Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive95

talk deleted, but hidden deletor

Resolved

 – Just a little confusion on the history. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 00:42, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

In the discussion page of Illuminati, my comment was deleted by (apparently) 201.34.171.234, but the deletion was masked as if I had done the deletion. This has been reverted, but I wondered WHO and HOW this was done, and if you wanted to know that the IP had been involved in such activities. Searched for an appropriate place to mention this incident, and this seems to be the page. Over to you! docboat 09:43, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Don’t see anything strange going on there. Somebody restores a section on talk, deleted by an IP, after you had posted a comment (which doesn’t mean you did the deletion). If something was unclear, talking to Bigwyrm (who did the restoring) was probably the best first step. --Van helsing 10:03, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Question

hiya, i was wondering how can i edit a page that is protected? thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by F o b girlie (talk • contribs)

Well, it's protected, so you can't edit it, but I believe you can use the {{editprotected}} template, which tells you what to do. If the page you want to edit is only semi-protected instead of fully protected, you might like to consider just waiting 4 days: after that, you can edit semi-protected pages, as far as I can remember. Moreschi ^Talk 16:07, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

If it's protected, you can't edit it. If it's semi-protected, accounts under four days old can't edit it. --Isis(talk) 16:40, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Unblock

I need help here, I work at a library on the computer. Two areas have the State mandated Library IP (209.212.2.54), that has been blocked up untill July 1st. the third section runs on a sepreate funded dial up (68.44.245.148), that is blocked untill June 28th. I work in the Third section. Is their anyway to unblock this or make it so only those with accounts can edit. Their are three known people with accounts, (User: Awsometrex, User:Wikimindless, , and Me) The Awsometrex got his card revoked for using the computers in the wrong way as well as looking at, well... "Adult" material. I am sorry for the confusion. Please pardon my english for it is not my native tounge. We really need these IP's unblocked ASAP. Wormdoggy 21:08, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

That account was blocked because an editor was using multiple login accounts from it (block log). Because of that, I don't think it would be correct to unblock it now. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:12, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Question about decorative non-free images

Please see Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content#Book_covers, where I ask whether images of book covers are acceptable in articles about their books when those articles have no critical commentary about the cover itself. Similar questions apply for album covers and corporate logos. The question whether this is a legitimate "fair use" on Wikipedia will be crucial for making decisions about deleting images with possibly unacceptable fair use rationales. It would be beneficial if a consensus on this can be documented before we begin evaluating whether images have acceptable fair use rationales.

This is only an announcement; please keep all comments on WT:NONFREE so the discussion isn't fragmented. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:07, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Sysop scripts

Are automatic deletion/blocking scripts permitted now? I remember seeing User:Tawker's proposed bot fail at RfA because people did not agree that sysop tools should be used automatically. Is there an exception to this rule now? I am just curious - I saw someone link to a mass blocking script quite similar to what Tawker's bot would have used, and allegedly this was mis-used by a particular admin who managed to mis-block a couple of hundred IPs (I believe the ArbCom is currently looking at this particular incident, so let's not start a second debate on it here).--Konstable 02:11, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

There is a difference in the policy depending on whether the script is automatic or manually supervised. A script that takes a manually prepared list of IP addresses to block and blocks them doesn't violate policy - the person running the script is responsible for any actions the script takes. This is no different than doing the blocks by hand as far as policy is concerned. What is certainly not allowed is a script that watches recent changes on its own and chooses to block editors. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Possible banned user under different name

Hello. Noticed that user Monster Mail has a user page which welcomes contact with an Italian Wikipedia user named Panairjdde. Panairjdde has been banned from English Wikipedia for sockpuppetry. I don't have any other evidence to support that this might be a sockpuppet so I did not go to that page to open a case, was hoping someone might be able to check into it. Monster Mail seems to frequent the same types of pages Panairjdde did. - RPIRED 21:58, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the find, definite sock. --Palffy 16:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Tony Little

I've deleted Tony Little under CSD G11 because I felt the article was unrecoverably POV with a bent towards selling his products. He may be notable enough for an article, but I think it's gotta be a clean slate. I've posted here because the article was also recently featured on Digg or Reddit or one of those link aggregators and I wanted some external input to the deletion if it turned into a "STAB CHAIRBOY YAARRRGH!" session. kthxbye - CHAIRBOY (☎) 02:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I have no comment on the deletion, but the amount of cleanup templates on the last deleted version is simply hilarious - there are 21, with at least two duplicates. --Golbez 10:57, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

The "22:05, June 4, 2007" version by User:Wimt seems to be mostly free of advertising, though it is still unsourced. The POV was introduced primarily by User:Jac for TL, who is a self-proclaimed employee of Little (see here and here). Perhaps restore the revisions from 7 Oct. 2005 through 4 June 2007, remove any controversial unsourced content, and drop a note on Jac for TL's page regarding Wikipedia:Conflict of interest? -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 04:29, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Double redirects caused by moves

• When I obey requests for page moves, much of my time is taken up with tidying resulting double redirects. Do I have to tidy these double redirects, or will a bot tidy them up within a day or so? Anthony Appleyard 05:34, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I find that, by using tabbed browsing and some copy/pasting, I can get through them pretty quickly. I'm pretty sure there are bots that fix double redirects, but I think it's best to fix them right away. Is there a way to do it with AWB or something? -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:06, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

See my bugzilla request. Od Mishehu 07:37, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

AWB can be used to do that. Initially say A redirected to B. Then you redirected B to C, so get AWB to build its list from "What links here" on B and get it to replace #redirect [[B]] to #redirect [[C]]. But generally a move does not cause more then 4 or 5 dbl redirs. They can easily be fixed manually.

@Od Misheu, are you proposing that redirects be followed till the article is reached? That would cause problems with circular redirects (A redirecting to B; B redirecting to A). It would put everything in an infinite loop. But may be the number of hops may be increased from 1 to, say, 5. But if we keep on making discounts, the navigation structure would never be fixed. --soum ^talk 08:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Page AWB says "The AutoWikiBrowser is a semi-automated Wikipedia editor for Microsoft Windows 2000/XP". But my PC has Windows 98. Will there be a bot that fixes double redirects?

  About self-redirect and circles of redirects: can't the process be programmed to stop if it comes to the same page again?

Anthony Appleyard 09:42, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

There are several bots around that fix double redirects (including User:Scepbot, User:RussBot and others whose names I forget), but I don't think it's wise to rely on them. I don't know how they seek problems, and double redirects may go unnoticed for a considerable length of time. --Stemonitis 10:16, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I was specificly suggesting that the number of hops be raised to 2 - this should keep all articles in the process of being moved available directly by all redirects at all times during handling of move. Od Mishehu 10:37, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

It's normally, at the most, two or three days (it uses Special:Doubleredirects, which is cached). If you do come across a circular redirect, tag it with {{db-r1}} (spirit, not letter) Will ^(talk) 11:00, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

@Anthony, theoretically circular redirects can be detected that way, but it is not practical. What if there is a chain of 500 redirects after which it redirects back to the start? What if it redirects to some intermediate point in the chain? So, it has to remember and verify against all traversed pages, which becomes very prohibitive. Thats why an upper limit on the stack is needed. (Self redirs are trivially detectable, thats why I am not considering that). --soum ^talk 14:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Sunn O)))

Resolved

 – Discussion continuing on the article talk page; not an admin issue. Chick Bowen 19:09, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I noted on the talk page at Sunn O))) that as the "O)))" part of the name is a representation (and not a really accurate one) of a picture / logo rather than a word it should not be included in the title of the Wikipedia article, and Sunn (band) would be the way forward. One editor described the O))) as an "ASCII picture" which strikes me as something we really shouldn't allow. Of course, the fans of the band who edit the page seem to be of the opinion that this should be an exception, despite the fact that the manual of style disallows such interpretations of stylistic features. Any thoughts? I'd like to be clear about this kind of thing for future reference. Deiz talk 04:53, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

• The NYT calls them "Sunn0)))"[1] a bunch of times. I think it would be reasonable to use the name that the NewYorkTimes uses. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 18:29, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Looking at this further, it looks like in the Outsideleft.com interview they are referred to as "Sunn 0)))"[2] and their official website refers to them as "sunn 0)))"[3]. The "0)))" seems to be officially part of the name. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 18:32, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Is that the letter O or a zero? howcheng {chat} 01:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Let's edit-war over it for a few months. --Carnildo 02:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Proposed change to {{PD-font}}

I don't think many people have that template watchlisted, so I am going to seek consensus for the proposed change here. Scalar fonts are considered computer programs and hence copyrightable whereas raster fonts are considered text and hence pd-ineligible. I am seeking consensus to change from the current wording to something like "This does not include images from raster fonts that have been converted to SVG, nor does it include bitmapped images of raster fonts" because as I understand it the original vector coding itself is what is copyrighted, not any image you can produce from the font. This is the same reasoning that allows AMD to copy Intel chips...the circuitry of the chips is copyrighted but the circuit logic is not. Any alternate circuit that produces the same results can be produced legally. -N 23:41, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I've commented at Template talk:PD-font, and encourage others to comment there (as opposed to here) as well. --Iamunknown 04:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe WT:ICT is the correct location for this notice. howcheng {chat} 01:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

User:T--top

I have listed User:T--top at MfD, but this really should be speedy deleted. Not only is it nothing more than some sort of community notice board, but it's got some serious BLP violations there, as well. The supposed User associated with the page only has edits to one article outside of the User page in the several months that this page has been here. Corvus cornix 22:16, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Articles for Deletion - Democide

An outside admin would be helpful on the Articles for Deletion, Democide page [4]. I do not think the majority of the participants understand the issue with Wikipedia:Avoid Neologisms that brought the deletion case. Abe Froman 22:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Please read WP:CANVASS. Corvus cornix 22:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, I posted this in one place, here. That is labeled "acceptable" in WP:CANVASS. Abe Froman 22:47, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Even so, this is not a place to make such a request. You're asking administrators to come and support your reading of a Manual of Style guideline. That's not what this noticeboard is for. Leebo ^T/C 22:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Misuse of Infobox criminal

Use of Infobox criminal in the upper right corner of an article generally is reserved for serial killers, gangsters, mass murders, old west outlaws, convicted murders, mafia members, fugitives, FBI 10 most wanted, serial rapist, and mobsters. Infobox criminal also is use as a secondary Infobox in the middle of articles, such as Winona Ryder, Martha Stewart, James Traficant, Duke Cunningham, and Tom DeLay corruption investigation. I went through all the current uses of Infobox criminal and believe that it's use violates WP:NPOV and to some extend WP:BLP in the following 12 articles:

• Andrzej Lepper -
• Bernard Ebbers -
• E. Howard Hunt -
• G. Gordon Liddy -
• Jack Abramoff -
• Jeffrey Skilling -
• Kenneth Lay -
• Lewis Libby -
• Mark Whitacre -
• Michael P. Fay -
• Samuel D. Waksal -
• Webster Hubbell -

By positioning Infobox criminal as the main infobox in the article, it singles out a relatively small aspect in comparison to the overall lives of these people to give undue weight to that criminal aspect of his/her life. This seems inconsistent with WP:NPOV. Some of these individuals have significant fame, so WP:BLP might be a secondary concern rather than a primary concern. Also, there may be a political motivation for such Infobox criminal use. I think the WP:NPOV and WP:BLP would be resolved if Infobox criminal for these 12 articles reduced to a secondary use, as in Winona Ryder, Martha Stewart, James Traficant, Duke Cunningham, and Tom DeLay corruption investigation. If you agree with my assessment for any of the above 12 articles, please consider tackling the issue at that article and the entrenched political motivations that may come with it. Please comment next to the name above if the matter is resolved. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 17:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

As long as the articles are properly referenced, I see no WP:NPOV or WP:BLP issues with the use of {{Infobox Criminal}} on individuals convicted of felony charges (Bernard Ebbers, Jack Abramoff, etc.) --Kralizec! (talk) 17:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Al Capone, Jeffrey Dahmer, Theodore Kaczynski, Charles Manson, and ... Jack Abramoff? -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 17:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps there should be a separate infobox for specific types of criminals (white collar, racketeering, serial criminals)?--Mantanmoreland 19:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC) --Mantanmoreland 19:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Jreferee's view that if the person is notable on there own the criminal infobox should just be used in a later section. That being said, it may be difficult to determine if certain people were notable before they committed a criminal act or really only because of it (e.g. Scotter Libby would probably not have been heard of by 99% of the public but for the charge and conviction although he was probably notable before conviction). Remember 18:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, the US criminal code does not differentiate between "kinda bad felons" and "really bad felons" (which are ultimately just value judgments). However it strikes me as being a bit over the top that someone like Winona Ryder would warrant a {{Infobox Criminal}} since her felony convictions were reduced to misdemeanors. --Kralizec! (talk) 19:27, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I would tend to agree that if a person is convicted of a felony (not a misdemeanor), the info box is appropriate. Note my suggestion above about creating separate types of criminal infoboxes.--Mantanmoreland 19:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Having different infoboxes for different criminal convictions really is the best idea, as any attempt to screen out "white collar" crimes (such as those of Martha Stewart, Lewis Libby, etc.) will also remove the infobox from people like Al Capone (who was ultimately only convicted of tax evasion). --Kralizec! (talk) 20:01, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Why not just use the definition of the word criminal: "A person convicted of a crime" with the added wikipedia stipulation that it was a notable crime. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 21:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

It's just a name of an infobox...a template that the average reader doesn't see. It could be named {{Infobox of male people}} and it would still do its function – transclude useful information. hbdragon88 20:20, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I have always been under the belief that that infobox was used solely for the articles dealing with persons notable only for their crimes, not persons who are notable for other reasons besides a crime they have committed. Winona Ryder, for instance who is known for her acting career not her criminal career. It also seems rather random to have that infobox appear in the midst of her article when that information is already covered in a section. For someone like Jeffrey Dahmer having that information displayed at the top, near the lead paragraph, helps give an annotated version of what makes his criminal career notable. --Ozgod 00:54, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Per WP:NPOV, an article should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements. The prominence of placement of such infobox in the above articles is what is raising the WP:NPOV. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 07:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

This discussion is a lot more interesting than I thought - I thought it was going to be vandalism of the George Bush article. Although the US criminal code does not distinguish between different crimes for calling them felonies, we do. That's why we are an encyclopedia. Just like the the Actor's Guild does not distinguish between different kinds of actors and yet we use the Presidents infobox for Ronald Reagan, not the one for actors. It is still up to us to assess for POV concerns whether a bio fairly balances the overall achievements of a famous person. Having said that, the people in the list are known primarily for their crimes. Nobody would have any idea who Lewis Libby, Jeff Skilling, or Kenneth Lay are but for their notoriety as criminals. Although you could argue that their criminal deeds were but a small aspect of their life's work, one could also argue that their crimes had a bigger effect on the world and its culture than everything else put together. You go over that line when you get to people like Martha Stuart or James Brown and of course Paris Hilton and every other star who gets a misdemeanor or felony DUI. Whatever their crimes, they are not as notable as their accomplishments.Wikidemo 07:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Archiving at talk:Creation science

I recently performed a cut-and-paste repair to the archive of this talk page, which was repeatedly reverted by a user whom I consequently blocked. I have received considerable flack since. I would appreciate other admins taking a careful look at my actions and giving me some feedback. I have placed an outline of my actions on my talk page, at User talk:Banno#The sequence of events.

