Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive106

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Protected edit request on Template:Film[edit]

Would be very grateful if someone could implement this immediately. I've been changing over tags for WP Filmmaking, since they've joined WP Films as a task force when we expanded our scope, but unfortunately I forgot to change the template text to reflect the new project scope, so it's led to confusion amongst several editors. Many thanks! Girolamo Savonarola 19:16, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Done. NCurse work 21:02, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, got one more edit I'd like to see addressed immediately. Thanks again! Girolamo Savonarola 14:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist opened[edit]

An Arbitration case, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist, has been opened. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, David Mestel(Talk) 15:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Request for outside views on administrative action[edit]

(moved from WP:AN/I)

A little history. I ran across Homeopathy and blocked whig for edit warring. Then I posted a warning on the article talk page. After the warning, SM565 Orangemarlin SM565 Orangemarlin began to edit war again. After 2RR, I blocked both editors , Orangemarlin (talk · contribs · logs) and Sm565 (talk · contribs · logs) for disruption. After that, OM's block was challenged and Neil (talk · contribs) unblocked.


Because I disagree, and I am apt to repeat this behavior, by warning editors and doing short term blocks on those who perpetuate. I would like a review. Relevant notes are in the archives of Orangemarlin here and Neils page here and my page here.


Thank you for your time and attention. Mercury 16:41, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm inclined to think that it would have been a bit better to have short-term protected the page rather than using targeted blocks. Though it prevents further edits by others to the article for the length of the protection, it forces discussion and resolution (hopefully) rather than the antagonism that might be released because of a block. I don't have a problem with how you handled the situation, but I'd suggest that only after ≥3 reverts might a block be a good idea, and then consider: our blocking policy is to prevent damage to Wikipedia, not punish edit warriors. Nihiltres(t.l) 17:14, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
I think you handled the situation perfectly well. If our intention is to to prevent damage to Wikipedia, it is much better to block disruptive edit warriors, than to protect a page. Your block of 12 hours was not harsh, and came on the heels of a clear warning to stop edit warring, after which even a single revert would have clearly been disruptive. Isarig 17:28, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
There is no excuse for continuing to carry on with disruptive behavior after being warned. Mr.Z-man 20:12, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Context should be taken from the discussion on Talk:Homeopathy, as I fear Mercury isn't telling the whole story. It was pretty evident the single purpose account Sm565's insistence on an NPOV tag remaining on the Homeopathy article was both disruptive and against consensus, and Orangemarlin's only "disruptive" editing was to remove it, twice. A block for Orangemarlin was absolutely out of proportion and out order, and I am surprised Mercury is so keen to bring his poor judgement up again.
If our "intention is to prevent damage to Wikipedia" (actually, our intention should be to make a better encyclopaedia), perhaps we should not spank well-intentioned editors, risking losing them from the project. Particularly those in good standing, with a (previously, now) clean block log and thousands of good faith edits. And especially after this arbitrary "2RR" and no direct warning (the vaguely worded warning was on the talk page, not OM's talk page). If you felt an edit war was underway, rather than block more and more editors, you should have protected the article for 24 hours, or stepped away and let someone else handle it. The fact you suggest you are "apt to repeat this behaviour" is the real concern. Neil  21:48, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
The reason I suggested the review, was for my "aptness". This shows I am concerned for what the community as a whole thinks. The fact that I am open for review should eliminate the real "concern", I hope. Mercury 22:14, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
And I'll admit, I'm being succinct, but I would have hoped by linking the relevant areas, I would be telling the whole story. Mercury 22:15, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Mercury, I would suggest you disengage from this dispute; the fact you want to re-apply a bad block is concerning. Addhoc 22:26, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Disengaged. But I still reserve the right to comment in this thread. Additionally, I did not state that I would reapply the block in question, read the whole sentence... "by warning editors and doing short term blocks on those who perpetuate". Regards,Mercury 22:32, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

The block of Orangelmarlin was a bad block. Full disclosure, I voted against your RFA. That being said, one bad block doesn't mean you should lose the mop. Let this go, learn from it, and move on. AniMate 02:02, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
  • After seeing these online comments, and getting offline comments, I made a bad block. Orangemarlin, I apologize. I'll do better in the future. Mercury 00:59, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Community ban[edit]

What happened to the community ban link that used to be at the top of the admin boards? Has there been a change? I know of a case that will likely be there soon, or it's descendant form. This is a case dealing with multiple editors on several related articles. It needs to be a process with teeth, something enforceable.Rlevse 13:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

That page was retired. The separate ban page was decided to be a bit too isolated, and ban discussions should now go back to WP:ANI. - TexasAndroid 13:44, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
That's a trend now. Too much stuff is going to be on ANI soon and it'll be a mess. Then what exactly is the disruptive editing page for? I don't get a warm fuzzy from reading the page itself.Rlevse 14:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
I think the 'soon' and 'going to be' ships have already sailed. The 'Episodes' thread there has been going since September 30 (and will go at least another 48 hours since a comment was left today), and the top three ('Episodes', 'Prester John', and 'PR') take up nearly 2/3 of the board. It should be renamed /Confrontations or /Brawls. KrakatoaKatie 15:23, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
See the Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard#CSN gone, redirected to wrong place? thread for an ongoing discussion. All this redirection to ANI is a stupid idea in my opinion. It's already over-bloated and can only get worse.--Isotope23 talk 15:43, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Totally agree all this stuff going to ANI is silly. Rlevse 16:57, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
If someone has done enough to deserve a community ban, they would usually be guilty not of having caused an "incident", but of a long-term pattern of bad behavior. Doesn't that mean that this board would be more appropriate for discussions of community bans than ANI, which is overloaded anyway? Cardamon 18:34, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Not necessarily. The problem here is that too much is getting moved here. Community, check the Mfd on RFCN, etc and so on. Rlevse 20:05, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Why don't we move those threads to subpages, and make an "on-going issues" infobox at the top/side linking to them? Seems like a good idea too me; we could do that for all threads which last for longer than a week. --Haemo 20:44, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Be smart, use subpages, etc. Any section over 50kb should be moved to a subpage, and a link in the old section should be made to point to the subpage. —— Eagle101Need help? 02:18, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Caribbean~H.Q.[edit]

Why is this administrator not allowing me enough time or space to finish editing a page before reviewing my changes? I have asked him several times to desist reverting my changes to Wikipedia until I am finished editing the page. However he just keeps threatening and intimidating me.

I will not make any changes to the Wikipedia (I suppose it is a preserve of a few elite administrators) until he explains his attitude issues here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.163.34.220 (talk) 20:25, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I explained to him the reason behind the revert of a ovious violation of WP:NPOV (see here) in a edit summary, wich got promptly responded with a directpersonal attack on my talk page, following that I responded to that personal attack by telling him to read WP:NPOV and WP:NPA on his talk page, wich got anwsered with yet another personal attack both on a edit summary and his talk page, I'm not interested in continuing communication with this user so I told him to post this here so someone else can explain policy to him. - Caribbean~H.Q. 20:31, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
With regard to the point of letting you finish editing a page - there is no such right. As soon as you hit save what you have written is both recorded and liable to be edited... by anyone. There is a template (I've not seen it recently, so perhaps someone will link it) that comments that the article is being worked upon, but that is not binding and is voluntary. Would you perhaps like to comment on Caribbean H.Q.'s comment about inappopriate responses to their action, and why you feel that their review of your subsequent edits was unjustistified? LessHeard vanU 20:50, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
{{inuse}} — Dan | talk 20:55, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. LessHeard vanU 21:22, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Alkivar opened[edit]

An Arbitration case, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Alkivar, has been opened. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Alkivar/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Alkivar/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (t) 21:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikirage now in Spanish[edit]

I added the Spanish Wiki to wikirage. Portuguese as requested will be next. w3ace 21:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Move of discussions on WP:ANI[edit]

I've taken the largest two discussion and created subpages. Its too long to load and the page is unusable. Mercury 22:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I suggest this above, so I naturally approve :) However, I think adding some kind of headlining section "on-going incidents" that is not automatically archived would be a good idea. We don't want to ship these threads off to the great blue yonder without some way to point new people to them. --Haemo 03:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Is someone going to remember to manually archive these new subpages when the time comes? The bot won't get them. Something to consider, instead of moving threads to subpages, is to reduce the bot archiving timeout still further. (The timeout is now 24 hours for ANI). EdJohnston 03:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Sub pages can be archived in situ: they can stay in the same place. We should archive links to the subpages. - Jehochman Talk 04:12, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Undeletion[edit]

