleting them. --jonny-mt 07:48, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

The information was in the article for quite some time, as I discovered when WillyJulia responded to my warning on his talk page. It appears that his hometown was originally added by Benjiboi (!) in this edit, and updated with the correct spelling in this edit. There are over 300 revisions since it was added, which makes for an extremely unpleasant cleanup job, if it's even possible. Horologium (talk) 08:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

By Benjiboi? That is interesting. He hasn't logged back in yet. Durova^Charge! 15:31, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm somewhat confused, we have this discussion going on on the talk page a couple days ago, but now adding anything more than the country he lives in is a BLP violation? Mr.Z-man 16:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Special circumstances: the subject is in hiding due to death threats. Durova^Charge! 17:15, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Looking on Google news, the death threats started in mid-2007, has something changed in the past 2 days? Mr.Z-man 17:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

A year of sustained death threats is something to take seriously. Err on the side of caution, if necessary. Durova^Charge! 17:27, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

We should not be doing this, it beyond our scope to judge or get involved in these matters. I don't give a damn about WP:HARM, all that matter is WP:NPOV. Adding city and state is not a violation of WP:BLP, please stop moving the goal posts. This is an encyclopedia, not crimestoppers. --Dragon695 (talk) 17:31, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Dragon695, you might want to take a few steps back. Privacy and threats on someones life are very important factors. if one cannot respect the life of another human then that shows a persons true color. Internet Identies should not be linked unless there is 110% proof. otherwise the resulting risk could lead to physical harm or even loss of life. Canis Lupus (talk) 18:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

It's becoming increasingly clear that you have little or no respect for other people's lives, Dragon695. May I suggest that you take up a more suitable vocation than Wikipedia editor; say, National Enquirer staffer? FCYTravis (talk) 21:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

FCY, would you consider refactoring that? Durova^Charge! 21:05, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

It's ok Durova, we disagree about WP:BLP. I'm finding pleanty to do over at Wiktionary anyway. --Dragon695 (talk) 22:55, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Dragon695, Verifiability trumps NPOV, and there are no verifiable sources that state that the subject is from the town that was listed in the article, just blogs and Howard Stern. There are sources that identify him as being from a southern state (the article from The Stranger states that the author of that piece flew into a former confederate state to interview the subject), but nothing specific. I think we all know which state that is, but without a reliable source to back it up, we've got no justification to add it to the article. Additionally, take a look at WP:BURDEN, which is another policy page, and requires proof to add material that is likely to be contentious. I don't need to cite essays when existing policies support my position. Horologium (talk) 20:45, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for clearing that up. I agree that WP:V is lacking enough in this case that the city and the state should not be added. My only objection was to merely removing it because of events beyond our scope or because the subject said so. Taking sides or being sympathetic can lead to WP:NPOV problems. --Dragon695 (talk) 23:00, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that we should err on the side of caution with BLPs and if there isn't a really good source it should be removed, but I'm trying to understand why 2 days ago the state was being added to the article with a source after a short discussion on the talk page by the person who started this thread, and now its a BLP violation possibly worthy of oversight and full-protection. This isn't moving the goalposts, this is switching to a new stadium. Mr.Z-man 22:33, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, whole different ballgame. If I'd been aware of this situation 2 days ago I'd have made the same comments then. (Wondering what this strange pointy ball you've passed me is, shrugging, putting it through the basket anyway...obvious slam dunk). Durova^Charge! 23:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I should state for the record that I have never edited the article in question, its talk page, or any related issue; my involvement stems solely from the two ANI threads over the issue. I have interacted with Benjiboi on Matt Sanchez-related issues, but nowhere else; I have not interacted with WillyJulia anywhere on Wikipedia other than his talk page. I have to admit that I was a bit surprised that the alleged BLP-violating text was added by the initiator of the complaint (hence my "!" after the link to the edit which added the information). Nonetheless, looking at the situation as a relatively disinterested observer, I understand the concerns raised in the original complaint, and actively support any effort to scrub the data off WP servers entirely. Note that after my final warning, WJ identified and removed the relevant info from the article (for which I commend him), but it was his addition of that information to the userbox which precipitated the entire complaint. I don't retract my warning, but I do think that WJ got a bit of a raw deal in this entire affair, since he really wasn't adding anything that wasn't already in the article elsewhere, added by the editor who was the initiator of two separate complaints against him. This does not excuse the personal attack he launched afterwards, which is why I refuse to strike the warnings I issued. I am of the belief that some serious oversighting may be required to fix this article, but I'll allow community consensus to determine the correct course of action, considering that the information was added to the article in February, and it's now June. Horologium (talk) 22:54, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Wait, I'm a little confused. Based on what I read on the talk page, the issue was not adding the state (which was verifiable) but rather adding the specific town--the diffs I deleted all have to do with the latter. --jonny-mt 23:38, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