In addition, the archiving of the page is now a mess. Some independent advice to the present editors might be appreciated. Banno 11:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for sorting the problem of the history of the talk page being removed, which caused considerable concern. Hopefully, the archiving is now getting back on track by agreement all round. .. dave souza, talk 22:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, despite the repetition of the same error by two people, one an Admin. Oh, forget it, this is a conversation that will go absolutely nowhere, and it's a shame. I think Banno was acting in AGF as far as the archiving (the block of ornis was bullshit and probably definitely an abuse of Admin powers), but he seems incapable of admitting that his rearchiving helped nothing, and only exacerbated a bad situation. •Jim62sch• 23:18, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The underlying problem here is that, when Banno's "authority" was challenged, he reacted with threats, and then with blocks. If you make an honest mistake, as Banno appears to have done with the archiving, you don't make threats, you don't block people for fixing your mistakes, and if you claim you are acting because someone violated [section x] of some policy, the onus is on you to find a diff where the policy is actually being violated, something that Banno has refused to do. The simple fact is that Banno was edit-warring with CO (the editor he blocked) before the archiving and he admits to edit-warring with CO and Silly Rabbit over the archiving. So under no circumstances should he have even considered blocking. In the midst of a heated battle you should never block. There are hundreds of other admins on this site - making a highly dubious block in the middle of an edit war shows terrible judgment. Refusing to consider that you may have made a mistake, despite the intervention of 4 or more admins (and solid contributors like Jim and OM)...just because you're an admin doesn't mean you have the right to behave like George Bush. Guettarda 05:55, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, the problem at the heart of this is that a couple of editors, acting in good faith, understood WP:ARCHIVE to favour archiving the whole talk page, then inviting other editors to add back current discussions. That's not my reading of the guidance, which appears to suggest that the archiver leaves or pastes back current discussions. A bit of patience all round and discussions before acting could have avoided a lot of upset, but of course that's easier said than done. The block of CO seems to have begun with a dispute over deleting off-topic trollish ramblings – that's sanctioned under WP:TALK, and in my opinion the block should be formally withdrawn to leave CO's reputation unblemished. Of course I've been known to make mistakes, and so these can only be suggestions. .. dave souza, talk 08:44, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your considered comments. It's not the case that I had understood WP:ARCHIVE to favour archiving the whole talk page, but rather that pretty much all of the then-recent discussion (in the few days before this happened) had been contained inside the "trollish ramblings", and had been removed by CO himself. [5] That is, it's not that I chose not to re-insert them because of a misunderstanding of policy, but because they appeared to be several days old, and so not recent discussion. But since this was a value judgement, I did invite the editors to re-insert any discussion that they wished to continue, and offered to help them in doing so. Banno 11:07, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

While I continue to think that CO's editing was disruptive, I now accept that it was more likely to be the result of ignorance of the archiving process on his part rather than deliberate malice, and that I acted hastily in blocking him. I will formally withdraw the block. Thank you Dave, for providing an independent opinion. Banno 11:07, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I'd hope that settles everything. These articles are part of a very touchy debate, as Talk Radio Evolution points out rather eloquently, and when dealing with what appears to be trolling we should try to remember Grey's Law. ... dave souza, talk 11:57, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking of Hanlon's razor as I wrote my comment above. I promise to take it into account, and to count to ten before I block someone next time. Thank you for finally completing the archiving task. Banno 22:18, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the link to Talk Radio Evolution, too. As a foreigner, I've always found the apparent inability of America to come to terms with evolution, and the level of passion it arouses, a bit of a puzzle. Banno 22:27, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Ta, it's really quite extraordinary and as an outsider I too find it hard to grasp the extent of the anti-evolution mindset. .. dave souza, talk 17:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Although this issue appeared at one stage to be resolved, Orangemarlin and User:Jim62sch have chosen to escalate it at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Banno. Again, I'd appreciate any independent comment. Banno 21:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Vincent Bethell

Resolved

 – Article deleted; no inhibition against creating a BLP-compliant, reliably-sourced new version. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 00:43, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I've stumbled across this page which has been blanked due to BLP concerns. Can someone take a fresh look to see what needs to be done; either revert or delete the page. Thanks Kernel Saunters 11:02, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I deleted it as G7. The original author removed the entire article and replaced it with something that was obviously not able to be kept. That looks like a G7 to me. Chick Bowen 14:23, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Seems like it might be possible to write a appropriate article about the guy, if the unsourced assertions are true. Try finding some reliable sources and maybe prepare a version at User:Kernel Saunters/Sandbox that's appropriate given WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:RS and WP:BLP and it could be put up without difficulty. Cheers, WilyD 17:01, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

While Chick Bowen was correct in giving a G7 to the version that he saw, there is a previous history of the article in which it was in a much better state. See the entry called 'Vincent Bethell' in Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 9. At one time a fairly balanced and neutral article existed. The problem was that the subject kept trashing the article, alternating between self-promotion and simple vandalism, and demanding that he be allowed to control what was in the entry. User:Vincent bethell was indefinitely blocked by User:Nick on 5 June, and the block seems fully justified. This user also edits via IP addresses, and that must be how he messed up the article again. I suggest that the history be restored, and that we go back to a neutral version and semi-protect that one, and keep User:Vincent bethell blocked. The last version that I could see did not appear to raise BLP issues, since there was nothing very alarming, and in any case this is someone who seeks out press coverage to promote nudist issues, even risking arrest to do so.

Take a look at the version at answers.com to see a surviving fragment of the neutral version of this article, overlayed with a bunch of POV edits by the subject. (The good version was much better than this one). EdJohnston 18:03, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

The problem was that there was stuff in that history that Walton monarchist89 felt it necessary to expunge, which is why the earliest revision in the history at the time I deleted it was by User:Vincent bethell. I understand why it's frustrating to lose the work, but given that I don't see any way to preserve the GFDL-neccessary info without undeleting everything, and that doesn't seem ideal either, it seems to me the best thing would be to start over. There's been no afd and the title isn't protected, so a carefully sourced, WP:BLP-compliant article can be written now. I know this isn't an ideal solution either, so I'm happy to be shot as the messenger here. Chick Bowen 18:42, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I didn't "find it necessary to expunge" anything. The article was tagged for speedy, as it was full of nonsense; I speedied it, but only then noticed that there was a much better version in the history, so I restored it. Subsequent deletions are nothing to do with me. Walton^talk 14:19, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

The article has been replaced by a protected redirect. See User_talk:Kernel Saunters#Vincent Bethell for details. EdJohnston 15:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I misread your entries in the logs, then, Walton (since you didn't restore all the revisions, I assumed you meant to remove things from the history). It was a troublesome article from the start, because of edit-warring about personal info. As Ed says, it's now a redirect, and I think that's best unless (as I said above) someone wants to take it over. Chick Bowen 05:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Long-term abuse from a floating IP

The permabanned editor Light current (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) just can't seem to kick the Wikipedia habit. He edits from the Tiscali DSL IP pool in the UK (apparently 88.108.0.0/14, though Tiscali officially owns all the way out to 88.104.0.0/13), usually anonymously. (Occasionally he will go to the trouble of creating sleeper socks so that he can edit semiprotected pages or engage in pagemove vandalism.)

• Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Light current
• Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Light current

Typically his abuse appears on the Reference Desks and associated pages, but he will also show up on the user and user talk pages of admins who revert his edits.

• Today's history of the Science Ref Desk: [6]. Note large number of edits (reverted) from 88.108.* - 88.111.*.
• History of Wikipedia:Reference desk/guidelines: [7]. Note large number of sleeper sockpuppets used to evade semiprotection.
• Move log for User:TenOfAllTrades
• Move log for User:Friday

The guy's obviously got problems, but I'm not sure what our next step is. Revert-block-ignore is of limited effectiveness due to the floating IP. There are technical limitations in place to prevent me placing a rangeblock of the entire /14 involved; even if that weren't the case, I'd be hesitant to place such a substantial block. (Is there someone who can work some database magic to determine if much useful stuff does come from IPs in that range?)

I also have his email address from dealing with him before his permaban; it provides the name of his Tiscali account, and presumably represents his (or his father's) real-world name.

I would welcome any suggestions or advice. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and he's promised to be back tomorrow. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:09, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Can we send it to WP:ABUSE for an ISP investigation? -- ReyBrujo 23:12, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Short of blocking half of Tiscali's IP addresses, an ISP complaint may be the best way forward. I wonder if Wikipedia:Abuse reports/88.109.x.x 88.110.x.x and 88.111.x.x Ranges is LC's doing also? Rockpocket 01:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't say, but I don't know that Light current has ever demonstrated an interest in the Malamute. Perhaps there are two nuisances in the one IP range? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I have filed a report at WP:ABUSE: Wikipedia:Abuse reports/Tiscali DSL. Additional comment/correction/expansion is welcomed. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Any bored admins?

PROD has a 2 day backlog, and there are plenty of NowCommons deletions to take care of :) ~ Riana ⁂ 08:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm game! ;) Phaedriel - 08:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Have started Riana. Thanks for the heads-up. --VS ^talk 09:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Me too, for fear of incurring Riana's wrath --Steve _(Stephen) ^talk 11:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

*cracks whip and cackles insanely* Good work, all ;) ~ Riana ⁂ 13:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm on it, too. Though Riana is always welcome to hurt me. -FisherQueen (Talk) 13:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Obviously not as welcome as I thought, I internal error-ed with you a few times last night :) ~ Riana ⁂ 02:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

You all have way too much fun :). That's why I like ya! **Heads back to prod deletions** Jmlk17 05:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Why are there no board admin jokes, there needs to be a board admin joke. Prodego ^talk 05:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Talk page problems resulting from page move

Resolved

 – talk page moved to proper location

The talk page at Template talk:Professional Gridiron football leagues seems to be a couple of page moves behind. Could you please correct the talk page so I can see the history.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 21:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

History merge help

Resolved

 – Or seems to be?

In Brian Whelahan, I attempted a history merge. Can someone review my efforts and explain to me how to handle history merges in the future where there are edits in the source article after the cut and paste move? Jesse Viviano 04:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• It looks fine. I think you should be okay if you just move the articles in question to the same spot, then restore all deleted edits (unless in rare situations where an edit contains personal info and should stay deleted). --W.marsh 18:24, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Yep. In the basic case (two pages to be merged, no deleted edits, no splitting to be done, no distinctions to be made), you can just move the one page over the target, which will delete the target; then, restore deleted edits, and make sure the currently displayed page version is the right one. Personally, I recommend copy-pasting the preferred version to Notepad or a similar application before moving things around, it can get a bit confusing once everything turns into redirects. ;) If there are deleted edits present, or other issues, things can get much more complicated. – Luna Santin (talk) 08:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Curious userpage

Resolved

Compare the new User:Similaun0807 with User:GTBacchus. THF 13:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

people do clone userpages from time to time.Geni 13:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

appears to be a subtle vandalism account, duplicating same tactics as User:William Reid Blyton, also a cloned userpage. THF 13:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

May be a sockpuppet of User:Panairjdde? I'll take to AN/I. THF 13:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't discuss this further. Obvious User:Panairjdde sockpuppets. --Palffy 16:08, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Where is the evidence? Userpage cloning isn't something used for sock accusation. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 23:27, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

The evidence is his contributions. He creates a sock with a similar name to the one he had blocked recently, User:Similaun, and begins his "WP life" by reverting my reverts of User:Panairjdde sockpuppet edits (see contributions). --Palffy 23:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I will look into it. Thanks. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 16:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

But regardless of whether or not you agree that he's a sockpuppet of Panairjdde, it's clearly not a good idea to revert back to a user page that claims that the user is an administrator and gives names of 24 articles he has worked on, when the contributions show that he registered that day, and has a total of five article edits. By the way, a checkuser has now blocked him indefinitely as a Panairjdde sock. ElinorD (talk) 21:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Whoa, creepy. I've never seen someone try to get away with something by pretending to be me before. Did he really think that was going to work? Perhaps I should feel honored?? -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Nah, it's an annoying habit he's gotten into, thinking he can avoid his sock blocks by pretending to be credible. Not sure if you really want to be honored by a person who's gone through this. ;)) --Palffy 22:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I expect you to keep a lid on your impersonators, in the future! :p – Luna Santin (talk) 08:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Awaiting response from StormRider

Resolved

 – Pending further report, this seems about as resolved as it's going to get, for the moment. – Luna Santin (talk) 07:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I have yet to be notified as to wheather or not StormRider will be allow to get away with making completly and blatanly Racist remarks about American Indians. I will not contirbute to a site that allows this kind of behavior. He himself even admits that it is racist and continued the personal attacks on the administrators page by accusing me of Trolling. If Wikipedia is going to allow this kind of behavior then I will have no choice but to consider Wikipedia a fellow contributor to the spread and condonment of racism.--Billiot 13:54, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Do you have any diff-links that show where he made those comments? Thanks, ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 16:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

And yes, the edits of one person means that the entire editing base of 10,000 is racist. Yeah, thats a logical conclusion. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 16:40, 8 July 2007 (UTC) (striking out my own incivility... sorry, my comments were uncalled for. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 16:42, 8 July 2007 (UTC))

• I'm going to leave you a note about this issue on your talk page. Perhapse we can find some common ground between you and User:Storm Rider. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 16:59, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I see there's been some discussion, after this; as far as this board is concerned, it seems to be resolved, for the time being. Feel free to make additional reports as needed. – Luna Santin (talk) 07:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Inappropriate user page?

Resolved

 – Or seems to be. – Luna Santin (talk) 07:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is the right place, so apologies if not... The user page User:Felker30 seems to violate WP policy, WP:NOT etc (and is a little bit creepy). The user has made no edits except to this user page and uploading images for the user page. --Belovedfreak 18:04, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Deleted as per Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a blog, webspace provider, social networking, or memorial site. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 18:42, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Moving

Resolved

 – Gadfium's response is on the mark. – Luna Santin (talk) 07:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I cannot move pages on the English Wikipedia. On the Simple English Wikpedia, I can move pages, but somehow, on the English Wikipedia, I do not have the "Move" tab on my account. Please explain. I am a newbie (on both wikipedias), but I have been on Simple longer than I have here. --bibliotheque (Talk) 03:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Your account has to be at least four days old to be able to move pages on the English Wikipedia. I don't know what the policies are on Simple English.-gadfium 04:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

They are much...simpler. HA HA. *flees* hbdragon88 04:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Unusual notice

I know it's unuusual to put up a notice at AN for something like this, but the Chuck E. Cheese's article is absolutely atrocious, and has been a constant source of unchecked vandalism for apparently at least a year now. It appears to be an oft-vandal magnet, as it's a popular target among elementary age kids. I'm requesting that some other people watchlist this article so we can revert vandalism better. Thanks. The Evil Spartan 16:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I've added it to my watchlist. Thanks for the heads up.--Kubigula (talk) 16:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm tackling the horrorshow wording, and I'm guessing copyvio of the history sect. I'm watching as well. Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 16:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Showbiz Pizza Place also seems to contain much of the same history info as was in the Chuck E. Cheese article - seems to make up most of that article, in fact. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 18:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Merging with Showbiz Pizza Place is contraindicated as that article appears to be wholesale copyvio taken from http://rock_afire.tripod.com/info/history/index.html. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Moved article assistance please

Resolved

 – Or seems to be. Remove if not.

The article Sandeep Deshpande is up for AFD right now; problem is, that article as it stands started out as Williams Sassine and appears to have been moved to this name. Now, we've got Williams Sassine that looks like it is a cut-and-paste replacement of the move-created redirect, and this up-for-deletion article (which was just relisted, despite my explaining this in the AFD discussion) which contains the edit history of the proper Williams Sassine article. So! Can I suggest that someone with the magic buttons please delete the current edition of Williams Sassine, and move Sandeep Deshpande to that location, to ensure the edit history is correct? I think that'll sort it out... Tony Fox (arf!) review? 20:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I've histmerged the two; we need to keep the old history for GFDL compliance, but otherwise it's clear these are redundant articles. I don't believe this should cause any problems, please advise if you notice any. I haven't deleted the redirects, at this time, but would be happy to drop a note at any RfD, if you like. – Luna Santin (talk) 07:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the Sandeep Deshpande page should be speedily deleted, RfD is not necessary. It does not look like they are the same person. I looked up the net about Williams Sassine; he does not have anything significant to do with anything Indian to get an Indian name. The initial move appears a vandalism move. --soum ^talk 08:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Luna, perhaps you can speedy delete the Redirect as the sole author? I'm certain they are not the same person, see for example: http://www.lesfrancophonies.com/PAGES/maison/AUTEURS2002/Sassine.htm DrKiernan 09:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I have deleted the redirect. Feel free to restore if you disagree. --soum ^talk 09:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, folks! Tony Fox (arf!) review? 15:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Michael Howard impersonator

User:Owlperson, assisted by User:Crowqueen, has been posting as Michael Howard, and taken seriously by other users. Michael Howard's office confirms this is a hoaxer, and I've indef blocked the users. I suggest verification is required in such cases, and the user asked not to contribute under a RL identity until it is received.[8] I'm not sure where the best place for such guidance would be. Tyrenius 13:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

1993-94 OHL season

Resolved

 – deleted article and page history restored

After a user moved this page to another title, an inexperienced editor apparently attempted to move it back, but instead managed to leave the page as a redirect to itself. The original content appears to have been deleted, and an admin's assistance may be needed to restore that content. --Russ (talk) 15:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I tried to restore the page, but nothing seems to have happened, only now I cannot access the previously deleted version. Can a more experience admin examine what I did and tell me where I went wrong, and if the situation is salvagable? Sorry about this.-Andrew c ^[talk] 15:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC) OK, perhaps I just had to wait for the cache to catch up or something. It seems to have worked. I have restored the page at 1993-94 OHL season. If you want the page at another title, I'd be glad to help with that as well, but I'd like to make sure there is consensus for whatever title to be used to avoid future page moves or copy and paste moves.-Andrew c ^[talk] 15:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Month-long backlog

Category:Disputed non-free images--Konstable 11:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Can I put in a plea for help fix these images? Most just have missing (ex: 1 2 3 ) or incomplete (ex: 4 5 ) fair use rationales. Only a few are irredeemably mis-tagged (ex 5) or ineligible for non-free use (ex: 6 ). WP:FURG says we should to fix them before deleting so if you see an obvious case please add the rationale. To make that a lot faster I'm rolling out some templates to augment the FURG master template. Wikidemo 13:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

And remember to look out for other problems, like this image has. MER-C 13:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

And more here! Category:Images with no fair use rationale --Wikidemo 13:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

If I may say so, I've been chipping away nicely at the I6 backlog. It was much larger. The backlog was at 26 days at the start of the month due to the temporary moratorium on I6 deletions. Now the backlog is down to 13 days, still large, but a big step in the right direction. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 19:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if anyone's noticed but the main CSD page seem to be missing the big pile at Category:Images with no fair use rationale as of 6 June 2007. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Are there guidelines for admins that want to help out but are relatively new to non-free image use? I'm familiar with WP:FU, but I'm not exactly sure on some points. Are logos and album covers generally allowed in articles about the album/organization, even if there is no critical commentary on the album cover? Are there any requirements that an article about an album must meet before an image can be included, or is there a generic fair use rationale that applies to basically all album covers (as long as they are not used for decoration in other articles, such as galleries or discography pages). Most, if not all images of living people (especially "promotional" photos) are deletable, right? Are there any other tips? It's obviously easier to simply delete articles that have improper license/no fair use, but I want to learn the situations where its better to fix the problems than delete (and I want to learn how to fix). So any tips would be appreciated.-Andrew c ^[talk] 21:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

On point #1, absolutely, yes. Not "in" per se, but the purpose of identification is currently widely accepted. And they must also meet other requirements, e.g. knowing the source. "Decoration" is not really a sensible concept, it snuck into the policy page recently and will probably sneak back out in favor of better constructs. That is currently under discussion over at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content‎. It is always better to fix than delete because every time you delete you are undoing not only the work someone spent a while doing, but the availability of knowledge to an audience of hundreds of millions of people who use Wikipedia. If the fair use rationale is obvious, add one, don't delete the image. Right now there are no good automated solutions to fixing images, however. Some people have gotten adept at deleting images at 5-10 per minute using the tools. It takes 1-2 minutes to add a fair use rationale even if you're very good and that's a matter of rolling up your sleeves and typing. But keep in mind it took someone a while to add it. They did it in good faith when the rules were different and if you delete it someone will have to add it again or else the world will do without. No doubt other people have different opinions. Wikidemo 21:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, that helps some. I started going through the unknown source backlog. I've deleted a couple that were orphaned with no source or licensing info. But what would you guys suggest be done with Image:26011907.jpg, Image:1913 Katharina.jpg, and Image:1537985.jpg? The first two seem like they are inappropriately tagged GFDL, and therefore wouldn't pass FUC #1 as these are living people. The album cover seems like it could be acceptable, so should it be tagged with a album cover license, and a fair use rationale added, and the source field ignored? -Andrew c ^[talk] 00:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The first one is kind of tough. It's an old photo that may or may not be public domain. It's not old enough to be, but it could have happened. Perhaps the uploader forgot to add something. The same user, though relatively light on Wikipedia, has made a bunch of sincere edits to Scandinavian-related articles. I notice that there's no tag on the article discussion page. What's with that? A dozen or two editors have been working on the article for a couple years. There's a delete tag on the image but no notice to the talk page? So if you delete it they will all be blindsided. They have no idea or reasonable way of knowing it's going to happen. One day the image will be missing. It's a new image, only a couple months old, so no great harm. The second image is easier. It's an article less than a month old about an album that isn't even out. If those people can't be bothered to get their images right it's time they learned, if they mean to stay around on Wikipedai. That's not the official way to do it, that's just my thought process. Even on the first image, if they can't get to where the image comes form and whether it's truly free use, we can't have it. All the patience in the world, but the image still has to be legitimate. Wikidemo 00:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Local Spam Blacklist

Any English Wikipedia administrator may now edit MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist (a local version of M:Spam blacklist) to blacklist URLs linked to by spammers. URLs added to that list will only be blacklisted on the English Wikipedia, rather than Wikimedia-wide like the ones M:Spam blacklist. FunPika 19:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmm ... nothing could possibly go wrong with that ... --BigΔT 19:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, much obliged. I wouldn't have known otherwise :) Moreschi ^Talk 20:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Where to file bug reports?