Hi. Can someone restore the subpages of User:Qxz/Redlinks for me? I think I may have come up with a use for them. Thanks – Gurch 00:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

done. ViridaeTalk 00:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Er... I said the subpages :) – Gurch 00:40, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Hmm. is there an easy way to find sub pages? ViridaeTalk 00:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
See Special:Prefixindex. hbdragon88 05:18, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
(ec) What are they? The names of the subpages, I mean. :) — Malcolm (talk) 00:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Never mind, they're in Qxz's deleted contribs. — Malcolm (talk) 00:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks – Gurch 01:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
OK, now it's done. — Malcolm (talk) 01:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Erroneous blocking[edit]

I did a horrible thing and blocked two newbies, at User talk:Revo1nyc and User talk:RodrigoMarro, both for vandalism to the Intro page, without stopping to think. I apologized to them and will not bite another newbie again. Bearian 00:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

And yet you passed RfA without issue, whereas Gracenotes was beaten into a pulp. (Not a personal attack, just an observation) – Gurch 01:16, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
So cool! (Sorry! This is the first time I've seen an admin contrite for their actions... :-) --Iamunknown 02:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Three "Hail Jimbos" and go and sin no more. :-) We all make mistakes (well, all except me. :P) Carlossuarez46 02:12, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
(Hmm... I should note that this isn't the first time... it just seems to be a rarity. --Iamunknown 04:29, 16 October 2007 (UTC))

This user has done nothing but inappropriately advertise his band[edit]

Resolved

[1] look at every single edit, they all involve advertising his band.Hoponpop69 01:26, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

4 days ago. Blocks are preventative. —bbatsell ¿? 01:29, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. — Thomas H. Larsen 02:28, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

A question about admins involved with articles[edit]

I hate to "tell on someone", but User:Zscout370 was heavily involved in a debate on Comparative military ranks of Korea, siding with parties that the insignia pictures were invalid where others claimed they were. He was directly involved with editing the article, but now has taken to deleting all of the images using his powers as an admin to support his views. The debate was also far from over, as I had contacted several sources trying to get the matter resolved. I reviewed Wikipedia directives and it clearly says admins shouldnt get involvoed in deleting things in which they were directly involoved with as an editor. If this is true, ZScout acted without authority [2]. Please clarify and again, this isnt to get him in trouble, only to ask a question. -OberRanks 14:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Were the images tagged with a delete tag first or did they meet speedy delete criteria?Rlevse 14:23, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Some of them were, some of them weren't. Two users found them on a website and called them "copyright violations" yet when I made long distance phone calls to the Army and Navy in Korea I was directly told they were the original publishers. The Navy then logged on and offered to verify this through a navy.mil account [3]. ZScout became involoved in the debate and then choose to ignore everything I said and simply started deleting the images before the debate was over. I dont think that was right and it did make me upset espeically since I had made the sacrifice to call Korea and get this thing worked out. I'm sure he meant well and will adhere to WP:AGF and WP:CIV. I just think it was against Wikipedia policy what he did. -OberRanks 14:27, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
i've asked him about this and to respond here.Rlevse 14:37, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
In the meantime, can we undo the damage's he's caused and undelete those pictures? I am very concerned about the junior enlisted insignia, which is nothing more than 1-4 colored bars on top of eachother, ineligable for copyright with some of the images he deleted not even appearing on the website where they were supposed to have been "stolen" from. He also deleted all of the South Korean general insignia, directly verified with CNFK as generic officer insignia public and free, and wiped out the entire Marine Corps enlisted section. The North Korean insignia do appear to have been taken from the website, I can live with that; but I am back to my original problem that admins shouldn't go deleting things in articles which they are personally involoved in editing, for sure not when the editing is disputed or when they are engaged in a debate with someone. -OberRanks 15:33, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
I think this discussion may be relevant here. KrakatoaKatie 15:29, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
This comment should also be looked at. [4]. I believe it violates WP:AGF and it is interesting that ZScout claimed no proof was provided after a U.S. naval officer offered to e-mail another member of the debate to verify that what was being said about these images was in fact correct [5]. I am sorry to get so hot, but this thing is really upseting me after my hard work to resolve it through the proper channels. -OberRanks 15:43, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the rank insignia images, a word about the commercial website http://www.uniforminsignia.net is in order...I ran across it while trying to clean up and update licenses on images utilizing the deprecated {{Military-Insignia}} template. The website, which exists based on donations, apparently creates GIF images of worldwide military insignia based on official descriptions of those insignia. The quality and consistent appearance of the insignia has apparently led a lot of Wikipedia editors to use those images to improve the appearance of our articles on military ranks...this linksearch shows images attributed to them on the English Wikipedia, and this one shows they are all over the Commons as well. The hundreds of images in those linksearches are only the ones that have been properly attributed...there are many, many more that have apparently been taken from that site without attribution. For example, look at this page on uniforminsignia.net, and compare the South Korean naval ranks at Image:RokNavCapt.gif and Image:ROKCmdrBrds.gif, which were formerly in this section of the Korean rank article (the one that is in dispute here)...the file format is identical, the file size is identical, the appearance is identical - only the filename has been changed.

The website claims copyright on the images it creates. As mentioned in the ANI thread linked by KrakatoaKatie above, the copyright claim may or may not be valid in 100% of cases. However, users with copyright expertise, such as Quadell, have made the point that the claim could be valid. In addition to the legal issues, it is morally wrong for us to take the images created by that site and use them ourselves in a fashion which is in direct competition with their commercial purposes.

Also, I am reasonably certain that OberRanks (talk · contribs) is a reincarnation of Husnock (talk · contribs), given the fact that OberRanks pretty much exclusively edits articles created or significantly edited by Husnock. This is not a violation of WP:SOCK; the Husnock account is inactive. But dubious and unverified copyright permission claims, and bad image sources, were a Husnock problem (as shown at User:Durin/Husnock images) and Husnock was cautioned about image copyright issues at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Husnock. Videmus Omnia Talk 17:55, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

There was also a game going on a few months back where a number of accounts were all accussed of being Husnock, some of them posting from various corners of the globe. That is a game I don't want to play. I suggest we leave any of that stuff out of this unless there is a clear violation of WP:SOCK. Also we should review WP:VANISH before we start bringing charges of other users being an alternate account of a departed user. -OberRanks 00:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
This is a copyright policy issue, not a content dispute. Zscout isn't accused of using his admin powers to push a POV or have an article read the way he wants. He is simply trying to enforce Wikipedia's copyright policies -- a laudable goal. OberRanks says he has spoken with members of the US armed forces who have apparently told him that the images on Wikipedia (and therefore those on uniforminsignia.net) are US armed forces versions of the Korean insignia (insigniae?). I am uncomfortable making copyright determinations based on somebody's say so. Perhaps OberRanks could obtain a copy of these insignia as produced by the US armed forces so this information can be verified. Or, as I have suggested, someone could contact uniforminsignia.net and ask them to license their insignia so we can use it. Because even if the official insignia themselves are in the public domain, the artistic rendering of the insignia created by uniforminsignia.net is most likely a creative work of authorship entitled to copyright protection. There may be non-free content issues as well, if the underlying insignia are subject to copyright. Either way, this is a copyright policy issue and should probably be addressed at WP:FUR or WP:MCQ, not here. -- But|seriously|folks  19:08, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
I'll back Zscout, alot of these images in this area are sadly lacking data on the source of the image. See the image problems mentioned at Template_talk:SouthVietnamWarMedals#Other_images. IF someone would like to, I'd suggest tagging the lot of those as unsourced. —— Eagle101Need help? 19:45, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with these images being deleted; in fact the NK insignia DO appear to have been directly taken from that webpage and should go. I am also in the process of getting the insignia replacement that the military claims to have. I just don't think ZScout himself should have done the deleting since he was directly involoved in the dispute and edited the article to suit his views. -OberRanks 00:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Since I was the one who was discussing this with you, it would be easier to just delete these myself. Unlike the other users, I do not believe OberRanks is the sockpuppet of Husnock and it is not my place to assume. Regardless, Ober does know about the uploads Husnock has done and I explained to him plenty of times that many of that user's uploads are either being deleted now or later. If you feel strongly about it, then a checkuser could be tried. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 01:54, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Another problem, the images at [6] were taken from the website [7]. I am honestly getting ready to the point where all images uploaded by Husnock should be mass nuked and we can either restore or recreate. How does that sound? User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 02:16, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not wild about mass nuking because of the possibility of collateral damage (i.e., deletion of perfectly good and valuable images), but I do think that user's uploads should be carefully scrutinized for images that fail our current upload standards, with a hair trigger on the alt-D. -- But|seriously|folks  03:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleting every image that user uploaded would seriously destroy several articles about military ranks, medals, and badges. Of course, that has already happened since 4/5ths of the images on Template:SouthVietnamWarMedals were deleted without explanation. Two of them I was personally involoved with investigating the Public Domain claim, these being the Vietnam Gallantry Cross and the Vietnam Campaign Medal. This entire affair has led me to believe that admins can pretty much do what they want and bend the rules when it suits them. We will see what happens when the government insignia chart at last is posted, but with the way things went here I am sure someone somewhere will challenge it, say its not real, or that someone isnt telling the truth. I repeat that my anger at this situation (which I apologize for) was mainly due that I was working to resolve the issues at hand, making phone calls to other countries, and meanwhile admins simply said images weren't free and deleted them. Its a lesson learned that we need to surround images with such iron proof and I guess thats what will have to be done. -OberRanks 09:29, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
This feel on deaf ears I guess, as User:Butseriouslyfolks is mass deleting every image uplaoded by this user wuthout discussion. A lot of the images did have problems, but some of them were legitimate. I dont think a single admin ahd the authority to delete all of these images without discussion. But, I gues sif he really did steal all of these images, he had it coming. -OberRanks 10:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
While not updated, [8] can provide us with hints. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 03:27, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I reviewed some of those images and there are many problems, the biggest being that alot of them appear to have been taken from the Army IOH and Randolph Air Force Base. But, there is the additional twist that I know the National Archives has a duplicate database of images which they control. I guess we could start over and delete the majoprity of the medals and badges images. A lot of the German/WWII info looks okay, but I'm not an expert. My one serious concern: I see there are several personal photos of that man which I think should be speedy deleted. The use rhas left Wikipedia and random pictures floating around on the internet, of which the subject doesnt have control over, can be badly misused. I would add speedy delete tags myself, but I have already been pointed as being connected to this man, if not the man himself, so I feel any action on my part would be misunderstood. -OberRanks 09:29, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I also began the process to draw some of the images. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 05:40, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
That is good, this matter appears closed. I tried to remain civil and adhere to good faith, if I was lax then I am sorry. A very frustrating situation but it seems like people aren't going to see my side of ti that some of those images were really not copyright violations. I guess they can all be reuploaded when people have time. -OberRanks 09:29, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
It is just early uploads being applied with today's cluestick, that is all it is. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 15:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