No, you're not confused at all; I think my comments may have clouded the issue. The article had a specific town and state explicitly identified in the narrative, and the whole argument started when User:WillyJulia started adding that information to the infobox. (He had previously been identifying the subject by his real name on the talk page, but those edits have been oversighted.) When I started digging, I found out that the information about the subject's home town was not identified by any of the three references listed; in fact, none of them even identified the state where he was located, let alone the town. That is why I support leaving the information out of the article; setting aside the potential threat to the article's subject, there is no reliable sourcing for that information. In this case, it's not a WP:BLP issue, or a WP:NOHARM issue, but simply a WP:V issue, which is policy. The fact that excluding the information protects the subject is just a beneficial side-effect. Horologium (talk) 00:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Outdent. I may be able to clear this up a bit. In a past version of the subject's webpage the town in Tennessee was listed, ergo I added it at that time. My concerns with WillyJulia was adding the alleged name of the subject for which, I believe, we should have strong reliable sourcing for. I also think having the name of either the town the subject is in or grew up, etc or their exact birthdate also needs to be well sourced and adds little to the general reader's understanding of the subject. Mr.Z-man, you also have it right, after a short discussion and finding yet another reliable source I agreed that having the state was no big deal and then quickly reported that the state was already in the article. I have been topic-banned about 2.5 months ago and have generally walked away from wikipedia due to the stress and disgust of it all and have mostly stayed away with some exceptions. This article was one of them. I remain convinced that harm beyond generalized harassment will indeed come to the subject of the article if their identity and whereabouts is revealed and see no rush for wikipedia to report that information until reliable sources have first clearly done so to the satisfaction of WP:BLP and WP:HARM. Banjeboi 01:07, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

This is an internet celebrity, not a real one, so what precise town they're in and what their real name is (given their notability attaches solely onto their online persona) is trivia at best, and in the case of BLP issues should be removed. Orderinchaos 03:15, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually I think internet celebrities are as real as any others. What makes a celebrity is fame not just the route towards that. Marilyn Monroe would be a photo celebrity and then a movie celebrity had wikipedia been around then to track her career from the beginning. And Paris Hilton was essentially an online celebrity until her real-world activities eclipsed her notorious beginnings. The subject of this BLP, like many preceding them, is also making real-world inroads (TMZ on TV and Jimmy Kimmel Live for example) so as long as we stick to policies already in place the article should be fine. Banjeboi 04:03, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I've contacted the article subject and he doesn't want any personal information displayed. Durova^Charge! 15:02, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

You could also advise the subject that if he is in hiding due to death threats, then responding to e-mails from pseudonymous Wikipedia editors is not a good idea. Anyone can create an account. Carcharoth (talk) 23:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for responding to the thread, Carcharoth. Does this mean you're volunteering to remove the remaining 300 edits in the history that disclose inappropriate information? I've done my part by contacting him in a credible manner and earning his trust. You have the tools to handle the rest. Cheers, Durova^Charge! 03:40, 18 June 2008 (UTC)