Resolved

 – Or seems to be. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Is this a bug, or is it just on my computer?

1. Try going to the 'history' of, say, this page.
2. Try choosing some diff. (Any diff should work)
3. On the screen that shows the diff, try clicking on, say, "history".

Am I the only one getting directed to 'Wikipedians'? (But I don't know where to file bug reports) Bladestorm 19:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Goto bugzilla to file bug reports. FunPika 19:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I am getting that too! If I go to Wikipedia:Wikipedians, I get a random article. Why is this happening? Joie de Vivre ^T 19:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

See bugzilla:10529. FunPika 20:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

No problem now. FunPika 20:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedians

Resolved

 – Or seems to be. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I think I may be going crazy, does anyone know what the heck is going on here? I'm not really sure what to make of it, but people are changing the page to display what appear to be real articles. Also while trying to revert vandalism here it took me to the Wikipedians' page. Anyone have a thought to spare? KOS | talk 19:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah see above, I was beaten to it. KOS | talk 19:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Possible database issue?

While trying to revert some anonymous edits to Independent Task Force on North America (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), some really odd stuff is happening. Hitting this Newer edit → link in the article's history instead goes to a diff on Wikipedia:Wikipedians. Likewise, trying to compare any of the article's diffs after 11:25 today also takes you to Wikipedia:Wikipedians. Does the database server have some of its pointers crossed ... ? --Kralizec! (talk) 19:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Everyone, please see this thread on AN/I. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 19:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Lost history

I moved History of the People's Republic of Bulgaria to History of Communist Bulgaria and History of the People's Socialist Republic of Albania to History of Communist Albania by cutting and pasting. The edit history was lost and I'd like the full history to be restored at the new locations. Can this be done? Biruitorul 21:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Please note that the History of the People's Republic of Bulgaria was restored to its rightful and more common (according to Google Books and Google Scholar) name.Anonimu 22:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

See WP:SPLICE. Regardless of where the title winds up, we need to get the history patched. AmiDaniel (talk) 00:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Request for <s>validation</s> review

Weird note and marginally appropriate venue, but I just realized I was the first to request speedy deletion for this notorious article while newpage patrolling back in April. Although that particular revision did clearly meet the criteria (unlike several posterior ones IMHO) I still feel this makes my reply to question 6a on my RfA seem incredibly disingenuous. Is there a "Wikipedia Confessions department" where I can, erm, disclose this? :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 03:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Your sins are absolved, my son. Just say three hail Jimbos on the way out. --Steve _(Stephen) ^talk 03:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

You forgot to absolve the sins in the name of Jimbo! :)—Kurykh 03:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Father Steve. Our Jimbo, who art in St. Petersburg, hallowed be thy logs... Fvasconcellos (t·c) 03:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Great Pyramid of Giza

I just changed the protection level to full protection because of edit warring going on among registered users. Would someone take a look and let me know if you think my decision was correct? Thanks JodyB _talk 17:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the edits I don't think it's needed. User:Narinen needs blocking for WP:3RR and what amounts to vandalism. This is a fringe viewpoint trying to push over the article from an unreliable source, not standard edit warring. Ben W Bell talk 17:29, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I've changed it back to semi after talking with other admins and after the editor was blocked. Thanks for your input. JodyB _talk 17:54, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow! Looking at the edit history, I counted at least 28 reverts so far today and at least ten socks. Someone sure has an axe to grind! --Kralizec! (talk) 18:03, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Is it a dynamic IP, or open proxies? Is there any reason he's not permabanned? - hahnchen 12:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I've submitted a request for checkusers to block the IP address(es) involved, if possible; until then, or if not, we can only be vigilant. – Luna Santin (talk) 07:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Great Pyramid of Giza has always been a kook magnet & a perennial problem for Wikipedia:WikiProject Ancient Egypt; I'll put it on my watchlist, but any interested & otherwise uninvolved Admins are invited to add it to theirs. Also, I was informed Narinen engaged in a similar edit war at Hyksos, & may be a sock for another troublemaker. (I don't know the exact details.) I referred the editors handling that other page to WP:SOCKS (I think that's the correct abbreviation.) -- llywrch 18:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Hoaxer

Can someone please deal with the hoaxer(s) using ips registered to Microsoft- they are the ones beginning with 65. listed at Talk:Barbaro_family#Dynamic_IP_Nest as well as one who is currently vandalizing Special:Contributions/65.54.154.152. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 09:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Note this also involves two hoax articles currently for deletion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Pugilist Club Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Sacred Order of Skull and Crescent authored by this user. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 10:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Looking at these lists, it seems like we're talking mostly about 65.54.154.*, 65.54.155.*, 65.54.97.* and 65.54.98.*. Are there any others? Od Mishehu 10:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that's all of them. Is it likely to be someone at Microsoft or are they somehow using Microsoft servers to access Wikipedia? Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 11:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd say I'm 99.9999% sure those are not actually anyone at Microsoft. If you look at pre-hoax contributions for any of the IPs, they're almost exclusively kid-oriented stuff: cartoons, video games, pro wrestling, etc. Consider me officially amazed if these aren't actually high-school IPs. For what it's worth (not much) the hoaxer himself has denied having anything to do with Microsoft, although I guess they'd say that either way. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, the irony. The msn user WBardwin, who has been trying to help out with this, got caught by the autoblocker at 65.54.98.109, the IP used by Thost. Would that mean these IPs are dangerous–and perhaps pointless?–to block? Bishonen | talk 08:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC).

Saw that, too, but you dealt with it before I could. Given that they seem to be dynamic, I'm not sure if there's a lot we can do, aside from watching for and helping with collateral. Assuming you have email enabled, I'll send you a slightly WP:BEANSy detail on autoblocks, in a moment. – Luna Santin (talk) 08:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I strongly suspect that this one too is connected with this hoax User talk:65.54.155.48 I have just removed a load of what I suspect is rubbish from Balti dynasty which claimed our modern day Barbaro hero's mother was descended from this pre-Roman dynasty. There are no families existing who can reliably make this claim. Giano 10:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The hoaxer(s) also uses addresses beginning 4.142...., Special:Contributions/4.142.114.175, Special:Contributions/4.142.117.148, Special:Contributions/4.142.117.210, Special:Contributions/4.142.117.250, Special:Contributions/4.142.114.237- which are ips of Level 3 Communications, Inc., and all trace to Chicago or Tinley Park, Illinois. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 10:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• yes I had spotted him too. Here he is deliberately falsifying the correctly referenced quote from a very eminent author indeed [9] in order to show dome modern day person's possibly fraudulent ancestry. This is the sort of think that Wikipedia's critics love to seize on, and needs to be stamped on hard and fast - with these amount of IPs though the question is how? Giano 11:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Well they obviously aren't that advanced as they keep using the same providers so ATM it's easy to recognise them. We might need to go through all the 65...and 4.142...edits that we can find to check what they have done to other articles. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 11:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

How the hell does one do that? I think this is all some vanity and delusion of someone trying to claim a few bogus ancestors - the problem is they are damaging some good pages in the process. Giano 11:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't feel bad, I dealt with these guys on OTRS and the problem is big. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 11:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Hoax threat

Note in addition to the Hoaxer thread above, the hoaxers have now admitted what they were doing [10] and it looks like they are threatening to sabotage more pages. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 23:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Hm... I'll try and keep an eye on this, I guess. Looking things over, I think I may have blocked a few of these, previously. Now that I'm a bit more aware of the pattern, hopefully I'll know what to look for. If you need admin attention, feel free to drop me a note. – Luna Santin (talk) 02:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Note as well as Microsoft/MSN dynamic ips they use ips of Level 3 Communications, Inc., beginning 4.142.. which trace to Chicago and Tinley Park, Illinois. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 10:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

One wonders which article they think they killed. Corvus cornix 16:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

User category in category space for articles

Recently, I came across Category:Fictional maps by User:Briangotts and Category:Historical maps by User:Briangotts. After some initial lack of communication, we now agree that the categories should exist as part of the Category: User-created maps hierarchy. However, I am more concerned about these categories being included in the Category:Fictional maps and Category:History maps categories. The reason is because it appears that user content is part of the article space. It looks like the equivalent of an editor adding his or her signature to the text of an article, and it seems to violate the guidelines at WP:CAT under "User namespace".

I have had communication problems with User:Briangotts, and the discussion has been heated. At this point, I would like to avoid an edit war with him. Could another administrator intervene and possibly provide advice on this issue? Dr. Submillimeter 12:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Those two Briangotts categories should only be in the User-created category. Avoid self reference may be of use.Neil ╦ 12:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

This is a content issue and not an administrator issue. I would suggest taking this to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion (either on the talk page or by nominating them). -- JLaTondre 12:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

It probably is a admin issue, as Brian has refused to take heed of Dr S's correct request. Irrespective, I've left a message on Brian's talk page. Neil ╦ 12:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

This is not an issue for Wikipedia:Categories for discussion, which generally does not deal with editing the contents of categories but instead deals with merging, renaming, or deleting categories. Thank you for contacting the user about this issue, and thank you for the speedy action. Dr. Submillimeter 12:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• I dissent that these categories should exist in the first place, and have listed them on Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 July 11. >Radiant< 13:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Submillimeter's point appears to be purely formalistic, and Wikipedia is not about formalism, for what I know. Since we have user-created categories in Commons, I don't see why we can't have them in Wikipedia and why we should nominate them for deletion (as Brian's was last night). As for the overlapping of spaces, I believe the transgression is rather harmless. Unlike Neil, I don't feel strongly about it. --Ghirla^-трёп- 13:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't particularly feel strongly about it, but keeping mainspace and non-mainspace categories seperate is done for a good reason. However, I think Radiant is wrong to want them deleted. Neil ╦ 13:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

2007 Balad aircraft crash

Hey, we've got an unresponsive user here who has persistently been fiddling around with this article - apparantly good-faith, but various negative things going on. For example, he continually removes the only correctly liscenced image and has added a pile of images without sources or copyright tags, apparantly of the crash. I have attempted to raise the issue on is talk page, but he hasn't responded. I would continue to revert any poor edits on a case by case basis, as well as seeing about getting the problem images deleted, but I'm about to go off on holiday and won't be able to. If a few people could stick the page on watch, and see what they can do about images or getting the user to respond, it would be much apreciated. Strictly speaking it doesn't need admins yet, but I foresee it in the near future for image deletion etc. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 15:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Shawn Hornbeck

It's back on the front page of CNN.com today, in the form of an AP story with this statement: "While it is The Associated Press' policy not to identify suspected victims of sexual abuse in most cases, the story of Shawn and Ben has been widely publicized and their names are now well-known." The boy hasn't been interviewed since the initial time in the spotlight, but his stepfather is still giving updates to the media and he's obviously not trying to supress him from the public. Interesting to note, considering the furor that we mustn't give him publicity and needed to let this slip away quietly. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 02:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Interesting indeed. I wonder how we can reconcile the statement by a notable news agency with ours as an encyclopedia? We are different organizations with different goals. --Iamunknown 05:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC) (I want to clarify that I don't really know the answer to this, and I'm posting it to, hopefully, prompt discussion; additionally, I'm not attempting to marginalize anything. --06:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC))

How about, "Wikipedia is not a newspaper?" Thatcher131 11:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that was my original conclusion. It is my opinion that we should not apply the same conclusions to our encyclopedia that the Associated Press has come to for their news reporting. --Iamunknown 19:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Night Gyr misrepresents the case. The article was not a biography, it was a distillation of news stories about an event. It is encyclopaedically covered in the article on the Shawn Hornbeck Foundation. Nothing to see here, move along please... Guy (Help!) 08:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Ditto. When the kid grows up and wins an olympic gold medal, starts an international business or cures cancer, we can write a biography. In the meantime, any article would merely be a true crime story masquerading as a biography. Since Wikipedia is not Front Page Detective Magazine and does not exist to provide salacious details about crimes against minors, let's stick to an article about the foundation, which can properly describe it's history as part of the article. (I note in passing that the family has separated from the foundation, and I suspect that in a year or so it will have dissolved, but that's a battle for next year. Thatcher131 11:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

How do I misrepresent it? I didn't claim that the article was a biography. The conflict I'm addressing is that people thought we ought not to mention them at all in any context. People were repeatedly excising the names from the article that covers the crime. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 14:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not CNN and is not bound by decisions of CNN's editorial board. Since these facts are so blindingly obvious, why has this discussion been brought here? --Tony Sidaway 14:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

"People" in this instance was primarily me. The issues involved here were surveyed in a pretty thorough deletion review in which I acknowledged that at least in Shawn's case (Ben's is a much closer call), Shawn and his family had affirmatively decided to become spokespersons for missing children, abating some of the privacy interest in his case. I gave an enormous amount of time and thought to this situation, and Night Gyr, I think your presentation in this thread is a little bit simplistic. In any event, I'm not clear what administrator action is being asked for at this time, unless your purpose is just to tease those (such as myself) who you believe may have temporarily erred on the side of respecting the privacy of minors who are kidnapped and sexually assaulted. Newyorkbrad 14:35, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Where is the deletion review? I tried to find it before commenting. Off the top of my head it sounds like a routine debate about whether a fact is significant enough to add to an article, or whether the salaciousness of the fact (or in other debates, whatever the negative reasons are) outweighs its informative value. I agree that we don't have to take the lead from newspapers, but because of the encyclopedic and ubiquitous nature of Wikipedia we should probably be more respectful of the privacy of non-famous people, not less. The name itself is not notable and it is not going to link to other events or anything else. It's a cul-de-sac of a fact, unrelated to any other facts. I see no harm in waiting a few months or even a couple years, then deciding at that time whether the name really contributes to the article or it's just not worth saying. It's not as if we're burying information or revising history. The source material still has the name. Just my $0.02. Wikidemo 14:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 May 28. My comments are at the top and then again (much too long) in roughly the middle of the discussion. Newyorkbrad 14:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

My point was to raise the profile of 'How do other organizations handle these situations?' I'd think people would appreciate the example. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 14:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

How editors enforce BLP is totally arbitrary. The arbcom ruling which said "obey the spirit of BLP" means you can do whatever you want without any kind of reprecussion, because the "spirit" is so ever undefinable. Doing no evil means speedy deleting Al Gore III, making a useless redirect from a kidnapping case - Tanya Kach, whilst not making a useless redirect out of another kidnapping case - Michael J. Devlin, and raping an article on a murderer because it was negative.[11] (At least the history was restored on that page, because it was a pretty asinine move) - hahnchen 20:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Query on warnings to anonymous editors

After their edits to an article were apparently reverted as vandalism [12], an anonymous editor posted [13] the following to the article's talk page:

“ This action here by Eleemosynary is indicative of the deep, profound vindictiveness he has. Elleemosynary reasons for his action are bullshit and with out merit. This editor is out of control, blinded with bitter hatred. It's this kind of person, that makes the world an evil and foul place. Wikipedia need to purge this jerk, who will stop at nothing to satisfy is lust for vindictive hate. ”

Viewing this as a personal attack against Eleemosynary (talk · contribs), I immediately left a {{uw-npa1}} warning on the IP's talk page. The anonymous editor has since replied with an amusing, yet succinct "FUCK YOU ASSWIPES" [14]. While certainly lacking civility, I do not believe it was a personal attack directed at a specific editor, and thus does not warrant a {{uw-npa2}} warning. Is my understanding correct, or should I have issued the user another warning? Thanks, Kralizec! (talk) 18:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I think you could reasonably have left an npa2, though my personal policy when it's just a rant on their own talk page is to revert and ignore.--Kubigula (talk) 19:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I think you could have as well as I don't want to draw too sharp a line between the community and individual editors. However, we don't want to "feed the trolls" either. JodyB _talk 19:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Anon talk page abuse