There are two related DRV nominations on today's log. GRBerry 17:23, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Difficult to tag users images for deletion when his talk page is protected[edit]

Hello, as the administrators do not encounter this kind of problem, I thought maybe they hadn't noticed the following :
Sometimes a user's talk page gets protected because he is blocked but vandalising his own talk page. This makes it difficult to request some of his images be deleted, as a user must always be warned before any deletion process may go forth. Normal level users have to use WP:RPP which is a bit silly. I'm not sure what can be done though. Jackaranga 16:05, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Do you not see the absurdity of what you've just asked [9] on RFPP? "Please leave this indefinitely blocked user these messages informing him of changes he needs to make to these image pages... which, oops, he can't do because he's indefinitely blocked" is roughly how it goes. On a side note, it is not the case that a user must always be warned before their uploads can be deleted. In this case no warning is fine. – Steel 16:13, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
There is an error in assuming that the user needs to be notified. There is no such requirement anywhere regarding deletion, or it needs to be removed if it has snuck in. Notification is a courtesy, done because the original contributor may know more and be able to solve the problems and because it leads to a better collaborative environment. In this particular case, those reasons don't apply because they can't solve the problem and they aren't here to collaborate. GRBerry 22:07, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
On a couple of the image tags, it says something like "deleted 7 days after the user is informed or 14 days in total". A lot of people take the word "speedy" literally and find the idea of waiting 14 or whatever days for a speedy deletion that must be done now painful. I would think that's why notification to a banned user is wanted - it would cut the deletion time down. All a bit pointless, really. ➔ REDVEЯS isn't wearing pants 08:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
If the user is banned, then I think we can forgo the warning. If another editor wishes to have the image restored due to new Fair use rationale or source, we can deal with it at DRV or at the deleting admin's talk page. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 08:17, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

John_van_v actionable conduct[edit]

John van v has written and posted a long personal attack on Eleland three times. (diff of attack text) I have removed the offensive content three times. I've written a polite note/warning at User talk:John van v, where I found that John_van_v has also posted the attack. Further, assuming maybe that Eleland deleted his attack, John van v made the following threat against Eleland (and arguably Wikipedia): "If he, deletes this text, I will post about him and the so-called Nativist, or anti-nativist group, on the Usenet, along with writing about the defeat of soft security at Wikipedia by the anti-nativists savants of the Nativist group." (emphasis added) Though a sporadic user, perhaps we should treat John van v as a newbie unfamiliar with our policies? That wouldn't be my inclination. In any case, since blocking may be warranted and I'm working on another dispute involving Eleland, would an admin please step forward to monitor and handle the situation? Thanks very much. HG | Talk 15:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/DreamGuy 2[edit]

This arbitration case has now closed and the decision may be found at the link above. DreamGuy is subject to a behavioural editing restriction. For the arbitration committee, David Mestel(Talk) 17:27, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Earn a cookie!!!!![edit]

I'll award a cookie to whoever closes this. -- Jreferee t/c 23:56, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

clearly a "no consensus" – Gurch 00:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I closed as delete all. Frankly, the "keep" arguments are very weak. I expect the love/hatemail and drv notices and the "you're an idiot" notes. Maxim(talk) (contributions) 00:13, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
A hearty "endorse deletion" from me. Good close. Carlossuarez46 02:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
All have already been recreated as redirects. - TexasAndroid 17:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't see anything wrong with that. -Chunky Rice 17:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Just that the official outcome was Delete, not Redirect. But I'm not jumping into the middle of this myself, just posting information. - TexasAndroid 17:12, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Why can no one who cites WP:CRYSTAL ever be bothered to read it? It doesn't say "delete all articles on any future events", despite what admin Maxim says in the closing... --W.marsh 22:59, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Blocking spammers[edit]

I ran across 3 user pages that were contained typical spam e-mail messages about winning the lottery and making easy money. I deleted the user pages and blocked the users. The users were CARLOSJGARCIA (talk · contribs · global contribs · logs · block log), Alds jaja (talk · contribs · global contribs · logs · block log), and Andrew chester (talk · contribs · global contribs · logs · block log). All three users had only made a single edit, and that was posting the spam on their user page. I know deleting the pages was not controversial, but should I have blocked them? One account hadn't been used in a year, one hadn't been used since February, and the last from August. None are currently active, nor have any good faith contributions. Should I have warned them instead of blocking them? I just wanted to run this by other users.-Andrew c [talk] 18:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think a warning is necessary for spam-only accounts of that ilk. Don't make the mistake I made and auto-block the IP. Bearian 18:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I believe I did leave the auto-block IP box checked. I am going to be away from the computer for a bit, so I will fix it later (or a bored sysop could fix my folly and I would be in their debt).-Andrew c [talk] 19:54, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Ok, fixed the autoblock. I'm still willing to hear if anyone disagrees with the blocks. If not, I'll consider this matter closed.-Andrew c [talk] 23:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I have no problem with a block of a spammer. If their only contributions are spam, then they aren't interested in contributing, they just want to get their product across. That's not what the people who support WP donate for so I say block them. If there are other contributions then I would warn so as not to bite by accident, but if it's all spam I have no sympathy. James086Talk | Email 00:04, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Pic of minor[edit]

Resolved: Thanks, android of Texas. --Ali'i 19:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Could someone help me decide if this pic is appropriate: Image:Retard.jpg. it's an unreferenced photo of a minor that was inserted into the Mental retardation article. I wouldn't have said anything except that it is a minor and could be a potential issue in that regard. --DanielCD 18:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't look appropriate anyway. I'm sure a proper picture of a mentally retarded person could be found. This looks vandalism to me. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:40, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I have put a db on it based on the name which is a personal attack, SqueakBox 18:40, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I'd definitely keep it out of the article in question. And it's unsourced, so I'd probably seek for the image to be deleted entirely from the project... (unless it is a self-portrait for the uploader's user page). But even then I'd force a re-name. Most likely it is speedy deleteable as an attack image. Mahalo. --Ali'i 18:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

On a side note: is there a reason we don't just salt this image name: [10]? I mean, if we want a picture, we would at least upload it under a less-derisive name. Mahalo. --Ali'i 18:44, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

That might be a good idea. --DanielCD 18:47, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I was going to propose salting as well, looking at the deletion history.-Andrew c [talk] 18:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Totally independant of this discussion (found the image because the page it was dropped on is in my watchlist for exactly this type of thing), I have deleted the image as an attack image, and already salted the file name as it has been deleted similarly as attack images 8-10 times previously. Enough is enough. - TexasAndroid 18:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that might have been the german kid that wen't off tap at his computer and smashed the keyboard. ViridaeTalk 06:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Jak3m (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log)[edit]

Suspicious account. I was RC patroling using Lupin's filter, and I saw it adding a link to "petitiononline" to Blackout (Britney Spears album). The term "petitiononline" is a flagged term. You may want to check it out.--Avant Guard 20:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of African Americans (2nd nomination)[edit]

Hi, I'd like a review of this AfD. Did I do this properly? Did I close it too early? Bearian 01:10, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you closed it early. AfD generally stay open for 5 days. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old will list the dates that are ready for deletion. Looks like you were 25 hours too early. It wouldn't have hurt to waited it out. -Andrew c [talk] 02:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Austin_Lonestars[edit]

Will someone close this AfD, including its related group of articles listed, as Withdrawn. I am withdrawing my AfD for them but can't find any procedure for withdrawal so I'm assuming an admin has to do it. Thanks. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 18:12, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Andrew. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 18:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I had closed this as withdrawn by nom. However, a user brought it to my attention that they wanted at least 2 of the articles deleted, so instead of making them relist, I have simply undone my closure and reopened the AfD. Sorry for the confusion.-Andrew c [talk] 22:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't matter that another user wants them deleted (I'm assuming it was User:Jreferee). I nominated them for AfD and have since withdrawn the nomination. It should be closed. If that other user wants them deleted, then he or she can re-AfD them. That only makes sense. The AfD only had 2 participants besides myself as the nom, that being a question from someone and then User:Jreferee's Deletes/Keeps to the respective group of articles in the single AfD. With only one person actually having cast any consensus opinion, participation in the AfD to the point where my withdrawing the AfD would be inconsistent with others position is impossible and this AfD should be withdrawn, as requested by me who nominated it in the first place. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 22:39, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I'll draw your attention to Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_process#Withdrawing_a_nomination. Please, if you want, strike through your nomination and mark at the bottom that you want to keep the articles, this way the closing admin knows where you stand now. However, the discussion is active and shouldn't be closed prematurely. -Andrew c [talk] 22:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Andrew. However your reference is to someone's opinion on a talk page and isn't official since I don't find it listed anywhere in the actual official Deletion process. If your reference is indeed policy, then it shouldn't be on a talk page but rather it should be on the official policy page. No? -- ALLSTAR ECHO 23:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Alternatively, I could ask you for an official policy that states that you have the right to withdraw nominations (which you said you couldn't find in your first post). I imagine if we allowed nominations to be withdrawn after discussion had started, it could lead to problems, especially at CfD, where regularly someone lists something to be renamed and it may end up being deleted. Anyway, hopefully someone else watching this page can comment here so we can have a third opinion. As it stands, I personally do not intend to close this debate early, and if the final outcome is not to your likings, you are welcome to take the matter to WP:DRV. Sorry again for all this confusion.-Andrew c [talk] 23:22, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
It's not a matter of the outcome being to my liking. Thanks for not assuming good faith. Based on the reason I opened the AfD, that being because of Malmö Devilants having been up for AfD then under Deletion review and ultimately reversed from deletion. I could understand if it was an issue of people wanting AfD's closed because of not liking the apparent outcome but that wasn't the case in this matter. It was a case of if Malmo Devilants were to be deleted, then so should the others.. since Malmo Devilants wasn't deleted, nor should the others be because they are all similar articles with all similarities of lack of sources and such. Therefore, again, it should be closed as Withdrawn. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 00:09, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
I apologize. I wasn't trying to drag this out further or antagonize you. I guess my intent wasn't clear in my last post. I do not wish to continue discussing this, so I'll try to pass the hat. Are there any admins here willing to close this AfD early? Why or why not? Thanks.-Andrew c [talk] 01:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Andrew c is correct. Once someone agrees to deletion, we don't close AFDs as withdrawals. The closest thing to it in writing is the second bullet of WP:DPR#NAC, but that is standard practice. The other person's delete argument has an equal right to be heard and evaluated as your original nomination. It would be overly bureaucratic to close this AFD and force the person who believes it should be deleted to open a new one. Simply cross out your nomination statement and add a keep recommendation as to why you think it should now be kept. -- JLaTondre 01:23, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Total and utterly ridiculous. If I open something, I should be able to withdraw it. But whatever... -- ALLSTAR ECHO 01:55, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
You are able to withdrawal your opinion. You are not able to withdraw another person's opinion. The nominator does not own the AFD and is not allowed to remove opinions they do not agree with (whether keep or delete). And that is exactly what you are asking to do. The other user has a right for their opinion to be evaluated in the close and it would be more ridiculous to allow you to unilaterally override their opinion. Speedy closes in the case of withdrawals are for when there are no delete recommendations. -- JLaTondre 11:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Kaihsu[edit]

See the bottom of his userpage:

Copyright © 2003/2007 Kaihsu Tai. Moral rights asserted on all original contributions.

Someone may want to explain to this editor that he cannot assert moral rights or copyright on any of his contributions. 68.214.75.69 23:44, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I would delete it. Anyone esle? Bearian 23:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete the page or just the copyright notice? I think that since this is an active, good faith contributor we should be cautious about how we approach this in order not to offend or turn off the user. A polite note explaining that when Kaihsu clicked "saved page", they were "agree[ing] to license your contributions under the GFDL" should be a good start.-Andrew c [talk] 00:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Copied from my talk page:

I have had this kind of discussion around Wikimedia projects several times, and each time the conclusion was that I cannot license under GFDL (or cc-by-sa) without asserting my copyright on the work in the first place (either implicitly, as many other contributors do; or explicitly, as I do on my user page). The first sentence of section 1 of GFDL speaks of ‘the copyright holder’, which refers to me when the work is my original contribution (not Wikimedia or Free Software Foundation). (In fact, by including the copyright notice, I am simply following the instructions included with GFDL.)

Licensing under GFDL is not the same as donating into the public domain, which I also do from time to time with specific works on Wikimedia projects.

I assert my moral rights on the work only to make the defence of GFDL (by the ‘community’, whatever that means) stronger. (For example, in the case that someone contravenes the GFDL terms by copying Wikipedia content without crediting the contributors.)

The notice I put on my user page, therefore, is done in good faith and with a correct understanding of the licences (GFDL and cc-by-sa). Objections to that notice, I am sad to say, is based on an unclear understanding of the licences. – Kaihsu 10:30, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Kaihsu is correct, although IANAL. We retain copyright on all our contributions, and can repackage them and re-use them as we see fit, even though we have also released them under the GFDL. The GFDL is actually somewhat sketchy in this regard, since it merely states that if you release something under a license incompatible with the GFDL, you terminate your rights to reuse, which implies you can be sued for breach of copyright by the holder. As I am the copyright holder of my contributions, I can do whatever I see fit with them, as I am unlikely to sue myself. Another reason why the GFDL is such a bad license for a wiki. It's also possible that the GFDL may allow copyrighted data to be used within Wikipedia, depending on the reading of section 7. I think a good lawyer could make a good case there, but that's all hypothetical right now. This really was a bad license to choose. Hiding Talk 13:20, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Editors definitely retain moral rights to their work if they want, and in many cases even if they don't want to. This message is not a problem. WilyD 16:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Anyone got 15 minutes spare for WP:NPA?[edit]

I wonder if someone wouldn't mind popping by to WP:NPA for 15 mins or so to review the talk page, and the policy page, and offer their conclusion as to whether or not a disputed section should remain or be removed? Assistance wound be greatly appreciated. Thank you. Privatemusings 05:55, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Nobody will ever be satisfied with the wording of that paragraph, so long as there are disruptive individuals here who relish the ability to call any link they don't like an "attack" and block for it – Gurch 16:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Put in my 2 cents. Rlevse 16:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Truthiness on WP:TFA[edit]

Will someone think of the elephants? Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 06:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored for the sake of elephants. 1 != 2 06:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
reality is now a featured commodity--victor falk 07:40, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Rbraunwa[edit]

I have just received an Email that Rbraunwa has passed away on 14th October. Can anyone verify, has anyone else received this email as well? Gryffindor 08:58, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