Resolved

 – talk page semi protected

Could someone take a look at 141.153.159.176 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and their talk page history? I left a welcome message on this user's IP and that resulted in a series of personal attacks and warning templates subst'd onto their talk page. I'm thinking another warning is only going to instigate another outburst, which is nice if I want ammunition to have this IP blocked. However, what would really be nice is a satisfactory end to the personal attacks. BigNate37_(T) 21:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I protected his talk page for 2 days, don't hesitate to block if his rants becomes disruptive. -- lucasbfr ^talk 21:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Ethanhawke

Besides the fact that the User ID is that of a living celebrity, What the heck is going on at User talk:Ethanhawke? Corvus cornix

The account was engaged in spamming, and I'm guessing attempted spamming, I don't know why it looks like monitoring it has become active again, though, since the account was blocking indefinitely in March. I'm not too worried, though. Mak (talk) 23:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Why isn't the talk page just blanked with a block notice? Sure beats loads of pointless links, is this what usually happens with blocked spam accounts? - hahnchen 00:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I deleted both the user page and the talk page and they are now cascade-protected. -- John Reaves (talk) 02:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Block review for Ron liebman

Ron liebman (talk · contribs) has been sitting in Category:Requests for unblock for about two days, now; thought I might bring this one here, for review, to get a larger discussion going. Thoughts? – Luna Santin (talk) 07:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I've stated my opinion on his talk page. I don't even see a willingness to adhere to any of Wikipedia's basic editing principles, let alone an admission or explanation for all of the checkuser-confirmed sock abuse. Until I see a glimpse of either, I can't recommend unblocking. He caused months of disruption to numerous editors so this case should not be taken lightly. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I already commented at User talk:Ron liebman, to say that I didn't think he'd given a convincing explanation of his involvement in all the sock puppetry. See, for example, Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Ron liebman. That's a lot of socks. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Not just a lot of socks but a lot of checkuser-confirmed socks. And yet he continues to deny the sock accusation. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Or claim it's others making the edits at the same place without his knowledge. Self-guided meatpuppets, apparently. Editting precisely the same way, with the same questionable grammar and snide remarks. Extraordinarily unlikely, imho. -Ebyabe 15:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, there's a long-term abuse case open (with many more accounts... 39 total named accounts, plus a bunch of IPs) - Wikipedia:Long term abuse#Baseball Vandal aka Ron liebman

I asked Ron to contact unblock-en-l to start an ID check; I think that's a reasonable non-negotiable step at this point (though OTRS staff could do it too). Georgewilliamherbert 19:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Update: there are apparent socks operating even today. See Ken raffensberger (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Steve grinberg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). —Wknight94 (talk) 20:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I've filed a new (currently pending) RFCU request on these (and the other socks that came by after the last CU was run). Either this is an abuser with chutzpah, or Ron really is being impersonated. Either way, hopefully we can find out for sure. Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Ron liebman Georgewilliamherbert 21:23, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I tried to caution him about that. If he really is being followed around on NY library computers being impersonated almost perfectly, he may have bigger worries than whether he can edit Wikipedia. That's more than a little creepy. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

This looks like a fairly open and shut case to me. Who the heck is going to go to the effort of stalking someone around and editing Wikipedia to impersonate them (as if they would somehow know their user account and who to link it with). Seriously. With the same editing pattern, etc., this is beyond unlikely. If I were an admin, I would deny the request right now. The Evil Spartan 18:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Just on a semi-related, yet unrelated note, Ron liebman (talk · contribs) is not the only one who has been waiting patiently at Category:Requests for unblock. Seems Yamla is on a wikibreak, and since he handles most of these, nothing is getting done...bored admins are welcome to jump in. - auburnpilot talk 16:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

captcha issues

Resolved

I am using a screen reader, and want to log into my account (fastfinge). I lost the password to it, and had one emailed to me. But now I need to enter a captcha to log in. How can this be resolved? 206.126.88.124

How is this an admin issue? You might want to post this at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)--Isotope23 16:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Because this is the page the info link next to the captcha edit box gives to contact an admin about the issue. Perhaps that link should be changed if this is the wrong place? 206.126.88.124

I'm afraid there is little an admin can do about this so I'm not sure why it is linked here. I can't think who could help with this. GDonato (talk) 16:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, folks; the page on captchas needs to be expanded. First, this seems to be the wrong place to ask for help. Second, it should say that if you wait about 15 minutes after entering an incorrect password, you can try again without entering a captcha. I have access to my account once more; how do we close this issue? Fastfinge

Like this. By the way... is there a help page on captchas in relation to Wikipedia (you can respond on my talk page if you'd like)?--Isotope23 16:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I've started a discussion about where we should guide people at MediaWiki talk:Captchahelp-text. GDonato (talk) 17:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I was just getting to that!--Isotope23 17:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I made a change that should address the problem. Thatcher131 18:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

That's a good change, but as Fastfinge's experience makes clear, there's a serious accessibility issue here. Chick Bowen 12:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Editors of magic ?

• Editerofmagic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Edito*Magica (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Can any one here figure out what is going on with these two accounts? I noticed them after seeing a confusing post at Wikipedia talk:Television episodes and found a mess... --Jack Merridew 09:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

My suspicion is that they are sockpuppets of each other, and that they are attacking each other in order to make fools of the rest of us. I'm going to file a Code G checkuser to see if that's the case. The older of these two accounts made its first edit on July 6, and they have been editing each other's userpages and talk pages. Either that, or the newer account is trying to impersonate the older one, and in that case should be blocked and asked to change his username. Shalom ^Hello 16:27, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

User:TREYWiki

TREYWiki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked "based on a diff which has now been oversighted, in which you purported to state the first name and geographical location of another editor." I can find no diff, but even so, an indefinite block, which was given, is a tad excessive. 12 or 24, yes, but indefinite, no. I request that admins take a look at this and would kindly request that Trey's block be overturned outright or knocked down to 12 to 24 hours with an apology to the editor whose name and "geographical location" was given and let all be forgiven.

Trey is a very hard-working editor who keeps his nose clean and has a track record to back it up. He was only blocked one other time for something I got him in the middle of and we both apologized to the editor after our blocks expired....which is what I think should happen here.

Again, I request an admins attention, Trey's block reduced to 12 or 24 hours or overturned outright and the request of an apology to be issued to the editor whose name and "geographical location" was given.

Full disclosure, I am a friend of Trey's (online) but I was not asked by him to post this. Thank you for your attention. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 20:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Just a neutral comment, but oversighting means no one else but oversights can see the diff. Kwsn^(Ni!) 21:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

What I was trying to say is this diff was not included in the block summary...and more so, indefinite is still too harsh for what is claimed. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 21:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

No. No unblock. Outing someone is the worst type of misdeed. I worked with Trey a lot as well, and ever since the outrage with H, I believe anyone who outs someone's real-life identity should be indefblocked and stay that way. Blueboy96 21:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

(ec) Trey could apologize and say he won't do it again, any time he wants to. I don't see that he's made any attempt to do so. Hard-working or not, I see no reason to even consider lifting the block until he at least does that. Friday (talk) 21:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Note: see also User_talk:Nick#User:TREYWiki_Block, the blocking admin's talk page. Apparently this is going through ArbCom via email. Just sit tight. Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 21:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

"I've only submitted a summary of the situation to ArbCom via e-mail, there's no case open as yet, and indeed, there may not even be a case." It has only bee submitted via email, that is why I brought it to AN's attention. I am unfamiliar with the situation, just Trey...nor am I familiar with User:H. But, don't some of us kinda tell where we live on our userpages? In some cases, our real names. I will wait for ArbCom, but I think this block should be reduced considerably. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 21:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Some do. But that should be our decision, not that of someone who doesn't like us. If I deal with trolls a lot, I do not want them being able to search for an identity I never made public and then harass me in real life. That will seriously impact my real life, in a way I can only partially deal with by ceasing activity on Wikipedia. Driving people away and causing real life problems is TOTALLY unacceptable. -21:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but it should NOT be an indefinite block offense, especially for a user who has cause no trouble in the past, with the exception of the problem I got Trey caught up in, which should not be held against him.

For a user with such a clean track record, he should be only blocked for 12 to 24 with the stipulation that he apologize after the block expires and does not do it again or the punishment will be reinstated. I think that is reasonable. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 21:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I have received e-mails from both the blocking administrator and the blocked user and forwarded them to the Arbitration Committee mailing list. Inasmuch as the arbitrators have Oversight access and can see blocked diffs, it struck several administrators that they might be the best people to review the unblock request at this time. Newyorkbrad 21:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

An update, Trey has apologized to the editor in question (without naming names). I think the apology is enough to lift this block. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 00:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

It was kind of a backhanded apology. He was apologizing that the John Doe wanted anonymity moreso than apologizing for his actions. --Hemlock Martinis 01:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

It kinda upsets me that I am the only one willing to assume good faith and give Trey another chance. He has apologized (which if you add a comma to one part, it sounds better) and has no history of problems, I think we should give him a second change and assume good faith here. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 01:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Once ArbCom sorts it out, then we will see what action is needed. Until then, it is useless to waste oxygen on this topic. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 01:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom hasn't even taken up the case and what if they don't? We continue to show bad faith? :S - NeutralHomer ^T:C 01:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

If ArbCom doesn't take up the case, we will cross that bridge if and when we come to it. I also disagree about showing bad faith, I believe, that by continuing to block Trey, we are taking an appropriate precaution at this time. Nick 01:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

This is now moot point. Trey has left Wikipedia. You all should be ashamed, you tell everyone to assume good faith, you have done the opposite. Trey apologized, you continued to assume bad faith. Trey was an editor who was not a trouble maker, but you all treated him like one. Pathetic. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 03:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Will you stop pouting in our faces? What makes you think that you are the only one assuming good faith here? You think I wanted him to go? I did not, but I did not say anything because this matter was out of our hands, and therefore of no use. —Kurykh 03:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is important to assume good faith, but what good faith explanation is there for posting personal information? --bainer (talk) 06:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Bainer. Admittedly, it's unfortunate that Trey had to be made an example, but we simply can't tolerate outing people's personal information here. We learned a hard lesson from what happened to H--when someone's privacy is involved, drop the hammer and drop it fast. Blueboy96 20:55, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

For my part, this is one of the least forgivable things one can do to Wikipedia. Outing users who have made efforts to remain private compromises everything we're about, and 10,000 productive article edits don't change that. (ESkog)^(Talk) 22:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

DeletedContributions

Just a heads up that the DeletedContributions extension is now live here. Administrators can access it at Special:DeletedContributions. AmiDaniel (talk) 21:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Nice. Prodego ^talk 22:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Cool. Is this going to be integrated into the UI? To show, say, deleted contributions above or below normal contributions? Or perhaps a link from the toolbox?  ;) --Steve _(Stephen) ^talk 22:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there will be a link from Special:Contributions; no plans currently on incorporating deletedcontribs in with regular contribs though. Expect the link to be up within a week on Wikipedia. AmiDaniel (talk) 00:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Really nice! An edit counter at the top of the user's contribs, or even the contribs showing up would be even greater, but that's very nice. -- lucasbfr ^talk 23:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely excellent - thank you devs! Kuru ^talk 23:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I can't use it but this'll help with things like renamings and vandals. Thanks! R ^ParlateContribs_@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 00:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: the edit counter thingie: this is really easy to do, as there is already a field in the user table that store's a user's editcount (approximate, but good enough). The devs won't do it unless there's community support for it, due to editcountitis and stuff like that. Raise it up on WP:VPT or another Pump to get approval for that addition. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 23:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Sweeeeeeeeeeeeeeeet. Viridae^Talk 13:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• I've updated {{vandal}} and {{IPvandal}} to include a hot link to this, to make research before blocking easier on WP:AIV. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Awesome! Viridae^Talk 03:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Wow! Just - wow. Excellent work. Looking forward to pwning even more people using it wisely. ~ Riana ⁂ 03:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Useful for all kinds of things. Next question: would deleted diffs be possible? Chick Bowen 03:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar 2

This arbitration case has closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The parties to the case are strongly encouraged to enter into mediation arrangements regarding any disputes over article content that may still be outstanding. All parties are reminded in the strongest possible terms that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a forum for conspiracy, personal attacks, nor the continuation of ethnic disputes by other means. "Parties who continue such behaviour, and parties who consider it their moral duty to call out such behaviour, will be hit on the head with sticks until the situation improves."

Rama's Arrow (talk · contribs) is desysopped, but is welcome to apply for reinstatement at RfA at any time. As always, administrators should not use their administrative powers in conflicts or disagreements they are involved in. Administrators who are parties to this case are reminded that they should find an uninvolved admin to determine if blocks or other actions against any other parties to the case are appropriate, and should under no circumstances take such actions themselves. Any party that violates the ban on admin actions imposed in this case will be summarily desysopped once the violation is brought to the attention of the Arbitration Committee.

This notice is given by a clerk on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad 15:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Have the arbitrators issued an implementation notice about what kinds of sticks to use, and how hard to hit people's heads with them? Is it the kind of hitting that typically necessitates 24 or 48 hours off editing afterwards, on doctor's orders? ;-) Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I think we're allowed to hit pretty hard and fast. The "summary desysopping" bit counts as a stick, of course. A couple of arbitrators commented that it was with difficulty that they'd restrained themselves from banning everyone in sight for wasting so much time: personally, I would have banned everyone in sight :) Sticks may be applied fairly liberally, right? Certainly, several of the parties appear to need wood applied to wood. Moreschi ^Talk 16:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Much as I thank ArbCom for handling this difficult case, I note that other than the guidance to use sticks the decision gives no guidance to admins on how we are supposed to enforced this ruling. In particular how is someone to apply sanctions to an editor who "continues in such behaviour" without falling into the category of those "who consider it their moral duty to call out such behaviour"? WjBscribe 16:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I took that to mean that the sticks ought to be applied by outsiders. That's a good idea in theory, but it's going to be difficult to implement, because outsiders are unlikely to notice disruptive behaviour, and insiders, as you say, are going to risk contact with the stick themselves for notifying the outsiders... Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, our goal is to stop the stalking of edits and admin action between the parties (especially admins) in this case. If they continue the disruptive behavior towards each other it will be obvious and any uninvolved admin should bring it to the attention of ArbCom so the admin can be desyopped. FloNight 18:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Request clarification

I don't get it. Reading the conclusions, this says that (1) there's no real evidence, (2) Rama blocked some people, and therefore (3) Rama is desysopped. It seems to me that (3) does not follow, as none of the findings of fact gives a credible rationale for the deopping. Now I'm not saying this is wrong or disagreeing or anything, but reading the outcome of the case it is entirely unclear why the outcome is like that. I'd like to ask the ArbCom to clarify their findings.

Furthermore, (4) henceforth, any admin using their power when involved in a conflict will be summarily deopped. I'm not saying that's a bad idea, but it would appear to be a new policy, since it does not specify any case or limit or whatnot, and is worded to apply all over the Wiki. >Radiant< 09:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Having lived with the case for the past 2-1/2 months while clerking it, I think that what may appear as gaps in the reasoning of the decision are pretty much a by-product of the drafting-by-committee process that is used. If one takes a look at the /proposed decision page, one will find a detailed rationale written up by one arbitrator in support of desysopping. The other arbs voted against the proposed findings of fact but in favor of the desysopping, but did not propose substitute wording, probably because in the meantime Rama's Arrow had desysopped voluntarily and has (hopefully temporarily) left the project, making it unnecessary to spend time honing precise words of criticism. I don't speak for the arbitrators on this, but it seems pretty clear from talkpage discussion by the arbitrators that a major factor considered was Rama's Arrow's behavior during the arbitration case itself.

It is also pretty clear that the remedy and enforcement regarding administrators, particularly the comment about summary desysopping, relate to the parties to this case (though the general principle of not taking admin action in a dispute one is personally involved with applies more generally, of course). If there is a genuine and material uncertainty as to the meaning of the decision, clarification can be requested at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration—but please, given the turmoil that this case has caused already, this should be done only if there is a very substantial issue to be raised, and not simply to raise semantic concerns about the wording, even if meritorious. Newyorkbrad 12:23, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Editors interested in this ruling may be interested in User:Bakasuprman's post at User talk:Dbachmann, here. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Downstream copyright violation

How can I investigate and correct (if necessary) a downstream use copyright violation. The situation is that this article uses text taken directly from this version of Christ the Redeemer (statue). Sancho 22:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Is it just that two sentances, or are the descriptions for the other "wonders" taken from here too? /wangi 22:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Machu Picchu's lifted also. I didn't bother checking the rest. Bladestorm 22:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I checked Taj Mahal and Great Wall of China... those are lifted also. Sancho 22:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

See WP:MF for information on sites that copy content. This one case may be too minor to be worth any effort. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

This happens all the time. People plagiarize from Wikipedia or vice-versa. Sometimes it takes a little sleuthing to see who really copied from whom. Sometimes the same person wrote both, or both plagiarized from a common third source. If you are sure that the newspaper is just cribbing parts of Wikipedia articles without attribution (and claiming they have the copyright to the material), it still doesn't mean the site itself is trying to get away with it. Sometimes it's just one reporter who would rather copy stuff than write their own copy. In that case the editor in chief would probably like to know one of their reporters isn't writing their own material, so if you write an email directly to them on your own behalf you'll get action a lot faster than a formal Wikipedia violation notice. Of course if they're doing this on purpose as an organization they'll probably tell you to get lost no matter what you do. Wikidemo 04:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a pretty respectable news organization I think (a main newspaper in India), so it's more likely that just a single editor yanked the material and claimed it was their own. I did end up sending an e-mail to the editor. I'll keep track of developments at Wikipedia:Mirrors_and_forks/Ghi#Hindustan_Times. Sancho 05:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, I checked the timestamps against the reported time of first publishing of the article and it does look like the material was first on Wikipedia, then in the news article. Sancho 05:23, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Curious to see how it turns out. The timestamps aren't conclusive, though. Sometimes a newspaper reprints an article or cannibalizes an old article when writing a new one, so the Wikipedia entry could be from the old article. And sometimes you find something really funny, like turning out that the newspaper reporter themself is the WIkipedian who wrote the language into the article. In that case you would scratch your head and have to think through who owns the copyright and exactly what if anything they did wrong. Wikidemo 06:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Strange how these things happen. I've seen articles on certain UK government websites that were copied from their Wikipedia articles and placed their by their webmasters (I know because I personally know the editor and he is of good standing). Anyway they've been copied onto the UK government websites and placed under crown copyright with no attribution. But hey I don't think we want to go taking on the crown. Ben W Bell talk 14:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

A wikipedia article I contributed extensively to has been plagiarized by a newspaper writer at least once that I'm aware of; whole sentences I wrote were cut and pasted with minimal (and sometimes no) attempt at rewording and no attribution. I didn't take it as a big deal (it's GFDL so it's not like I felt I "owned" it, even if technically they should have attributed 'pedia for it); if anyone tried to flag the article as a copyvio, the timestamps on the article vs the newspaper copy are pretty clear. I just saw it as an indication that I always have the option of a second career as a local newpaper writer if what I do now doesn't pan out.--Isotope23 16:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, this sort of thing is a really big deal. We on Wikipedia might be used to the concept of GFDL, but media outlets take any sort of plagiarism extremely seriously (usually, if someone is willing to copy from WP without attribution, then they're doing it from other sources too). People have lost their jobs for copying from WP before. It's extremely unkosher to go copy text from WP without attribution and place it anywhere. The fact that the crown did it is even worse. But for newspapers, I would heavily suggest popping a notice to the editor. The Evil Spartan 17:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I was quite amused to see several sentences I wrote about the history of the UK railways in the Privatisation of British Rail article reappear in a massive report by the Railway Pensions Commission this past month. My phrasing isn't actually still in our article, but I recognised it on sight and looked it up in the old versions! -- Arwel (talk) 17:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

The UK's Daily Mail got picked up for this kind of thing, lifting content from website TV Cream, a couple of times in 2002, as did its freesheet sister paper Metro in 2003. (See relevant NTKs here and here, item 2 of "Hard News" in each case). Journos often get used to lifting a lot of copy from press releases (a good press release should make this as easy as possible), and/or paraphrasing competitors' scoops. Some it seems may sometimes mistreat the web as an extension of this. Properly the sources should be acknowledged, of course, but they often aren't. WP's headline emphasis on "free content, freely reusable" may (if we AGF) sometimes eclipse that, per GFDL, WP as a source still needs to be cited. My impression is that the U.S. tends to be more prissy about this kind of thing, and generally more apt to raise the sanctity of "Journalism" onto a pedestal than the rest of the world, rather than seeing journalism as a rough-and-tumble business of getting copy out by deadline -- possibly because by world standards most U.S. newspaper markets are unusually uncompetitive. Jheald 19:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

That's copyleft for ya. This becomes an issue at Wikipedia when zealous but insufficiently clued editors label Wikipedia texts as copyright violations, because they've seen mirrored texts: Talk:Arch of Titus and Talk:Église de la Madeleine record confrontations, with some self-justification on the one hand and some understandably cross remarks from contributors of content on the other. --Wetman 19:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

User JzG Incivility

Two options guys. A request for comments or shutting the hell up. Endless complaining on endless noticeboard, talk pages, deletion review, MfD and christ knows elsewhere will not be tolerated. Nick 19:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

David In DC was blocked for an hour for disruption by listing this here. He's clearly well aware of the situation in order to be quoting text so he knows that's the same ultimatum other users involved have received. Nick 19:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Stale AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maple Lane Elementary School

Resolved

 – article relisted

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maple Lane Elementary School has been around since mid-June, with two delete opinions, but the AFD has never been closed. Does anyone want to do the honors of closing it? --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 23:18, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm relisting the article since, for some reason, the initial AfD header was removed right away from the article. Relisting will allow article editors a chance to comment. — Scientizzle 23:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

User:DG

User:DG has been indef blocked a few minutes ago after he started vandalizing. This editor left last August and just went back today. I am a bit uneasy about his support vote on an RfB just before the vandalism. What should we do? Strike the comment? -- lucasbfr ^talk 09:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

And strange that he moved the user page of the preceding voter on that RfB. And I blocked him --Steve _(Stephen) ^talk 09:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I left a note but didn't strike it; it's bureaucrat discretion. Chick Bowen 20:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

This user has now been unblocked by Andrevan: [15]. Chick Bowen 00:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I'm the subject of this speculation and would like to clear everything up. First off, my account is not compromised. I am me, whatever that means. I'm a little bit disturbed at the fact that someone decided that the most appropriate thing to do was actually INDEFINITELY BLOCK ME FROM WIKIPEDIA! The reason given "possibly compromised" is pretty bogus too. Is there a trend of using the reason of "possibly compromised account" as a coverup bogus reason to block users? Not being paranoid, just wondering. Especially given that Stephen over there suggested that I was blocked "until it could be proven otherwise." So now everyone has to PROVE their account couldn't be "compromised" (however you define that) and it is otherwise assumed that they are to be blocked?

(By the way, seeing as my account is not an admin, how exactly does its compromisal pose such a dire threat to wikipedia that I and any IP I may use must be permanently and indefinitely blocked from Wikipedia? The whole compromise thing REALLY sounds like a lame excuse. Arr! Conspiracy, etc, etc.)

Okay, anyway. End-of-paranoid-crazy-rant. In all seriousness, Stephen: I'm sure it was an honest mistake, just don't do it again to other people. Pretty silly thing to do if you ask me.

Anyway, the move of User:Silence was done in something like good faith. I have reason to believe that User:Silence would have appreciated the humour behind that move.

Okay, so I vandalized Otherkin in a minor way. Mea culpa. That was unjustifiable. I didn't know we permanently blocked people from Wikipedia for that now though.

If you wish to disenfranchise me and remove my vote at RfB, go ahead. I'd rather you didn't, but I guess that is the prerogative of those mighty bureaucrats who grok the zenlike nature of consensus.

By the way, I haven't had edits for months because I've been changing computers and consequently my edits for the last few months have all been through anonymous IPs. I finally logged in again because User:Silence told me that Andre was on RfB. Seeing as I votes for him last time he was on RfB, I was delighted to encore. I hardly thought it would cost me my user account under rather ridiculous pretenses.

Anyway.

PS: The above few paragraphs may contain plenty of sarcasm and thinly veiled anger, etc. I hope you won't take it too personally. In all seriousness, like I said, I'm sure it's just an honest mistake.

Kind of stupid mistake though. Can you justify yourself?

D. G. 05:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

It's protective measure to preserve the integrity of a user's account, and their contributions. When someone vanishes for months, after being a productive editor, then returns making vandalistic edits, then most people think "compromised account", and an admin will protect it to ensure that that person's reputation is not destroyed. --Haemo 05:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, indefinite does not mean infinite. We had some problems with users that got their accounts compromised, and that's what came in mind first when we saw your contributions. You could have requested an unblock, the explanation you provided above would probably have been enough :). Since that got cleared up, of course your account shall remain unblocked. Just keep in mind the usual laius about vandalism... -- lucasbfr ^talk 09:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

DG, try looking right there on the login screen: "If your account is compromised, it may be permanently blocked unless you can prove you are its rightful owner". You don't login for months and then make vandal edits; that points to a compromised account as we've had many examples over the last months. So, thanks, I can justify my actions. The only stupidity was yours. --Steve _(Stephen) ^talk 12:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry. I think I may have made a complete fool of myself, and you are indeed right when you say that the only stupidity was mine.

The intention of the block clearly was to prevent someone else from ruining my reputation. What it was unable to do was prevent me from ruining my own reputation. I am really quite embarassed at how badly I've blown it here. You were just trying to do your job. Thank you, and sorry. D. G. 00:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I would just like to say that if I could retract the above crazy rant I made, I would. D. G. 01:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Update: 24.225.244.250 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has requested a new account at Wikipedia:Request an account#VfD. From this edit, 24.225.244.250 and DG are apparently the same person. DG posted a message at User:DG saying he was going on a long wikivacation and then shows up at WP:ACC the same day requesting a new ID. This seems like a pretty clear case of avoiding scrutiny from other editors. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:37, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Is there a reason that you unblocked AOL Europe?

Please show me the links to the decisions concerning blocking and unblocking AOL Europe. Thank you 195.93.60.102 20:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

195.93.0.0/17 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) was unblocked on 8 July by Sarah, who cites an OTRS ticket; we'd probably have to ask her or another OTRS volunteer for details, beyond that. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Er, okay. Sorry about that guys, obviously it was a mistake. I'll reblock if it hasn't already been reblocked. I was trying to help riana clear a block that came from an OTRS unblock request. Sorry. Sarah 08:46, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Woah, sorry about the trouble. And it didn't even help the OTRS customer out. Sorry for getting Sarah in strife :| ~ Riana ⁂ 10:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

User:R.J-1337

R.J-1337 (talk · contribs) has vandalized my user page, and I don't think this will be the last time he will be doing such a thing. I know him from outside of Wikipedia from a wrestling based chatroom I used to host. It was well known there that I disliked R.J-1337 and he came to Wikipedia for one reason, not to become an editor, but for his own personal agenda. He has convinced others to create userpages, and make them similar to wrestler articles so they could have "profiles" on wikipedia to work in conjuction with the chatroom (my old chatroom) which he is trying to bring back. If you look at his userpage, he uses it for self promotion. He will not make any meaningful edits to any page other than his own. --  Jลмєs Mลxx™  Msg me  03:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I've warned him and will keep an eye on this user. Thanks. Sasquatch t|c 17:31, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Bucharest is 'Paris of the East'

One more thing: on the page Bucharest you can read it is 'Paris of the East' or 'Little Paris'. That is not surprising, I grew up hearing that all the time. But using it for a neighboring country's capital, Budapest is a bit strange. In fact, most Hungarians would find that pretty offensive after the Treaty of Trianon which was a disaster to this country. Squash Racket 07:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, getting countries to sign treaties does not fall under our jurisdiction. --soum ^talk 08:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Forced 'treaty' after World War I (read consequences of treaty). Anyway not the best memory of Paris, France. That's for sure. Squash Racket 08:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I still dont get it; what do you want admins to do? Protect the article? Delete it? Move over an existing article? What?

I suspect this is a content dispute. Please follow WP:DR. --soum ^talk 08:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

It is a content dispute. The article is protected after an edit war, partly on this point. There is discussion on the article's talk page. DrKiernan 08:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/NYScholar

The above named arbitration case has closed. All involved parties are granted an amnesty over the edit-warring that had been ongoing but has given the administrators the ability to sanction anyone who begins disruptive editing again.

You may view the full case decision at the case page.

For the Arbitration Committee,

- Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 11:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard

Now that this has survived MfD, I'd like to spam it a bit. The header basically describes what it's for, but I'm trying to address a growing problem that at the moment is sneaking under the radar. At any rate, it needs some more eyes: watchlist and comment, please! Editors from a humanities background especially welcome, as the maths and science people at the moment don't deal with this issue too badly. Moreschi ^Talk 18:31, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Edwin rose

Edwin rose (talk · contribs) - every one of this User's edits has been to his User or Talk pages. He seems to be keeping the pages for call scripts and call tracking. Corvus cornix 23:14, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

My. Um, there may not be a whole lot we can do, there; I've deleted the history of both, and left the guy a note asking him to contribute or move on. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh gosh, Luna, Geocities or Angelfire? Lycos is probably the single-worst webhost out there, period. Even Blogspot would be better than those two "webhosts". I personally like Sitesled. hbdragon88 00:22, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

But Blogspot didn't give me a giant sack of mone-- I mean, you're right. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

He just recreated it. How long has he been editing his userpage? hbdragon88 00:01, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Abuse of vandalism warnings?

User:Rob right, who appears to be a new user created just today, but whose behaviour today seems to indicate some more extensive experience, has today issued a vandalism warning against User:Jza84. A number of users have commented that this warning is absurd, given the nature of the ongoing discussion about Manchester, which is the article whose content prompted this action by Rob right. I and others consider this to be a misuse of the vandalism warbings in some attempt to stifle legitimate debate. Jza84 is a long-standing user who is well-respected amoungst UK-based editors for his work on UK geography articles. Can I ask for some action about this? I would have thought that a traceroute to determine if Rob right is a sockpuppet, and if so, whose, might be useful, followed by appropriate action iof required, but this is of course, not up to me to decide, but I gently suggest it. This kind of misuse of warnings seems to go completely against the spirit of wikipedia.  DDStretch  (talk) 17:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Agree it's not a valid warning -- content disputes aren't vandalism. Rob right, whoever they are, strongly appears to be a sockpuppet, and I've blocked them, for the time being, requesting an explanation of how they ran across the dispute. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:34, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

The following anonymous talk page: User talk:195.212.52.6 might be relevant here if a checkuser has been carried out.  DDStretch  (talk) 21:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

The anon (195.212.52.6) signs as User:Rob right here. Jza84 21:46, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

212.139.77.181 (talk · contribs) signs as "Prof Rob Right" here. Off-wiki comments at [16], [17], [18], and [19] may provide some background information. Mr Stephen 22:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

The 195.212 IP is almost definitely the same person -- edited Rob right's userpage, as well. The other is pretty likely, as well. Some of those comments you've linked might lead me to keep an eye on this person, but if they've been involved in the dispute previously, on-wiki, then this may just be somebody who happened to register an account, today, in which case blocking them as a sockpuppet would probably be out of line; thoughts, anyone? – Luna Santin (talk) 22:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

That's how I read it. Mr Stephen 22:56, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I have just noticed that Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, section 47, also reports actions by this user, and contains some information which might add to the content here. I was unaware of this prior report until just now.  DDStretch  (talk) 22:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Requested block

Resolved

Hi, i have run into a slight situation. Will an admin please be so kind as to block my account for 36 hours? Thanks! —ptk✰fgs 03:01, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

We don't ordinarily block on request. I left a query for the user. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:09, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Smatprt violations

I claim that this user is acting in the Shakespeare Authorship without consensus and for the past year has taken complete ownership of the article. He has already been blocked twice for 3RR violation [[20]][[21]] and he has a reputation for non-consensus in his editing on other forums. For example, on 13 May 2007 we find under the Shakespeare heading that "Smatprt is trying to delete all the arguments and information from Kathman's site while retaining all material published by non experts in non-scholarly, purely commercial presses" [[22]] and this one from a google search "You might like to take a quick look at the Shakespeare plays, where a certain Smatprt has taken it upon himself to perform mass restoration of the tags ..." [[23]]. It is his custom when confronted to file a report on the Administrator's noticeboard blaming his accuser. The following example resulted in no block.[[24]] You might like to obtain the testimony of the following users mandel, barryispuzzled, Paul_Barlow, alabamaboy. I should like to see a substantial block inforced. (Felsommerfeld 11:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC))

I think it important to note that this complaint was in retaliation for my listing a complaint about Felsommerfeld on this same page several days ago.[25]. In actuality - the accuser is far more guilty of this - See Feldsommerfeld's deletions here: [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31] - all properly referenced material apparently cut because they support the Oxfordian viewpoint or mentioned the word "Oxford".Smatprt 13:43, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I tried briefly to help at Shakespearean authorship earlier, basically with copyediting, but found the unreasonableness and stonewalling of Smatprt too disheartening to continue my efforts, even though they were appreciated by everybody else there. Smatprt also seems to be a tireless pest at William Shakespeare, where he edit wars to make the classic crank Shakespeare-wasn't-Shakespeare theory as large and as undue-weighty a part of the article as possible. His intentions are no doubt good, but his practice is destructive, and he makes the lives of the other Shakespeare editors wearisome. May I recommend the new Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard (mentioned below) to your attention, Felsommerfeld? I don't feel I'm knowledgeable enough about the Shakespeare articles to list the case on that noticeboard myself. (I gave up editing them in the face of Smatprt's obstructiveness.) Bishonen | talk 22:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC).