No links or other info in the e-mail? —Wknight94 (talk) 14:38, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
I also received the e-mail, but have been unable to obtain independent confirmation yet (no death notice in the LA Times, since the e-mailed obit mentioned that he died in Los Angeles, nor in the Seattle Times, since Seattle is the location of the as-yet-unscheduled memorial service) -- so I've been holding off posting here. I forwarded the e-mail I received to the Wikipedia Signpost, and I'll post more as soon as I am able to obtain confirmation. If it is true, as it is likely to be--since I received the e-mail at the address I used to correspond with him--it is a very sad day for Wikipedia, as well as for everyone who knew this very fine man. Antandrus (talk) 15:39, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Main Page[edit]

Pls see WP:ERRORS. Thanks. --74.14.19.139 13:52, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Canvassing for AfDs[edit]

I have found what appears to me to be a crudely-worded canvassing for nominations to AfDs here: [11]. Is this legitimate? Should I mind my own business? Bearian 15:10, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

That link goes to a diff which shows someone fixing a link in a message they just posted. I see no mention of anything to do with artiles for deletion – Gurch 15:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Canvassing is a large scale effort. Informing an editor or two of a debate is perfectly acceptable. WilyD 15:59, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Canvassing for votes is not good, but this appears to me to be that he's asking for noms for afd to clean up a category, which by itself is okay IF the articles nom'd indeed are legit afd candidates. Suggest you keep an eye on what follows.Rlevse 16:00, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
this was a message sent to a single editor--I am not quite sure what the meaning of the comment was, but I see it as a request to undelete for the purpose of using the content more appropriately. I don't see it as Canvassing. DGG (talk) 16:18, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the input. Bearian 16:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

GallifreyanPostman, indefinitely blocked[edit]

I indefinitely blocked GallifreyanPostman (talk · contribs) for ongoing disruption. I noticed his page blanking] of Microsoft Office Communicator, and started reviewing his contributions which I invite others to do. I'm not against this block being given an expiration time so if other's would like to review by all means please do. Keegantalk 23:28, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

A little history here. This ID has a history of good edits interspersed with occasional juvenile vandlaism. After an earlier indef block, the user claimed that there were actually two people involved, brothers. The good edits were from the proper owner of the account, the vandalism from a brother who would hop onto the first brother's computer, bring up the logged-in WP account, and proceed to vandalize. This explanation earned an unblock. I was then watching the account, and the pattern continued, so I started giving inceasing blocks after the vandalism, and stern warnings on the user's talk page that, assuming that there were two people involved, the first brother had to prevent his sibling from vandalizing, one way or another, or the account would soon find itself indef blocked again. In June, when I reached a 1 week block, I issued a "last chance" warning. Any more vandalism from the account after the week's block would result in an indefinite block. I watched closely for the next couple of months, and there were only good edits. I stopped watching as closely, and apparently at some time recently the vandalism resumed, and Keegan made good on my last chance warning. I thus reluctantly endorese this block. Reluctantly, because I would be similarly reluctant to have indef blocked him myself if I had caught the resumption of vandalism, though I would have still done the indef block. There are good edits from the account, but they are not IMHO critical enought to outweigh putting up with vandalism from the same account, one person or two. - TexasAndroid 17:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
After consideration and some off-wiki discussion I have given the account an expiratory time of one month with a severe shake of the finger. Keegantalk 18:46, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

89.172.198.53 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log)[edit]

User from this account constantly keeps defacing and vandalizing Vrlika and Kukar. Worst is that he/she deletes whole sections, changes whole sections to his POV and deletes "citations needed" entries. Please address. Kukar 20:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I note that the "talk" link is red. Should you not try asking for their reasons? LessHeard vanU 21:22, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, sections which you added and which are obvious POV. This was emphasized to you more than once and by more than one user, yet you continue your little edit war. Deleting historical references, sources and info is vandalism, not revert of such vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.172.193.65 (talk) 21:28, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Mmmmm... bit slow tonight, but I've just noticed a similarity between article and complainants username. I think that this appears to be a content dispute, the only point for admins to consider is the appropriateness of the username - given the articles edited. LessHeard vanU 21:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't know who is right or wrong here, but the IP user has been editing those article under similar IP addresses in the past, which may make it look like several users support his point of view. This is the hard thing when people don't register and use dynamic IP addresses you can never engage in a conversation with them, because they won't even see they have a message on their talk page. Jackaranga 09:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
From what I have added I have also tried to add citations. What I find a problem with is that what others (ie. dude with the ip number) do is delete whole sections from what is added and then add info that when asked to put a reference they delete the reference. I have not deleted anything historically referenced. If I did I appoligize. The problem is the deletion of whole sections and anything to do with a particular ethnic group on these pages. Kukar 19:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Move Template:Soviet zones of occupation back to Template:Soviet occupation[edit]

User:Dojarca nominated Template:Soviet occupation for deletion here: Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_October_4#Template:Soviet_occupation, however the result of the debate was Keep/no concensus. Within hours after the closure of the debate, User:Dojarca has moved the template twice [12], [13] without any concensus. Clearly this is a controversial move and a concensus should have be reached first. However User:Dojarca edited the re-directs so it is not possible to undo the moves. Could an admin assist in moving the template back to its original title and clean up the redirects, and protect it from further moves until an adequate discussion for any potential moves is conducted. Thanks. Martintg 23:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I moved the template back. Please contact the user regarding establishing a requested move for the page. Keegantalk 05:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
And Dojarca moved it once again. -- Sander Säde 07:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
I've protected the template temporarily. There is virtually no discussion on its talk page. You should discuss it there. DrKiernan 08:18, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Why did you protect it without moving it back where it was before one sided moves!?--Alexia Death the Grey 08:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Protection policy: "pages protected in an edit war are protected in whatever version they happen to be currently in. Protection during an edit war is not an endorsement of the current version. Editors should not ask for a specific version of a page to be protected or, if it has already been protected, reverted to a different version. Instead, editors should attempt to resolve the dispute on the related talk page." DrKiernan 08:24, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
One sided move is not an edit war. Thus rules of edit waring do not apply. However, I you have made your decision to endorse this name as I see, so...--Alexia Death the Grey 09:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree, this is not an edit war, but a move initiated by a person whose nomination for deletion failed and thus is contrary to the outcome of the TfD, which was Keep. Unless ofcourse DrKiernan is claiming that Dojarca's reverting the action of an uninvolved admin User:Keegan is edit warring, but then in that case the appropriate action would be to block Dojarca, not protect the template. Martintg 09:35, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Martintg, I seen no discussion on the talk page that people oppose the moving. Neither I was notified. Please refrain appealing to admins before discussing issue on the talk page.--Dojarca 08:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
The result of the TfD, which closed hours before you moved the article, was Keep, so obviously there are many people opposed to the move, there was plenty of discussion during that deletion debate. Martintg 09:18, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
It was no consensus for delete (only because your mob of POV-pushers votes). Move was not discussed there. Wikipedia is not democracy. If we need enforce neutrality, we do not count how many POV-pushers agree.--Dojarca 09:40, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Please refrain from you incivil remarks regarding "POV-pushers". There was also no concensus for a move, because in your nomination you suggest: "Alternatively the template may be moved to Template:Soviet zones of occupation with heavy rework", but even this was not supported. Martintg 09:58, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Most people outside your close company supported the deletion.--Dojarca 03:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
And most people outside your close company supported keeping. -- Sander Säde 05:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
copied from Template talk:Soviet occupation zones
Well, I don't have a bone to pick in this fight, I was reverting a move that was done without consensus. Once such a bold action is challenged, it should be discussed before reverting again. The closure of the TfD did not say to move the title of the template, nor was there a requested move filed. There are better ways of handling this than saying Wikipedia is not a democracy and promoting unilateralism. Work it out amongst yourselves, I have nothing else to contribute to this debate. Keegantalk 18:36, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Block of Melsaran[edit]

All,

This is a note to flag-up (for transparency and courtesy) that I have blocked Melsaran based on CheckUser evidence of suspected sockpuppetting, having discussed it with other CheckUsers and the Arbitration Committee.

I'm aware that Melsaran has been active in areas of policy discussion amongst others, so thought it best that you all be aware and not be surprised when discovering their absence.

Obviously, I would greatly appreciate it if you could refer queries, unblock suggestions etc. to us (on arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org), though I'm happy to proxy the thoughts of any of you if you would prefer.