Smatprt is undoubtedly sincere in his beliefs but his one-sidedness is unrelenting and it is seriously skewing the page. He will push and push and push to get in Oxfordian arguments by any means and exclude "Statfordian" ones by any means. What I find mu=ost dismaying is his willinglness to delete statements he knows to be factually accurate if they contradict his POV. Paul B 23:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I also think it important that Paul B above provide a list of my supposed improper deletions and "exclusions". I try to only delete a statement if it is not properly referenced, or if the Stratfordian editors refuse to provide a reference. References to personal blogs and websites by non-experts have also been deleted on occasion, after discussion (David Kathman's website, for example, which has been declared non-reliable.) On the other hand - I do indeed add material as long as I can properly reference it. Felsommerfled left this complaint with dozens of administrators, and those who have responded have not shown any agreement with Felsommerfeld or the users above. It is also important to note that the above editors are clearly Stratfordians, and they are editors who themselves are guilty of mass deletions of properly referenced material. In face Felsommerfeld's contribution list consists of 55 talk page entries and 7 mass deletions.Smatprt 00:06, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

"I try to only delete a statement if it is not properly referenced". That is precisely the point. It is dishonest, or at best disingenuous, editing because you delete information that you know to be true if it is mainstream/Stratfordian. The obvious example is your deletion of the references to the fact that an alleged portrait of Oxford actually depicts Hugh Hamersley. The whole caption was uncited, but you only chose to delete the mainstrean facts while keeping the - also completely uncited - non-mainstream claim that the portrait depicts Oxford. This is a claim that has been rejected even by many Oxfordians. Your comments clearly indicated that you knew full well about the evidence for the Hamersley attribution. You could have added the citation yourself if your editing had been truly honest: that is, aimed at improving the article. Instead you chose to delete facts in order deliberately to distort the presentation of evidence to the reader. Paul B 12:07, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Paul -this is where your premise fails - you claim that "I know" certain things "to be true". How on earth do you know what I believe? In fact, I do NOT believe that the portrait depicts Hugh Hamersley. From what I've read, it's unprovable at this point. I do know that I came up with a reference when requested. Considering there are at least 6 Stratdordian editors actively working (deleting) this page, why on earth should I do the Stratdordian referencing? I don't have ready access to the volumes of Stratdfordia that you do - and why should I spend time researching when you guys have that more than covered? I'm filing the need for referencing Oxfordian statements, since most of the Stratfordian editors on this page actively discourage Oxfordain information and delete anything with the word "Oxford" in itSmatprt 13:43, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Is that it? Out of some 1700 edits you've come up with one questionable deletion? The way you talk I expected a list of at least a dozen diffs to prove your point. In fact - anyone looking over my edit list will find "additions", "cites", "refs", a fair amount of vandal reversions, reformatting of all the SH plays (part of Wikiproject), but hardly any of the wholesale deletions that I have been falsely accused of above.

Yes, you do it all the time. But the sheer tediousness of listing such examples makes it not worth my effort unless this proceeds to a formal process, which at the moment it is not. Also, you misunderstand - or willfully misrepresent- what I said. I maent that you knew the information presented in the caption to be true - that the mainstream view was that it is a portrait of Hamersley. Obvious you don't like to believe that. Even the current caption contains no clear citation of Barrell and uses misleading language (Barrell "determined" that it was Oxford. Other researchers "suggest" that it is Hamersley). In fact no-one other than Oxfordians doubt that it is Hamersley. Paul B 14:17, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Paul - here is a list of some of your undiscussed deletions: [32], [33], [34], [35], [36]. While I would probably agree with several (of not most) of them, that's probably not the point. The point is you are on this "He makes massive deletions" rag and I have asked for a list. You provide one example based on an unprovable assuption (what I know to be true). What you know to be true is the following - I have spent far more time reinserting deleted material than deleting anything. You know this. Just like the unfounded accusations of SockPuppetry, you knew the truth there too. Smatprt 14:39, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Your list of some deletions I made is pure evasion. Everyone makes deletions. Yes, I knew the truth about the Sockpupptry allegation and I said so didn't I? I notice that you do not deny that you knew the mainstream opinion. You just say that I can't proove that you did. Innocent people do not say "you can't prove it". They say "It's not true". Paul B 16:48, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Also - a compromise is already in the works on the discussion page, based on the input of several administrators who are taking "no sides" at the present.Smatprt 00:06, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Finally - Felsommerfeld has just apologized for "doubting my integrity" and for leveling accusations of SockPuppetry, proven untrue, which he also left on about a dozen different administrators mailboxes after I complained about him. [37]. In spite of this, I am ready and willing to move on and I would hope that Felsommerfeld is too.Smatprt 00:19, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

In August-October 2006, I (a Baconian, who signed as QBrute) spent a lot of time in rigorous debate with The_Singing_Badger (a Stratfordian) balancing the Shakespeare Authorship article. [[38]] Smatprt appeared with the clear intention of promoting his views that the Earl of Oxford was Shakespeare. He was relentlessly one-sided in debate and to my mind had already decided that his changes were going in the article. I gave up and the article deteriorated. I now see (above in Felsommerfeld's report "The following example resulted in no block") that the person who Smatprt tried to block was me![[39]] No editor or administrator has managed to halt his crusade. I am confident that if Smatprt is not removed from these forums he will succeed in destroying the entire Shakespeare project. (Puzzle Master 14:46, 14 July 2007 (UTC))

Barry left this out - See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Shakespearean_authorship_question/Archive_1&diff=prev&oldid=95091606 for his declaration of support for the article after most of my changes were implemented: ""Having left this article for some time and only recently read it again I think it now has a fair representation of all views.... So, well done to those who have worked on this page." (Puzzle Master 14:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC))

And here is the article on that date: [40]. Hyphen para, 1604, etc., - all in. You called it a "fair representation of all views". The only difference now is that the lead para has been slashed down to one of the smallest and most underdeveloped lead paragraphs I've ever seen. Aside from that, and given your earlier statement, I truly fail to understand why you are back in attack mode - unless this is just retaliatory, as your above para implies.Smatprt 15:16, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

What Barry also fails to mention is that I was part of that discussion (scroll down in that archived conversation and you will see plenty, including my official welcome - an unwarranted attack that was later deleted and apologized for. (This seems to be the mode with many of the editors on this page - attack and make accustions, raise a ruckus with false statements, than "apologize" after being proven wrong, then accuse again. The archive also seems to show Barry using at least 3 different account names. He has deleted critism of the Bacon argument and his discussions and issues have predominantly focussed on Bacon, just as mine have focussed on Oxford. Smatprt 15:16, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

The issue is this, is the 1604 section which you have fought to keep in the article pro-Oxfordian? You evidently think so "anything pro-oxford (1604 question, hyhenation of name) is being regularly deleted?" [[41]]. mandel thinks so too. [[42]] And my more recent opinion is that I did too "Following a suggestion by Mandel ...".[[43]] I would be more sympathetic to you if you could admit your behaviour ... but I don't think that's possible for you. (Puzzle Master 15:50, 14 July 2007 (UTC))

I have indeed apologized for errors in judgement and other offenses. But I should also stand up for what I believe, and be consistant in doing so. To answer you directly, yes- of course they are pro-oxfordian. That in no way makes tham any less "anti-stratfordian" - as you should know better than most. I am sorry that some anti-strat arguments can also be anti-bacon arguments, but unfortunately that is the case. Regarding the hyphen - even you admit that it is not "only" oxfordian, but none-the-less, I have agreed to see that section censored from the article. I am much more interested in having you answer me directly - why did you issue that flowery declaration of support congratulating all the editors in Dec 06? And why now have you seemingly retracted every bit of it?Smatprt 16:15, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Felsommerfeld is justified in making this complaint against User:Smatprt and the suggestion that he is merely retaliating for Smatprt's similar action against him should not be taken into consideration.

Smatprt's history of disruptive editing on William Shakespeare goes back many months. An example here, and my reaction on the talk page here, of when a consensus has been reached, only to be swept away by Smatprt replacing the agreed version with his own contentious edit.

Without wishing to elevate my own editing of Shakespeare-related articles to additions of any value (the topic has now been taken up by editors of real knowledge and authority) I stopped contributing solely because of the impossibility of working on subjects upon which he had taken a stand. From the sidelines I noted that his editing greatly hampered the drive to make William Shakespeare a featured article, in the face of requests from assessors to stop. An example: "It is making the article unstable". He seems to have acknowledged this point ("...I do regret my part in any of the issues referred to") here. However, one day later he "completely skews" another agreed section, commented here. These are representative of an attitude of a seeming complete disregard for other editors' views and lack of concern for progress and improvement to articles. I strongly support User:Felsommerfeld's suggestion. Old_Moonraker 08:20 15 July 2007

Why it happens that each time people start discussing Shakespeare, the discussion ends up by being hijacked by those folks who believe the plays were written by Marlowe, Bacon, Queen Elizabeth, etc.? The fate of humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare is instructive in this respect. To quote Bishonen's summary of the situation in Wikipedia: "Smatprt seems to be a tireless pest at William Shakespeare, where he edit wars to make the classic crank Shakespeare-wasn't-Shakespeare theory as large and as undue-weighty a part of the article as possible. His intentions are no doubt good, but his practice is destructive, and he makes the lives of the other Shakespeare editors wearisome".[1] Although the issue is not urgent, this activity is disturbing and needs to be investigated. --Ghirla-трёп- 22:24, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Please note that I was not trying to make the case, I was trying to make sure all mention of the topic wasn't deleted from the page, or as one administrator called it "whitewashing the authorship issue". The problem with Bishonen (mentioned above) and a few complaining editors, is that he would like to see the topic censored from the page in whole, as well as the topic itself banished from Wikipedia. That is what I am trying to make sure does not happen. Smatprt 14:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

User: 209.150.54.112

This user keeps consistently removing his block notice from their talk page, and leaving abuse in it's place. Please can you do something about it. Jordanhatch 07:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

JUst leave them go, removing the block notice is not agaisnt policy, elthough many people don't like it. Reinserting it is just annoying them further. Viridae^Talk 07:42, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Calling it "vandalism" and trying to take ownership is a problem, though. hbdragon88 08:17, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

75.211.145.215

This anon (as well as 70.212.198.46 in the past) is writing untrue statements on the Paleoclimatologist entry. Please monitor it and perhaps prohibit this user from commenting. Iceberg007 17:55, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

This user's page is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/75.211.145.215

• Solved by redirecting the article. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:24, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks! Iceberg007 18:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Heads-up on User: 70.128.41.152

70.128.41.152 (talk · contribs)

This anon has been quietly removing {{trivia}} and similar tags from pop-culture related articles over the last couple of days with neither significant edits nor any talk page consensus to justify such moves. I have reverted where I found them, and warned him once, but keep an eye out in case he goes back to it. Daniel Case 14:36, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Vandal identified as Kevin1243

After reviewing many sources of history & discussion on the user with the screen name Kevin1243, other external links should be mentioned also. The use of free internet web sites is becoming very popular with teenagers, and many young individuals are also posting blogs, and creating profiles on dating services. Such seems to be the case with this user... what contributions to Wikipedia are not about. For one example only, visit http://www.faceparty.com/Kevin1243. I can't list another, becuase it's a porn site. A poll of other users that have accused Kevin1243 of SNEAKY VANDALISM: 39 AGAINST 5 Undecided 7 Users that no longer exist, with various explainations of growing weary of VANDALISM when trying to contribute. Having a short list only, user complaints on User_talk:Kevin1243 will grow. Administrators should consider appropriate action to deter future VANDALISM. StationNT5Bmedia 18:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, as I pointed out on Jimbo's talk page: Looks like this is a bit of a dispute surrounding Non-synchronous transmissions, where it appears Kevin1243 has placed a couple of maintenance tags, suggested a merge, and most recently removed a bunch of commercial links quite properly. Looking at his talk page, he's done a lot of new page patrol, from the looks of things, and gathered the usual complaints about articles that were either deleted or later properly developed. I certainly don't see any indication of vandalism there, and StationNT5Bmedia's attempted tagging of Kevin's page with block tags looks a bit odd. Recommending non-notable articles for deletion is not vandalism, nor is removing commercial links. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 20:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

This is becoming ridiculous, and these accusations are now crossing the line and becoming a personal attack. Anyway, I'm off on vacation in a couple of hours, and so I'll have to let my contributions stand for themselves. Kevin 21:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I will watch your page. Enjoy your break. LessHeard vanU 21:52, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Having been contacted by StationNT5Bmedia I've responded to him with a rather lengthly observation of this conflict at his talk page. You may be interested in reading it. It is far too long to bring here. In essence I concur with Tony Fox above. Cheers! --EarthPerson 20:54, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

And an excellent summary it is, too. Basically, that's my observation too. Really, there's not much to see here. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 22:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Umm...

[44] needs a deletion. Zeratul ^{En Taro Adun!}_{So be it.} 23:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Why? Chick Bowen 23:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Other than that SysProtect is not an ideally formatted article, both by our standards our fair use policy. . . Chick Bowen 23:50, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Uh, well... "This image or media is claimed to be used under Wikipedia's fair use policy but has no explanation as to why it is permitted under the policy. Non-free images need a fair use rationale each time they are used in an article. Consider adding one to this page if possible. Unless at least one rationale is provided, the image will be deleted after Monday, 9 July 2007. Please remove this template if a rationale is provided.

Note that the boilerplate copyright tags do not by themselves constitute a fair use rationale. " Zeratul ^{En Taro Adun!}_{So be it.} 02:47, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL

The unprovoked and continuing attacks upon me at the bottom of Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Intelligent_design by User:Odd_nature and User:Orangemarlin make it very difficult for me to contribute there. I would appreciate some form of intervention. Diffs: here, here directed at someone else, here, here, here, among others. Thanks, Gnixon 23:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Update They seem to have followed me here, where they are reverting my edits, apparently with little understanding of the subject. Gnixon 00:02, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Update 2 Perhaps only Odd Nature is stalking me, but he's also followed me here and made a very uninformed revert of my edits. Gnixon 00:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I see all kinds of unpleasantness at the FAR, the worst of which is coming from neither of the people you mention. I don't see that handing out blocks would help anything, nor is it justified. All we can ask is that all participants please try to work toward consensus and not post inappropriate comments out of frustration. Chick Bowen 00:18, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Could you at least convey such a message to those parties, unless you think I've somehow invited their attacks? Is there any case in which Odd Nature's stalking me to unrelated articles is acceptable? Gnixon 00:20, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Just to anyone reading this ANI, Gnixon does this on a regular basis, like here and here. He's accused others of stalking (see both of the previoius ANI's), but the fact is many of us watch these articles. He has been the subject of discussions by several admins in the past, such as here and here. I think this is getting old and embarrassing to the project. If anyone stands up to this editor, he quickly runs to ANI to file a complaint, where he's 0 for 5 or so in getting any action. Everything I stated in the FAR was factual. He did refactor pages without consensus, he edited articles without consensus, and he continues to be a POV warrior. If anyone needs warnings or a block, it's Gnixon. Orangemarlin 07:27, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Those two links would be the two ANI's I've filed. If the community can't regulate behavior like this, I'm not sure I want to participate. Gnixon 23:43, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Felsommerfeld

This user appears to be operating a "Disruptive throwaway account" used only for a few mass deletions and accusations. Out of a total 62 edits, 55 were used making false accusations against myself. The other 7 were making mass deletions of long-standing material to the Shakespeare Authorship Question article. As pointed out recently by an administrator [45]- is a minority viewpoint article. Unfortunately, Felsommerfeld refuses to see that. The reasons seem to be as follows:

1) User is a staunch Stratfordian who has stated that the article in question shouldn't even exist. He has made several mass deletions of well referenced material.[46], [47], [48], [49]

2) Because I restored this material, the user has made personal attacks, false accusations and went so far as to make erroneous reports to over a dozen administrators.[50], [51], [52]

For full disclosure I have allowed myself to be dragged into 2 edit wars/3Rs, for which I have great regret. In each case it was because staunch stratdordians were making mass deletions of properly referenced materials. I believe this user is again trying to draw me into a 3R revert. Instead, I am keeping my edits light and I am coming here for help.

I request this user be blocked or banned, whatever you feel is appropriate based on the behaviour and the pure mean-ness involved. Thanks for your consideration. Smatprt 15:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

re "Stratfordian"; Could you point me towards the relevant policy page or guideline? In the meanwhile, the rest appears to be content dispute with some pretty unlearned incivility and lack of good faith shown by various sides. As there is removal of referenced material I will request that User:Felsommerfeld refrains from doing so again. After that, it is up to all of you to find consensus of an article on who might really have written, "I have measured it from side to side, tis four feet long and two feet wide." LessHeard vanU 16:05, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I think you will find it was almost Wordsworth, but you've misquoted it. It was only three feet long. "Stratfordian" is a term used by Oxfordians to mean someone who believes Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare. There is no policy regarding it. Paul B 16:53, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

:~) My response was a bit of a leg-pull (although I did mess up on the "Ode to a Puddle" bit) since it appeared that part of the complaint was that the editor held certain views (thanks for clarifying which, though) on who wrote Shakespeares' plays. I did comment at the editors talkpage. LessHeard vanU 19:35, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Candidates for Speedy Deletion

Category:Candidates for speedy deletion is pretty backlogged. Just sayin'.  :) Corvus cornix 20:37, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Image deletions are driving good contributors away

I think everyone involved in running image tagging bot and deletions should read this [53]. While I understand the reasons for tagging and deletions, This user has made some very good points that they way we are going about it, by generally just saying "tough shit, it's gone in seven days", is pretty inhumane and is driving contributors away. I know I'll get flamed for this, but surely a project with this much brainpower could think of a way to handle this intelligently and personally, rather than just slapping automated bot crap all over the wiki. pschemp | talk 23:20, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think it's unfortunate that some people are having such a reaction to the copyright purge which has been going on, but we, as an encyclopedia, have been seriously remiss in the treatment of fair use images, and other types -- to the point of outright illegality in some cases. People tend to take fair use images too lightly, treating them as a kind of colloquial "well, this is a "fair" use" idea -- and not as the very serious legal-copyright principle they need to be. The same goes for public domain, or whatever else. However, the argument that most people level is that they don't like being forced to go back and fix things that should have been done originally because we have, rightly, gotten more strict about images. While is unfortunate in many cases, simply slapping a template on an image is not acceptable, and the fact that it once was is no defense. We need to get these images ship-shape, and quickly, because having them poorly or incorrectly licensed is a threat to the very foundation of the encyclopedia.

I am strongly in favor of some serious wording to the effect that uploading an image to Wikipedia under a specific license should be treated with the same seriousness that a court filing; anything less is unacceptable. --Haemo 23:33, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Haemo, this isn't about images being up loaded *now* but how older images and the people who worked hard to get them are being treated. Especially becasue in some cases, those editors have the rights or got the rights released, but the tags were different then. I think you didn't read the link I posted, because it's pretty clear there. pschemp | talk 00:08, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Yup, that was my understanding as commented in the second part of my response below. LessHeard vanU 00:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I suppose the debate of having bot parameters (not) adjusted so images uploaded under different criteria than that now existing being treated differently exists somewhere? The problem with GDFL, Fair Use, and other matters is that policy has to be applied retrospectively if it is to be of any use. Perhaps a link to that discussion should be included in the tag template so to assauge the ire of long time contributors who find their previously acceptable content now falls foul of policy? LessHeard vanU 23:38, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

To Haemo, as I understand it the complaint is that the images were compliant when originally uploaded but that the tagging may infer that it was the uploader that was lax rather than the limitations of the then procedure. I can understand why that impression may not go down well with long time contributors. LessHeard vanU 23:38, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

It should be an inflexible rule, easily accomplished, that a bot announce a prospective image deletion on the talkpage of the User who has uploaded it, without exception, as a matter of course. The wording of the boilerplate needs to be carefully worded, to be as friendly as possible. This is what I should call the "bottom line." --Wetman 00:22, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Enforcement of policy should always be done in a way that doesn't unduly alienate good editors... we need to remain vigilant on this issue and warn people when their actions are doing more harm (driving away good editors) than good (rigid and instant enforcement policy that would have no legal ramifications if not enforced in such a way). Sorry if it sounds like I'm stating the obvious, but that so many people leave the project over image bureaucracy... apparently the problem isn't obvious. --W.marsh 03:46, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Pschemp is exactly right: good-faith editors are being driven off the encyclopedia by having their image contributions deleted. These images were compliant with policy when they were originally uploaded, but the tagging indicates it's the uploader's fault that the image "will be deleted in seven days". Firsfron of Ronchester 04:08, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

My two cents, Ive done what I can to try and make the image cleanup easier and it seems that the messages that my bot leaves may seem a bit harsh and input and/or changes are welcome. I use {{missing rationale}} and {{missing rationale2}} ^∆ 04:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

You might try {{Missing rationale short}} for experienced users. Chick Bowen 05:52, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

The solution? Take the time to review the cats before deleting. Don't just blindly clear. Often times the problem is the source not being in the summary though it is in the license. Use your head, be responsible, and don't think that deleting images requires less scrutiny than an article. A bot does not do the work for you- it just reports to you. If you can clear out a 200 image backlog in under 90 minutes the problem is on your end. Images take far more work than articles. Keegan^talk 05:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Um...

Resolved

I'm not exactly sure what to do with this!

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Asdfghjkl&redirect=no

Wow! You guys are fast! Zeratul ^{En Taro Adun!}_{So be it.} 02:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

URGENT Billy Blyton, Baron Blyton URGENT

A few days ago I posted the below. Nothing happended, and he has started again. Will someone please do something. He has ignored everyone. He is also vandalising Norma Major's page by ignoring her legal title. Someone please do something! --UpDown 18:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

"Urgent help needed at Billy Blyton, Baron Blyton. User:Lawsonrob insists on changing the article title to William Reid Blyton, giving no reason. He has ignored the clear MofS guidelines (at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles)#Other non-royal names point 2) regarding peers. He has also moved in 5 times since 0015 this morning, which I believe is a breach of 3RR. On another page, David Clark, Baron Clark of Windermere, he keeps trying to remove the "of Windermere", which is part of Clark's legal title. Please help quickly as he is not listening to anyone, and is very disruptive. --UpDown 18:35, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I might recommend a request for comment. There seems to be issues with his editing behaviour going back almost to his arrival.--Crossmr 05:00, 8 July 2007 (UTC)"

From his talk page this guy ahs been disruptive and at best unresponsive since he started editing, I'm hard blocking now. Circeus 19:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

It's been quiet for 2 days now.Rlevse 12:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Block evasion by Indef blocked editor using static IP

I believe that User:Neutralizer who has been indefinitely blocked for using a plethora of sockpuppets (see Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Neutralizer) is currently attempting to contentiously edit the article Michael Ignatieff. He was banned by community consensus ANI - see this discussion. This user was making extensive usage of his sockpuppets to edit war on this same article. In the discussion above he was defending himself using a series of rotating IP's and attempting to continue his edit war. Former admin and editor Sarah Ewart protected the article in order to block him from being able to edit it. However, the article was recently unprotected and now he is back and trying to edit the article until I requested that protection be restored to the article. Protection was restored, but I believe it will only be temporary. Is there a way to deal with this situation in another manner? --Strothra 20:21, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Also see the discussion resulting from his request for unprotection of the article: [54] and this list of suspected sockpuppets which also gives IP ranges [55]. --Strothra 20:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Editor seems confused: "the article was recently unprotected". Article seems to have been unprotected 8 months ago[56] and I edited this article for the first time about a week ago. I have tried to communicate with him but his "retired" label and his deletions without comment annoyed me. I resent his false accusations but will not be spending any more time on that article as it seems to be a toxic article for some reasons. I am not and never have been a sockpuppet or had a sockpuppet but I value my right to edit anonymously whether Strothra approves or not. My ISP is Bell in Toronto which is the largest ISP here so it's not strange that many people here would be interested in Canadian politics. I also think the administrators should do something about combative editors who delete without comment and who have misleading labels like "retired" on their user space. I don't know if I'll bother here at all anymore but I certainly won't be editing any articles that Strothra is editing. 70.48.205.126 22:19, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Requested checkuser. If confirmed, this likely calls for another range-block. --Strothra 22:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

That's good although I am surprised the standards for use of checkuser would have dropped so far. Assuming you're able to obtain an inappropriate breach of privacy, I look forward to your apology. No offense but maybe you are really confused; I see you are accusing this editor [57] as well even though he is in a completely different location. 70.48.205.78 02:13, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Both of those IPs are in the exact same range as the ranges that had to be blocked last time for similar contentious policy breeching edit wars coming from a single editor (70.48.0.0/16 block log and 65.95.0.0/16 block log). What I am saying is that both of you are the same person. If the standards have dropped? Interesting that for someone who has only supposedly recently begun editing that you know so much about Wiki. --Strothra 06:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Blocked per checkuser.--Strothra 13:26, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Overdue IfD request

Could someone close this IfD quickly (either way): Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 July 6#Image:JohnProfumo.jpg before the bad faith accusations escalate further.--Konstable 12:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Closed as delete. Garion96 (talk) 12:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kirk Fraser

I nominated Kirk Fraser for deletion four weeks ago; it was deleted and then deleted again three times after recreation. YousoCrazy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who made his first edit yesterday, requested on my talk page that this deletion be reviewed because Kirk Frasier is the correct spelling. I have two questions.

1. Is this correct? Could someone please do an "unofficial" deletion review to see if this fellow's claim has merit?
2. It would appear that YousoCrazy is a sockpuppet of someone who is aware of the previous deletion discussion, and he also "spammed" five other user talk pages. Is any action (i.e. warning or blocking) called for?

Shalom ^Hello 16:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't look like the spelling difference would help any. Googling "Kirk Frasier" brings up 92 hits, most of them related to the wikipedia article. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 16:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

According to the IMDB link listed in the deleted article, his name is "Fraser". He also has exactly one IMDB credit which doesn't bode well for his notability. IrishGuy ^talk 17:31, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Redirect error

In an article, when I put "fluorescent" as a link, it redirects to an old version of the Fluorescence page, it has the picture missing at the top, at the bottom it says "This page was last modified 07:29, 12 July 2007", the correct page was edited on 15th of July, when I added some things to the "See also" section, which is also not there in the 12th of July version. When hitting Ctrl and Refresh, it loads the 15th of July page. (At the bottom it says "This page was last modified 16:47, 15 July 2007".)

(The page I was adding the link to was "Fluorescent Multilayer Disc". I've left it as "fluorescence|fluorescent" for now, which makes the link "fluorescence" rather than a link to the redirection, "fluorescent".) 85.211.175.239 17:38, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Emberton238 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Resolved

 – Viridae^Talk 12:43, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

His password's on his userpage. This is quite naughty, though I've not checked to see if the password's right or not.--Rambutan (talk) 11:07, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's his password. :P Looks like he could be a potential vandalism-only account, but let's give him the benefit of doubt... · AndonicO ^Talk 11:27, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Password scrambled. Viridae^Talk 12:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Wrong. Anyone who gives out their password is blocked. This is long-standing Wikipedia policy. Giving out your password prevents Wikipedia from ensuring that the account is not used by multiple people. Multiple people may not use the same account. Corvus cornix 20:32, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

BITE problem

Jamiepgs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been bitten quite badly. He's an enthusiastic newbie who has got a book of "interesting facts" which he has added to articles. He's then been accused of vandalism by editors not prepared to do a simple google search to find out that he is quite right even if some of them are marginal enough to not necessarily need adding. He's asking to be unblocked and is looking for help - I've checked all the "accusations" and left links showing he is quite right on his talk page. Could an admin unblock him asap please? I'll keep an eye on his contributions and help him get the hang of things. Thanks Sophia 11:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll trust your research, SOPHIA, but can you please check contribs after I unblock. Thanks. ElinorD (talk) 11:10, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Elinor - I will keep an eye on him and flag up if he really does start causing trouble. Sophia 11:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I never disputed that most of his facts were true; however, his attitude and pedantry indicated that he will likely be a problem in the future. His facts were so marginal as to not merit inclusion (smell of the moon), or so pedantic as to confuse others (bangkok's name), and in one case (the U.S. state one) patently false, and he edit-warred to put it back. Just keep an eye on him. --Golbez 11:36, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I consider this closed now but am a little concerned that someone could interpret Jamie's contribution history as edit warring and boding ill for the future [58]. Unless he has used IP's that I don't know about he has only made a maximum of two edits to the articles he has visited and his edit summaries read to me as frustration rather than pedantry. He made one visit to a talk page where he was given a very curt reply - his only user interaction other than dealing with warnings on his talk page. [59] As to Bangkok - I personally find it very interesting that none of the locals call it by that name and consider the adding of facts such as this essential to ridding Wikipedia of its Eurocentric/North American bias. I will keep an eye on him as I'm concerned he may go off the rails due to his rough handling but he seems to be really understanding of why this all happened so I have hope. Sophia 12:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

You're concerned that someone could interpret his edits on U.S. state as edit warring? Especially when he put a patently false bit of information then used the undo button to keep it there? And as for Bangkok, we already have the native name there - the full name can and does go in the article on Bangkok. This has nothing to do with bias. --Golbez 20:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

2007 Pan American Games medal count

I fear that I may be running close to the 3RR so I've come here to suggest my worries. The page in question has been handled by one user User:João Felipe C.S for a few days now. I've stepped in several times with suggestions as to how to fix up the page more appropriately, but the user, who uses no edit summaries, refuses to allow anything I do onto the page, using his inability to speak English as his excuse not to hash out an agreement.

I don't want to take over the page myself, but at WP:OLYMPICS, a wikiproject that may have some claim of jurisdiction over the page in question, we have long-standing precedents for pages such as this. I would have hoped the user would take some of my suggestions as an editor, and even as a WikiProject member, but seeing as how the user cannot do this, I felt like I needed to seek some higher authority to address this issue. All I am asking is that the user recognize that others want to edit freely, too. _└^Jared_┘^┌_t^┐  19:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I have left a comment at User:João Felipe C.S's talkpage, which I copied to the article talkpage. You may wish to make your own suggestions or comments there (the article talkpage). It would be best if no changes to the format were made while waiting for any response/discussion. I hope this helps. LessHeard vanU 21:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I haven't done anything yet. And perhaps it may be better to wait until the games are over anyway. Thank you for leaving the user a message. I've left my own personal suggestions on the article talk page, so I'm awaiting a reply. I'm not going to make this too big a deal; I just wanted to ensure that the user didn't get a sense that if he edited a page long enough, he's the one that gets to take charge of it. _└^Jared_┘^┌_t^┐  22:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

User:João Felipe C.S responded quite civilly at my talkpage. If they are indicating they will be co-operative then you might try commencing a dialogue? LessHeard vanU 22:56, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Davenport

Resolved

User:Ctjf83 did a cut and paste move of the disambig page Davenport to Davenport (disambiguation) back in May, then redirected Davenport to Davenport, Iowa. Both pages have now had several edits made to them. Could somebody fix the messed up edit histories of both pages, and redirect Davenport to Davenport (disambiguation) with a protection so that the redirect can't be moved back to Davenport, Iowa? I don't think there is any consensus for that redirect. Davenport, Iowa is certainly not big enough to warrant having the name alone. Corvus cornix 20:57, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the heads-up, Corvus cornix. Keegan^talk 21:17, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I put the article at Davenport and not Davenport (disambiguation), because there is no main article at Davenport. If there were, then we'd use the disambig naming convention. Keegan^talk 21:21, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Keegan. Corvus cornix 21:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Hamid Yassin Adem

This article has been recreated after it was deleted at AfD - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hamid Yassin Adem. It was put to AFD on July 9 and closed 'delete' on July 15. --Bduke 21:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Speedied. LessHeard vanU 21:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

This was recreated again. I have speedied and salted. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 02:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Edit protected

Resolved

I request that three minor edits be made to the protected page Wikipedia:Requests for oversight:

• In the sentence "Click below and supply the "diff" of the revision which needs removal", link the word 'diff' to Help:Diff
• Please uncapitalise the word "admin" in 'Note to Admins'
• Please remove the unnecessary hyphens after '(faster)'

(sorry for posting this here, but Wikipedia talk:Requests for oversight is currently a protected redirect, and WP:RPP says one should only post an editprotected request there if the change is controversial/major) SalaSkan 01:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Done. Thanks, Salaskan. Keegan^talk 02:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Ethnic cliques ruling AfD?

May I point out that Ghirla has taken a copy of the thread and moved to the AfD-s talk.--Alexia Death 16:19, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and I've removed it. Changing the venue doesn't make this flamewar any more helpful. Neil ╦ 16:32, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

You should have left a link to the above discussion, lest it appears that Crum's revolting accusations of vandalism have any merit. It should be made obvious that no editor in good standing has seconded his opinion. If the thread was plagued by hysterical provocations on the part of Korps! Estonia, it also contained several helpful comments, unlike the discussion on the AfD talk page, which may be viewed as a model trollfest. And, for the record, I emphatically disagree with your advice to "let things lie". This is what I have done since May, until being subjected to the relentless witch-hunt on the part of one-purpose nationalist accounts. Wikipedia has failed to develop any checks against ethnic gangs who coordinate their activities in real life. The only answer I get is "let things lie", which is the same as "let the nationalists recruit as many bigmouths as they can, so they could bully you from Wikipedia". This attitude does not impress me at all. --Ghirla^-трёп- 07:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I have seconded Crum375's assessment of your behaviour. Digwuren 11:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:V unprotected

This is just a heads up that WP:V is unprotected and that people might want to keep an eye on it. Hiding Talk 13:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Budapest's one and only real name

Someone is writing the 'name' Buda-Pesth at the beginning of the article Budapest citing a 100-year-old 'source'. It can be misleading, because some English language users may think it is still used. That's NOT true. I don't want an edit war. Has anyone of you seen that form in the real world in the past decades? Come on, it's the capital of Hungary! Squash Racket 18:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

There is no reason to believe that this 100 year-old source is misleading (the term is still used in English sometimes). Squash Racket is fueling an edit war but he/she doesn't provide reasons as to why the source is not good enough besides the fact that it is a century old. Historia Regum Britanniae and the Domesday Book are a millennium old, should we disregard them? Reginmund 21:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

When it comes to spelling not in a historical context, certainly. Or are we going to change every The to Ye? Similarly, Korea used to be Corea - the article doesn't use it. MSJapan 22:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Ye was you in the formal form, not the.

OT, but I'll correct this; see William Caxton. He used y instead of the letter thorn in printing the word the, hence ye. MSJapan 19:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

But is it still in use? That would depend on which toponym. Buda-Pesth is actually still used, surprisingly. Reginmund 22:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

See WP:COMMONNAME. --Masamage ♫ 22:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I am Hungarian, Reginmund is not. I've never heard that in my life, but he clamis it is still used. Exactly where? In that 100-year-old book you are citing? Squash Racket 22:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Is that encyclopedic? Is that a RS? Yes or No. The article looks ugly w/ a protection tag. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 22:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

A quick Google search gives me less than 14,000 hits for "Buda-Pesth", and over 36 million for Budapest. Feel free to mention the alternate spelling, but its pretty clear which one is more common. --Masamage ♫ 23:27, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I've been over the source I have cited. Squash Racket still will not stubbornly accept a source because of its age. That is not an obstacle on Wikipedia. I never said that the archaic spelling was more common, I just said that it should be included as an English alternative. Reginmund 20:25, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I thought we'd reached a compromise where it was going to either be at the tail end of the paragraph, or in a separate section on the history of the name, correct? I've been off wiki for a day, I'm working on a proposed solution. If Reginmund and Squash Racket can agree not to edit war again over this until we can agree on a solution, I don't see why the page can't be un-protected. Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 20:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

OK with me. Only consider main article history section (archaically also (?) spelled as...) or alternative names for European cities? Buda-Pesth is archaic and was just a variant even in these times. Squash Racket 08:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I would consider Pesth (and by extension Buda-Pesth) an archaism in English. It was more common in 19th century and earlier than today. I would not expect to see it in any recent scholarly works. A quick reference to the version would not be untoward somewhere in the article. A redirect (if not already created) would also be in order. Carlossuarez46 23:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Google Web Accelerator and range blocking

Should I rangeblock 64.233.172.0/23, 72.14.192.0/24, and 72.14.194.0/24 based on evidence I found on this anti-Google Web Accelerator weblog page, and if so, which options should I choose? I would choose indef blocking with disabling both registered and anonymous users' edit access. I never rangeblocked before, so I would like a review of this action before doing it instead of going ahead and causing collateral damage. I ran the WHOIS and found that these ranges belong to Google, so I don't think that this blogger is trying to trick people into blocking other ISPs. Jesse Viviano 02:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

What is the issue with this accelerator? Please clarify why a block is needed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not too different from an open or anonymous proxy, in that anyone can use it and the real IP is masked - Wikipedia:Google Web Accelerator. (and presumably they can vandalise faster). -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 03:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, they should be blocked as open proxies. Neil ╦ 14:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked them. Jesse Viviano 01:53, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Request full protection for Template:album cover fur

Can I request full protection for Template:album cover fur, specifically to the version 15:28, 14 July 2007 Jogers.