Yours,

James F. (talk) 16:53, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Can you disclose any details about the sockpuppets? Was the User:Melsaran account the puppetmaster or the sock? I'll understand if certain info can't be discussed in public for privacy reasons, but I'd imagine these would be the obvious questions. Thanks, Chaz Beckett 16:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Sounds like the sock based on the message given to Melsaran on his/her talk page. —— Eagle101Need help? 17:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
I think you're right. I would like to know which other account(s) were linked to Melsaran, especially since he was heavily involved in discussion on an ArbCom case involving an alleged sockpuppet. Chaz Beckett 17:18, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
This is completely insane. Melsaran is a good editor whose contributions reveal a history of constructive edits. If the ArbCom has some evidence against him, they need to bring it out in the open; they have no right to block based on some covert discussion amongst themselves. I will unblock him unless the ArbCom provides satisfactory evidence. "Privacy reasons" don't cut it. WaltonOne 17:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Walton, the reason we appoint ArbCom is so they can make these tough calls. They wouldn't do it this way if he was simply using a couple of extra accounts to votestack. This will be something pretty serious. I don't wish to be too blunt, but if you unblock someone blocked in such circumstances by agreement of ArbCom, it would seriously call into question whether it is appropriate for you to continue as an administrator. WjBscribe 17:27, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Fine, I'm not really going to unblock him. It was a threat made in rage. However, I do think that we need openness and accountability on these issues. WaltonOne 17:31, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
"Privacy reasons" DO cut it. [14]. --Ali'i 17:22, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
And unilaterally overturning an action of arbcom is a Really Bad IdeaTM. Raymond Arritt 17:24, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Actually the ArbCom has every right to block a confirmed sockpuppet. I do agree that releasing evidence would be helpful, but this may not be possible if there are legitimate privacy concerns. Starting a wheel-war isn't going to accomplish anything other than maybe getting your sysop bit revoked. Chaz Beckett 17:25, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
But I can't believe that everyone's just acquiescing to this, without asking the ArbCom to produce their evidence. Fairness and due process seem to have been completely ignored here. If the ArbCom wishes to deprive this encyclopedia of a good editor, they can damn well explain their reasons. WaltonOne 17:26, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Give it some time, I suspect from James F's message to him that this is partly to offer Melsaran an opportunity to resolve this matter privately without all details being splashed across the Wiki. WjBscribe 17:29, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
I guess some of us have a little faith that the ArbCom isn't some cabal blocking users all willy-nilly. From what's been mentioned, this is a block based on Melsaran being a sockpupper of banned user. It doesn't matter whether you consider him to be a "good editor", he doesn't get to edit at all if he's already been banned. Chaz Beckett 17:30, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Actually, that hasn't been said at all. Just that he's a "suspected sockpuppet". Of another active account? Of a blocked user? A banned user? And if it's "suspected", how is this an acceptable block without a single bit of discussion with the community or a single bit of evidence provided to it? —bbatsell ¿? 17:39, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Users aren't blocked for simply being a sockpuppet, but for being a sockpuppet of a banned user. That much can be deduced from what's already been mentioned. The ArbCom doesn't have to get permission from the community to block and I doubt the block would have been placed if it wasn't compelling evidence. That said, I would like to know who he was a sockpuppet of. Chaz Beckett 17:45, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
I'd just like to know one thing: sockpupet of whom? EdokterTalk 17:32, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
The short answer is that we don't know for sure who he's a sockpuppet of. The longer answer is that the checkuser evidence is strongly suggestive of sockpuppetry, and we have one particular person in mind as the sockpuppeteer (but we aren't sure enough to say who it is). That person we suspect is most definitely banned from Wikipedia. Raul654 17:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
This makes zero sense to me. How can you say that the evidence is "strongly suggestive of sockpuppetry" without knowing who the sockpuppeteer is? That's the equivalent of saying that the evidence is "strongly suggestive of Meslaran editing Wikipedia" since there isn't a correlation to a sockpuppeteer. And if you don't know, then how can you block without discussion?!?! This is absurd. —bbatsell ¿? 17:48, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
If we said things like that, then it'd make it easier for people to take steps to prevent us detecting it. But I can assure you it is entirely possible to be certain someone is a sockpuppet, but not be sure who the sockmaster it is. --Deskana (talk) 17:50, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Wait - you think it was a sockpuppet of a banned user, you don't know for sure? So why the block before being perfectly positive about the who's and what's? I understand there is some degree of urgency when it comes to banned users but there was no immediate disruption - shouldn't blocks be made on the basis of concrete evidence, not hunches? This is the sort of shit that sends WR into a tizzy. ~ Riana 17:51, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to sit back and watch this. Can you please follow up ASAP? Bearian 17:34, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
I presume that it is the information as to the identity of suckpuppeteer that cannot be revealed at this time. There really isn't much we can do. I would expect a follow up statement on this at some point in the future, but lets leave ArbCom to do their hjob... WjBscribe 17:35, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
  • In the block post, Melsaran was directed to contact us. We posted here so the community will be aware of the block. We are trying to handle this with as little disruption as possible. Please hang in there with us as we deal with this issue. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:38, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Agreed with WJB, please let ArbCom do their bit. They don't generally leave actions unexplained so there's obviously a good reason for it this time around; I'm sure we'll be told enough in good time. ~ Riana 17:40, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but this fact should probably be noted on some rather heated AFDs (see the list here) which User:Melsaran contributed heavily to. shoy 17:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

This whole thing is ludicrous. It really is. Melsaran was not, in any conceivable way, disrupting Wikipedia. If he was a sockpuppet of a banned user, but wasn't doing any harm, why not give him a second chance? And if you're not even sure he was a sockpuppet of a banned user, then why drag his name through the mud by pre-emptively blocking him? WaltonOne 17:55, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
If he's banned, he has the potential to do harm to the project and is therefore not welcome to edit. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:59, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Anyone has "potential to do harm to the project". He had been making good-faith, productive edits for some months. If he had started making disruptive edits, I would thoroughly endorse the block; but I don't see that there's any need for pre-emptive blocking. WaltonOne 18:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
If you're banned, you're banned for a reason. I also beg to differ about him being disruptive - he made some very point MfD and AfD noms and was often argumentative in discussion. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:04, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
I am argumentative in discussion, and proud of it. Are you going to block me? One of the best things about Melsaran was his ability to stand up to the Wikipedia establishment and say what he really thought, rather than parroting the mindless groupthink that fills most discussions around here. That isn't disruptive. WaltonOne 18:06, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
There'd better be some really good reason for not revealing this info and for doing it. I wouldn't block someone at WP:SSP on this little info. And sock of whom?Rlevse 17:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
The point is, they have CU and probably for privacy reasons, they can't reveal who it is. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:59, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, this one was a sockpuppet, alright. I always knew there was something very dodgy about him. Check his first edits: the edit summaries there, and the edits themselves, display a level of knowledge about the workings of the English Wikipedia that work on the Dutch Wikipedia simply doesn't explain. This should have happened quite a while ago, actually. We're lucky he didn't pass RFA. Moreschi Talk 18:00, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Agree. This block should not come as a surprise to anyone. – Steel 18:03, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Erm... there's nothing against policy about having had previous accounts or being familiar with Wikipedia's inner workings. Nothing. Zip, zilch, nada. If the previous accounts were blocked or banned, then there is a problem, but there has been zero edit-based evidence presented (again, that's zero), and the check user evidence has led to a "suspicion". I'm sorry, but that's simply not enough for a block like this. I have no idea if he's a sock, I normally trust our CUs and ArbCom implicitly, but the lack of evidence or justification provided in the block of a productive editor who didn't pass the duck test is unacceptable. —bbatsell ¿? 18:06, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
I can deal with the privacy part. I don't see why we can't know of whom he's a sock. Rlevse 18:05, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
There are comments above that at least some of his actions, XfDs, for instance, might have been somewhat disruptive. Regarding the other comments you made, we really can't know until and unless the evidence is put forward. Unfortunately, I can imagine that, in some cases, the evidence ArbCom used to make this decision might not be information which is already available to the rest of us, and might be such that it isn't likely ever to be available to us, maybe because of revealing priveleged info about that editor or maybe even someone else. Those are rather unusual circumstances, but they are certainly within the realm of at least possibility. I think that ArbCom's record of apparently not taking this sort of action in the past may indicate that in fact there might be some unusual factors involved, which are causing them to act in this particular way. John Carter 18:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
I'd say let them work it out...let's not start a pie fight over this just yet. Assume good faith and all that...they'll update as necessary. RxS 18:04, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
My problem is that it appears, at this point, to be a half-assed suspicion at best. Have we learned nothing from our outside critics? I was not a very big fan of Melsaran, I opposed his RfA because he didn't pass my sniff test, but I'm having a bit of an issue with this. ~ Riana 18:04, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
No, you are misinterpreting the situation from Raul's wording. This is more than a half-suspicion. The evidence is complex and too difficult to explain in a sound bite. One checkuser discovered the account was suspicious and followed up. After getting firm evidence he presented it to ArbCom. We discussed the best way to handle it and decided on this course of action. FloNight♥♥♥ 18:13, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
OK, thanks FloNight. I appreciate your response. ~ Riana 18:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. Whatever happened to the principles of natural justice, and being innocent until proven guilty? (And, to pre-empt the inevitable cries of "wikilawyer!", these are principles which apply to all human power-relationships. Most private organisations, including companies and universities, are expected to respect basic procedural fairness in their disciplinary procedures, and we need to do the same.) WaltonOne 18:08, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


No we don't. What we need to do it stop wasting the committee's time. If/When they can say more, they will. Until they do, stop asking them to do so, it's not going to change their minds and quite frankly it's getting old. ^demon[omg plz] 18:13, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
If they're not willing to disclose their reasons for blocking, then they should unblock until they can do so. And how can you assert that we "don't" need to respect natural justice and fairness? WaltonOne 18:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
As a lawyer, can I point out that "natural justice and fairness" usual means the accused (and his lawyer if he has one) knowing the case against him. It usually does NOT mean revealing this case to the entire world (usually quite the opposite). WjBscribe 18:24, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
The only "rights" here are to leave and to fork. Handling cases like this is their job, and they need to be able to do it without getting hassled by people that are not patient enough to let a process proceed without their immediate approval. RxS 18:22, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Oh, get over it. This is just a wiki, there's no real life rights being affected. The ArbCom, whose members are elected for the ability to make good decisions, decided that it was in the best interest of Wikipedia to block Melsaran based on evidence of abusive sockpuppetry . Just because they haven't yet shared this evidence doesn't mean that it isn't compelling. The ArbCom is doing its best to balance privacy concerns while also doing what's best for the project and I respect that. Chaz Beckett 18:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

This discussion is generating more heat than light. Lets revisit this matter later when more information is available. Some are assuming that Melsaran wishes this argued here - he may prefer to resolve the matter privately with ArbCom. His talkpage is not protected so he can still express himself. His email-this-user is not disabled so he can contact you. Lets give this some time to play out before people assume he has been wronged. WjBscribe 18:12, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Will, I'm not arguing for Melsaran. Frankly this doesn't surprise me. I'm more disturbed by the way it was carried out - based on very little information (at least, publicly available information). ~ Riana 18:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm afraid that there is very little information that it would be appropriate for me to reveal at this stage. I appreciate that this is frustrating for many of you. The privacy policy is very explicit about what material we can divulge and when, and it would also be inappropriate for me to comment further when matters are not fully-resolved. We (the Committee) are appreciative of your understanding whilst we confirm matters.
James F. (talk) 18:09, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Why is he blocked before this has resolved? Rlevse 18:11, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Then the block is unquestionably premature. If you have no "confirmation" (and this is confirmed above by other CUs and Arbs) and only have "suspicion", then I absolutely understand why you can't name the "suspected" sockpuppeteer — that would be against the privacy policy. The problem is that it's also against the blocking policy. I see no evidence of an imminent threat of disruption to the encyclopedia. —bbatsell ¿? 18:12, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Is he a sock of a banned user (can we at least get a yes or no)? Where is the disruption? I was under the impression that we only blocked for sockpuppetry where there was disruption, while he seems to be, for the most part, a constructive contributor. Mr.Z-man 18:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict comment)There are degrees of suspicion, ranging from "mild" to "remote possibility of it being someone other than the suspected puppeteer." Also, regrettably, I think the degree and amount of past disruption the banned editor might have been involved with could, potentially, be a factor as well in this action. At this point, unfortunately, ArbCom has the information, and we don't. They've indicated that they cannot, for various reasons, release all the information at this time. Presumably, this includes the information everyone above is seeking. I think in this instance the best thing to do is wait until the situation is resolved, and/or they feel that they can release more information. Again, without knowing what they know about this subject, we can't really make any judgements on the subject. Also, and I really hate to say this, they are potential abuses which take place in e-mails for instance which we wouldn't be able to be informed of. If they have information that an editor may have violated governmental, not wikipedia, law, potentially, that I think would be sufficient cause. I'm not saying that is the case, just that it's a possibility. At this point, I think we're obliged to trust ArbCom, knowing they'll release what information they can when circumstances permit. John Carter 18:23, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
(ec) It doesn't take much imagination to see why sockpuppets of banned users should be unconditionally blocked even if they haven't yet done anything bad. Example: banned user comes back under different name, acts like a constructive editor, eventually goes through RfA which is successful because he's been a good guy, then goes berserk. Raymond Arritt 18:25, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Melsaran is actively adding important comments to the Alkivar Arbcom case which is a pretty important one. Every edit made by a sock of a banned user poisons the validity of the overall case. He had to be stopped ASAP. Let's stop with the *rabble rabble* and wait for the official word. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:27, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Section break[edit]

There seems to be an assumption that we all collectively have a right to know why someone is blocked. I would be concerned if Melsaran wasn't going to be told the evidence against him and given a chance to account for it. Similarly, if he agreed to the info being made public, it would be concerning if it was not made public. But at this stage, I believe we should trust that ArbCom is acting in the project's best interests. Should we later find that trust was misplaced, there may be extensive consequences, but for now I think they deserve to be given a chance to follow this through. WjBscribe 18:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

The uproar and questioning of the authority is a necessary and vital aspect of a community. With that granted, the aforementioned uproar also causes social unrest and loss of focus. The future will answer things and this whole conversation will be moot. In real legal terms, mediation is working together for a common solution and arbitration is when common ground cannot be found so the solution must be mandated and enforced. As such we trust the ArbCom to deal with situation both privately and publicly, a precarious balance. In other words, this happens a couple times a year and reminds me of passing a bad car accident. Let the authorities handle it and keep driving, the crime blotter in the paper will give you answers later. Keegantalk 18:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to withdraw from this whole discussion. My erratic behaviour lately is mainly because I'm feeling depressed and stressed about my RL studies and various other things, so I don't think I can handle something like this. I'm going on wikibreak for now. WaltonOne 20:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Good idea. Perhaps everyone should withdraw until arbcom decides to speak again. -- John Reaves 20:31, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Part of the problem here is that Melsaran's sockpuppets engaged in stalker-like harassment of a certain individual in particular that is part of a general pattern that a few well-known banned users have engaged in. To perhaps clarify Raul's words above: yes, we are reasonably certain that he created these sockpuppets, but, since the account was created long ago, we have not yet determined whether he is the return of a known banned user, or simply a copycat. The many minor edits and strong interest in policy suggests to me the former. However, the important point is that we would block in either case, on the basis of the edits made. I'm not completely certain that we can't say who the sockpuppets were at least--without the echnical evidence involving private information--to allay some of the fears that come with lack of transparency, but I understand ArbCom's reluctance to do so because of the nature of the edits. I'd ask for your patience while the possibility is discussed (You people act like you expect a quick response from ArbCom! ;-) ). Dmcdevit·t 20:59, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Important policy question[edit]

If and when ArbCom gives us more information, I'd like them to address the following policy question.

Everyone here has read about the notorious vandal "Willy on Wheels." His weird behavior has inspired, among other things, a nugget of humor called Wikipedia:Articles for wheelation. However, he claims to have ceased his disruptive editing of Wikipedia in early 2006. He applied in June for reinstatement by ArbCom and was rejected; as best I recall, arbitrator Jpgordon advised him to come back, but never to tell anyone about his previous identity. The same consensus was reached at a more recent discussion on the now-defunct Community Sanction Noticeboard.

Thus, it would seem that a banned user is judged by his actions, not by his physical location on this earth. If we know from checkuser that Melsaran was editing from the same IP addresses as Willy on Wheels, or some other notorious vandal, that is all well and good; but if Melsaran has not exhibited any of the behaviors of the banned user whom he once represented, does it really matter?

I ask this question not only out of curiosity as to which account(s) Melsaran used previously - though I, like many others here, would like to be informed. Since I work occasionally to investigate cases at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets, I need to know how to deal with cases where one user is alleged to be a sock puppet of a user who was banned months before. Typically, my first reaction is "How on earth can I possibly confirm that?", but in most cases a pattern of common editing emerges. If this pattern does not emerge, I might ask for a checkuser, and if checkuser is not available, no further action is taken (i.e. the account is not blocked). An example was the case attempting to prove a link between banned user VinceB and newer user Squash Racket.