This is the template in the form it was in when it was applied in good faith in over 400 image-pages.

It is also the form intended with references to its transcluded form on Image:JeffBeckWired.jpg, the example specifically instanced in the discussion on this page above, and in the active current discussion at WT:FAIR also. (The template meeting broad approval in both places).

For the good of those discussions, can we freeze the template in the form it was, on which basis the comments in the discussion were made. Otherwise reasonable discussion becomes impossible. If people want to show how they think the template could/should be modified, the way to do that is to put an alternative version on a scratch page, so we can all see both of them. But it really isn't helpful to modify the one in place, subverting the meaning of previous comments in the discussion; still less to remove it outright, as User:Thebainer seems repeatedly minded to do.

So, please, can we fully protect the template in the form it was, while policy discussions about it here and at WT:FAIR are ongoing?

Thanks, Jheald 10:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I think Wikipedia:Requests for page protection would be a better place to ask. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I'll do that if it comes up again. Jheald 19:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

vandal only account

I wish to bring to attention User:Tingiwingi, who, with the exception of one self-reversion, appears to be a vandalism-only account. In concordance with the guidelines at WP:AIV, I left a level 4 warning on their talkpage, and further noted the fact I would post here regarding this issue.

While this editor is not a prolific one, neither do they seem at all to be a benefit to the project. Please keep an eye (or two eyes) on this user as necessary. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 13:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Go to WP:AIV and list him under "user reported", you can give as a reason "vandalism after final warning", and an admin will block him for the appropriate period of time. Jackaranga 18:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

OK. There has been no such problems since the final (level 4) warning; if I see any in the future, I will do just that. Thanks, Baccyak4H (Yak!) 19:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Need help with talk page move

Resolved

I moved the page Southwest Athletic Conference to Southwest Conference, but the talk page associated with the former page was not moved. The move page message I received instructed me not to copy and paste the old contents to the new talk page. I am unsure of the protocol in this situation and would like some assistance. Thanks. ~ João Do Rio 19:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

You can't move the talk page because there was already an other page at the target. I've tagged Talk:Southwest Conference for deletion. Once it's deleted, you'll be able to move the talk page over (if it hadn't been done yet).

If you run into such a situation in the future, make sure the target talk page has no real content, and then place a {{db-move}} tag on it. To make things easier for the admin, feel free to give the source page name as a parameter. Od Mishehu 20:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Taken care of. Sasquatch t|c 20:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Nevada Tan

This article about a yet-to-be-notable German band of teenagers has been speedy-deleted twice, and its creator has recreated it a third time while stating that he will keep recreating it if it keeps getting deleted. Salting needed. THF 01:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Done. Grandmasterka 01:53, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Another solution; don't we still have the article on a Japanese murder where the people who did it was dubbed "Nevada-tan"? If so, make it a redirect and lock it. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Made the redirect; I'll leave it in protected titles, it still works fine that way. Grandmasterka 03:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Template problems in unblock requests

I have noticed that using templates for block reasons is causing some problems with unblock requests. [65] [66]. Something needs tweaking, but what? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 03:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Something would need to be done at {{unblock}} and {{unblock-auto}} to do "nowiki" tags. I managed to do that at the MediaWiki level, and now instead of their copying the text, they copy the MediaWiki formatting.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Vandal encouragement

For a past few days, an anon editor has been adding a rant about Poland being the most homophobic country to Poland. The edit has been questioned (ex. [67]) and has been reverted by myself and others ([68], [69], [70]). Recently he has registered as 4 bity muzyki (talk · contribs) and continued to add his rant to articles on Poland, Homophobia and Persecution, despite being reverted by various users (ex. [71]). After he has accused me of vandalizm and homophobia ([72], [73]), I have warned him that such behavior (violation of WP:NPA and disruptive edits in mainspace) is a blockable offense, but he has continued his behaviour. I have blocked him for 3h following the his latest edits and PAs, but I was very surprised to find an editor who is encouraging the newcomer to keep up his disruptive ways (I would advise you not to take Piotr's threats very seriously). I would very much appreciate advice on whether I should have not warned the editor in question that his disruption and accusations are a blockable offense, and should we indeed give the newcmers impression that they can start their wiki-stay by flinging accusations of homophobia and vandalism?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  14:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I would ask you not to give out warnings in languages other than English (even if the editor and you are both native-Polish), or at the very least, include a translation; how is another editor (or an administrator) supposed to know what was said if there's any other issues with the user? Dzienki :)

As regards your question, I would not describe the editor's addition as a rant. I think you are being unfair in describing it as such. I agree it is not best placed in Poland, and would be better placed in LGBT rights in Poland, as Ghirla suggested to him - this is not "encouraging the newcomer to keep up his disruptive ways". His accusing you of "vandalism and homophobia" was not appropriate, agreed. I am very surprised that you have blocked an editor you are engaged in a content dispute with, even if it was only for 3 hours. This seems to be a conflict of interest. What we should do is be nicer to new users; if you had done so and pointed him in the direction of the correct article for his well-meaning initial addition, instead of reverting him and warning him via his talk page. Neil ╦ 14:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I would like to add that this user is probably a WP:SPA sock. He has good knowledge of wikisyntax and wikipedia working. He also marks all of his edits as minor to avoid being detected by antivandalists. I do not think he is a "new editor" in the true meaning of the word. Suva 14:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

He may have also come from the Polish Wikipedia; knowing wikisyntax does not mean a new user is an SPA account. Please assume good faith, Suva. Neil ╦ 14:45, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Marking all (major) edits as minor definitely does not reflect good faith. Suva 14:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it probably means that little "mark all edits as minor" box is ticked in the preferences. AGF, once again. Keegan^talk 04:19, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Addressing issues point by point.

The user contacted me in Polish; I have a policy of replying in the language I am addressed as a sign of respect to the person if the issue doesn't seem involving other editors. Perhaps in that case I should have left a bilingual note, I will note that for the future.

There was no content dispute, I have been removing a rant (violating of NPOV, V and RS), questioned by several users, that had no place in the related article - in other words, cleaning up vandalism.

Further, I have not blocked him for disruption - although in retrospect I should have probably waited for him to break 3RR and block him then with little controversy. I have warned the user to be civil and respect our policies; instead he continued to accuse me of 'vandalism and homophobia'. I have blocked him (for 3h) to show him that WP:CIVIL/WP:NPA are not a joke, and neither are admin warnings. I believe a block that hopefully thought him we don't encourage such behavior will stop him from flaming others in the future; note that I have not reverted his more appropriate edit to LGBT rights in Poland.

I also believe that questioning administrator's warnings, particularly on new users talk, is wrong: it encourages them to misbehave (indicating that admin's judgement can be easily (and offensively) questioning, and that our policies are not worthy of respect); instead, it should have been done either on my talk page or on this noticeboard.

-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  15:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so what do we have to do to get Template:album cover fur back online?

So what do we have to do to get Template:album cover fur back online?

It didn't get protected, despite my request above. The edit warring started again. And then an admin stepped in to protect 'the wrong version'.

So, what are we supposed to do? The template had been applied to give bona-fide rationales to over 500 images. Rationales for which User:Seraphimblade wrote above "The Jeff Beck rationale is indeed well done". Rationales for which User:Durin reviewed every instance that I applied on Saturday, and pulled me up on just one. Rationales which now transclude the message "This image has no rationale. Please delete in in 7 days".

What are we supposed to do, when the users that have done this haven't left a single comment in the discussion on the template at WT:FAIR (here)? (Where the template had been broadly welcomed).

What are we supposed to do? Are a couple of editors allowed to steam in, blank a template like this, and then disappear again? Is this how wikipedia is supposed to work? What is it we are supposed to do, to get this back on-line? Jheald 22:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

God, what a mess. Okay. There is good reason to believe that every image needs individual attention, which is why boilerplate FU rationales like this are not considered acceptible. So, that's why this happened. That said, the rationale in this template was well-written and probably applies, exactly as written, to a wide variety of images (though I would drop "or critical commentary", that (1) usually isn't the case and (2) makes it look like a generic rationale). I think the template would be better to be simply deleted rather than marking images it is on as having no rationales: mass-marking of images for rationale issues is a problem because it makes it effectively impossible for anyone to fix those issues before the images are eligible for deletion, and we should always have a realistic opportunity to fix these problems. (Keep in mind it's a lot more work to make rationales than to delete those images that have been tagged for 7 days without a rationale). If someone thinks we should really mark every single one of those transclusions for deletion, be prepared to back that up by notifying the uploader of every image this template is transcluded onto, as the current wording requires. Mangojuice^talk 23:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree blanking or deleting the template would be best here. – Steel 23:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I think we really can't leave this in a state that implies the images on which this is transcluded should be deleted. Personally, I prefer blanking the template so that no damage is done (ie, adding the template to images will not cause those images to be deleted): if deletion is warranted, there's no reason not to go through WP:TFD. If any other admins agree, I'd say we should just blank the page. Mangojuice^talk 23:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

The template goes well beyond a boilerplate rationale. It is a superset that uses all of the fields of Template:Non-free media rationale, and then some. However, I acknowledge that it could use some improvement. The problem is that image tagging and deletions continue at a rapid pace with automated tools for deletion, and no coherent plans to help fix the images instead of deleting them, as the Wikimedia resolution and our own guidelines urge. If we can get people to hold off on deleting the images for a week, why don't we deprecate the template and tell people not to use it until we have a more robust template that people can agree on? For people who categorically reject use of templates in rationales, I have nothing to say and they can eventually provoke a show-down. The current policy is that you must produce a fair use rationale that is specific to each use, not that you have to type out every character on the keyboard with your fingers. There is no such prohibition for now and indeed Template:Non-free media rationale is in wide use, appearing on nearly 20,000 images. Wikidemo 00:00, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

As a disinterested party in this issue, I fail to see why boilerplate language that should be almost the same for a set of images shouldn't be supplied by a template, with the parts that need to be individual supplied as required parameters. Can someone please provide me with a rationale for banning templates in this context, or a pointer to a discussion where such a rational is provided? Because without an explanation, it's easy to jump to the conclusion that the only purpose for such a ban is to make life difficult for other Wikipedia editors. —David Eppstein 23:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Without getting into it too much, it has been brought up (I think by User:David Gerard? not sure) that fair use is a defense. It arises out of case law, not statutes, and is a way in which people may be excused from violating copyright, so since it's a defense, someone needs to participate in that actively. Personally, I wouldn't mind if the mundane crap was all in a template, all the stuff about the source (when predictable), the portion used, the competition, that Wikipedia is non-profit and educational, et cetera. We should just be careful to specify the particular reasons for the use of each image in each article. Even that can be boilerplated, it just had better be (1) specific enough to pin down exactly the reasons for use of an image in an article, and (2) applied only in cases where that explanation is correct. Mangojuice^talk 23:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use originated as a common law principle but it is written into the US copyright code. Calling it a "defense" is simply a technical distinction. However you want to conceive it, fair use is not copyright infringement. The problem arises is when people make the false distinction in order to argue that every fair use requires an affirmative act of justification in order to be legal, which is simply not the case. Anybody who attaches a fair use argument to an image use, templated or not, bears the responsibility of making sure their words are true. Absent the template people will cut and paste, and absent cutting and pasting they will write from the top of their heads or simply copy verbiage from somewhere else without the cut-and-paste functions. However you cut it, it is their responsibility to make sure the words are true, fit the situation, and offer a complete rationale. The templates give them a much better success rate at all three.

I spent a couple hours last week reviewing a bunch of fair use rationales and among the few that are out there, very few of them are cogent or sufficient. The success rate is about the same when people do it freehand versus using Template:Non-free media rationale, I would say about one in four. People adding rationales after getting a deletion tag are much better, I would say about 50/50. The new template increases that to perhaps 95-99% and, what's better, gives a good system for identifying, reviewing, fixing, and otherwise handling images after a rationale is added. Parameters that can be organized, such as name of label and artist in the case of album cover art, should be. Wikimedia Foundation tells us we should make things machine readable. Freehand rationales are unworkable for any automated system to sort through, either on Wikipedia or some downstream user who wants to decide what images they can use. Wikidemo 00:00, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

You're quite right; boilerplate rationales are unacceptable. However, most of the templates WikiDemo has been working on are not boilerplate; they're specific templates which guide and direct the necessary information for an appropriate rationale. It looks like, from the above, that they could still use some tweaking, but there's definitely nothing inherently wrong with the idea, in my mind. --Haemo 00:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Since Template:Album cover fur has been protected and added with a no rationale deletion tag, I'm going to go through all of these images tagged with the boilerplate rationale to make sure they are either:

1. Reverted back to the previous rationale that was specifically written for it..
2. Add a proper rationale for each one and seek out articles it's not being used properly on..
3. And make sure every image is within the 300px range, as fair use states it needs low resolution. You would be surprised how many people actually say something is low resolution and have gigantic images 800px by 800px.. — Moe ε 00:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow, that's a lot of work! Would you mind keeping a tall or log so we can tell the ratio of use to misuse, and also the various kinds of inappropriate use? Are you going to shrink the images somehow in the image file or just the template? I'm curious to know what if any policy we have for that, either for the image upload or for the use. I have seen some discussion but no policy. If there is something specific then of course the successor template could ask for that specifically. And if you find a tool or method to add competent rationales as quickly as the template, please share. The point isn't a template for the sake of having a template, but a way to do these rationales reliably and efficiently. Tks. Wikidemo 00:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

It's less that 450 images, so it's not a lot, I'll get to it seriously in a couple of hours or so. If I "shrink" an image, I am just taking the large image, put it on 300px, hitting preview, copy and pasting it to my clipboard, and re-uploading to Wikipedia as a low resolution image, it's not hard. See Image:NirvanaNevermindalbumcover.jpg, which is tagged correctly, or go to WP:FURG and look at some examples of written ones. It's not as quick as adding a template, but you won't get bitched at. — Moe ε 00:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

450 at a time? You must have fast fingers. The main point of the template is to help people go through these things quickly and effectively, so if you have a better system it could obviate the need. I see some interesting issues already with Nevermind. There are four uses, all squeezed into the same template instead of a separate rationale. Also, the existing template encourages people to simply say "yes" for low resolution without giving an argument as to why the resolution is okay. It is all implicit in setting that parameter to "yes." "Not possible; unique piece of art." is a shorthand rather than a full reason for why the image is not replaceable by a free use equivalent. The "source", listed as http://www.geffen.com/nirvana/, does not actually assert that is where the image came from. If you look at that page, the image is not there. Maybe it is somewhere on the site. If you look at all that in total, other than being not quite finished Template:Album cover fur is being blamed for the very things that Template:fair use rationale is approved for. Incidentally, for some reason the album cover is mistakenly attributed to the band HIM. Wikidemo 01:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikidemo, people have to fill out parts of Template:fair use rationale. Template:Album cover fur is not the same thing. -- Ned Scott 02:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

450 at a time, not quiet, maybe 450 in some time period, yes. Template:fair use rationale has links to what low resolution and what a replaceable free use equivalent means, so they can figure it out for themselves. The source could be better, and I will find the exact one later, just that was the one given by the uploader, I'll get an exact location of it if possible (sometimes images don't have exact links on site and are only findable if you start roaming the site, just for thought). We can't control if people will abuse the template or not, and it's safe to say that your template could be more easily abused than the standard fair use rationale template with empty spaces to fill the blanks. Thanks for pointing out that mistake I made, I have corrected it. — Moe ε 03:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Protecting a page is meant to make it easier to work out a compromise on it, that does not seem to be happening here. I don't see support above for keeping the page protected in its current version so I'm unprotecting. Haukur 00:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

This really kinda blows; I thought we were finally getting some traction on putting proper rationales for cover art in music album articles, and all of a sudden right in the middle of doing one I had to spend several minutes puzzling over how the hell a "this will be deleted" template is popping up where it shouldn't be, only to go off and finally figure out that the new FUR template got shanghaied.

I'll concede (for now) grudgingly that cover art in discographies isn't going to fly, and that the FUR template should not be used for those, but I see no legit reason to hose it for album infoboxes. Tarc 00:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• Other than the fact that such use is predominantly decorative, and thus not actually fair use, of course. Guy (Help!) 06:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• WP:FAIR gives the following guideline on appropriate use for cover art:

"Cover art: Cover art from various items, for identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary)".

There is a proposal, which has broad support at WT:FAIR, to re-word this more transparently, to read

"Cover art: Cover art for items, when used to identify the items in question in articles or major article sections about the items (i.e. the article or section must contain significant commentary in prose form about the item identified by the image).

So identification in this context is considered a valid use. Jheald 10:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Update: the template has now been modified [74], so that it no longer appears to give a generic rationale if the use is not specified. Jheald 10:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

There is also a possibility to put all the images using the template without the "use" parameter specified to a maintenance category in order to fix their rationales. I strongly disagree with the argument that the template should be banned because it's boilerplate. The possibilities of different usages of album covers in articles are limited and there can't be a unique rationale for each image. It's better to use the template with several options that produces a well-written rationale than copy and paste some generic one. Jogers (talk) 13:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)