So my question is: do we block real people, or do we block patterns of behavior? Since I'm not a checkuser, all I can try to establish at WP:SSP is patterns of behavior, and then assume (usually safely) that these patterns of behavior can be linked to real people. Is there a different system for people who have checkuser access, who can try to establish that two accounts are the same person even if their pattern of behavior is completely different? I'm not suggesting that this is actually allowed (see WP:GHBH), but I am suggesting that we shouldn't necessarily go looking for violators, and if we find violators, maybe we should "look the other way" if there's no evidence of recent and ongoing malfeasance.

This touches on some broader issues, which I'm sure have been raised aside from the Willy on Wheels case. But I would like someone from ArbCom to explain the nature of the "banned user" policy. Thank you. Shalom (HelloPeace) 20:48, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

This is an aspect that also troubles me. It would be quite wrong to criticise the Arbitrators and Checkusers for their actions based on nothing but suspicion of what the (necessarily) private information in their hands shows, but I would be interested in learning how the block of Melsaran fits into the principle that blocks are preventive and not punitive. Suppose, hypothetically, a most notorious vandal of the past were to create an account and edit under that account only, breaking no rules and contributing good content. Would it be preventive in those circumstances to block the account if a connection was discovered? Should the connection be disclosed to a select group to keep a close watch? Or would it be better to turn a Nelsonian eye? Sam Blacketer 21:03, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
It appears from Dmcdevit's statement (read carefully) that Melsaran was caught using sockpuppets currently, and these sockpuppets edited with a pattern that is reminiscent of an editor who was banned too long ago for technical confirmation. Therefore, Melsaran is either a reincarnation of the banned editor, or an unrelated copycat, but in either case, the edits of the new sockpuppets are—according to Dmcdevit—entirely deserving of a ban. The apparent reason to keep things quiet is to protect the stalking target and/or the privacy of the banned editor. How is that reasonable? Well, if the editor is someone known by his real name, it might be better to keep things quiet rather than proclaim "Joe Smith is at it again", which might affect Joe Smith in real life and also provoke new rounds of mutual retaliation and wikidrama. In fact, I can think of several old-time vandals and stalkers who might fit into this category.
On the general policy question, we block both real people who have been so disruptive as to have earned a ban, and we also block on the behavior that is blockable. Hence, all "on wheels" pagemove vandals are blocked whether or not they are the original Willy. Or if an editor is banned for disrupting articles about a topic, and 6 months later a new editor comes along with the same disruptive editing pattern and distinctive editing quirks, that person is blocked to prevent future disruption even if the connection is not technically provable. Thatcher131 21:36, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I think Thatcher has it just so. I know that I tend to turn down requests for CU checks that don't either have some strong disruptive behaviour or some fairly compelling reason to suspect a link to a permanently banned user. I think the defacto policy is that if a banned user edits in such a way that no one ever suspects it is him or her and that no one ever questions the edits made, we'll never know and never care. And that's fine by me. But most banned users just can't help themselves it seems, if they come back, they revert to the old behaviours that got them banned, sometimes within a very few edits. And so those socks get noticed, blocked for behaviour, a CU is run, and possibly find more socks and block them too. And all is right with the world. ++Lar: t/c 00:44, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

So does this mean no one is going to Wheel War With Arbcom (tm)? And I was just getting my popcorn ready for the David Gerard Semi-Annual Derby [15]. --DHeyward 06:18, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

User creation logs need checking[edit]

FYI, Someone is getting cute and creating numerous bad-faith accounts from another bad-faith account.[16][17][18] They're being created so quickly that I imagine it's a vandalbot. Folks may want to check for this before wasting their time to leave nice {{usernameblocked}} messages on the talk pages. I've also found accounts left unblocked in cases like this in the past so there's another reason to check the logs. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

deleting images failing WP:NFC#10a[edit]

Hello could someone please tell me what is the correct deletion template to use for an image that fails WP:NFC#10a, because the copyright holder isn't named ? I asked a while back on here but got no answer. So I decided to use {{di-no source}} but now people are complaining that I used the wrong template! I was told by an admin that {{di-no source}} is not the one to use, yet ({{Di-no source-notice}} says:

I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright.

So I'm confused, and I asked before here, and nobody answered, now I'm being blamed of "Tagging an image for deletion with a false tag isn't helpful", as well as other edits I didn't even make ?! And yet the person blaming me of all this hasn't told me what the correct tag to use is. Please let me know, I don't mind creating one is none exists. If Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria/Proposal goes ahead (as I'm the only one to oppose it I'm thinking it probably will :p), it would be best to get the tag right, as around 200,000 images may need deleting, and IfD would get clogged up if no tag is available. Jackaranga 21:42, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

As a valid claim of fair use requires acknowledgment of the rights of the copyright holder, an image which is copyrighted but not attributed would be deletable under criteria I4 and/or I7. Sam Blacketer 21:45, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
You can put someting like this: {{di-disputed fair use rationale|concern=invalid rationale per [[WP:NFCC#10c]]|date=January 1, 2001}} --Maxim(talk) (contributions) 21:51, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
I do hope you're heeding the caution regarding older album covers, logos, etc. We're trying to take care of those in an orderly way without deleting. STBotI is doing a pretty efficient job of catching all the new images as they're uploaded, if the bot thinks they've named a source. But the Bot is probably too generous in its attempt not to accidentally tag images, so it's useful to notice cases where the bot allowed an image that doesn't really name a source. Wikidemo 01:07, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Interesting research[edit]

There are a ton of flaws and it is not scientific at all, but I did some interesting research (using random sampling) on the political and religious make up of the Wikipedian community. See User:hmwith/stats. нмŵוτнτ 01:56, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism on a user subpage by an administrator[edit]

this: [19].

That article had a map I had added, and that was deleted. I also had it linked to the photo gallery on a user subpage that was vandalised, by User:Maxim through copypasting that article in that photo gallery.

This is a rather disturbing behaviour from someone you have never heard of before, and that furthermore is an administrator.

Note sure where one should report vandalism, by an administrator, so I do it here. Should I take the matter elsewhere, please tell me. --victor falk 02:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Hahah, no, that looks like his script Twinkle, is malfunctioning; not vandalism. Assume good faith, et al. --Haemo 02:09, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Malfunctioning badly I would say ... but yeah, it uses the Twinkle edit summary, so he is probably completely unaware of it. I didn't even think Twinkle removed images from userspace. That's a little disturbing that it would do that. --B 02:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Just what I was going to say, seeing in his contributions that he has been tweaking his monobook.js, he may be having some trouble with the script. - Caribbean~H.Q. 02:13, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
In the future, contact the user directly to see what they say before seeking intervention from other admins. --Masamage 03:40, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I should have done that. I wasn't thinking clearly I suppose. Sorry.--victor falk 03:52, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

proof drive-by anons deserve respect[edit]

"[At Wikipedia], by subdividing their analysis by registered versus anonymous contributors, the researchers found that among those who contribute often, registered users are more reliable. And they discovered that among those who contribute only a little, the anonymous users are more reliable."[20] WAS 4.250 20:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Good read. (Although I have no idea where this comes from: "According to Anthony, Wikipedia now requires that anonymous contributors who make numerous edits must register." Did I miss something?) Also one can take a look at DF's log analysis he did recently that showed that 78% of anonymous edits aren't reverted. Doesn't mean they're all productive, of course, but that number is much higher than I expected, and I assume the same would be true of others as well. —bbatsell ¿? 20:46, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm guessing that because accounts that only contribute a little are usually sleepers, there's no big surprise there. JuJube 23:20, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Why do we need proof? EVula // talk // // 23:40, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Vandal fighters, noticing how many of their reverts are for anons, often suggest we should not allow anon editing. This even reached the point of disallowing anon creation of articles as a test that has been called a failure. WAS 4.250 15:27, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree with WAS, whenever I do RC and look only at the anon's (I'm old school, no scripts) I notice that likely 3 out of 4 are seemingly good additions. The article creation thing, I can see leaving as is. It seems that only 1 of every 20 or so articles for creation are accepted, most are business adds. --Rocksanddirt 18:07, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Help please[edit]

Could someone please help User:Carmenelectra change her username? She was blocked for a username violation (apparently there is a minor actress and Playboy model called that), she has requested rename. She is a productive new editor. Thank you. DuncanHill 00:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Unblocked, provided that she immediately make a request on WP:USURP. — Malcolm (talk) 00:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Malcolm, and everyone else who helped, her username is changed now so hopefully she can continue her good start. DuncanHill 02:13, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Malcolm should be blocked for incivility by calling Carmen a minor actress! 71.212.98.51 15:38, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

user:JWiamlmeysTNUC[edit]

Can someone please block user:JWiamlmeysTNUC, as he has contributed very little that is of use, and instead has resorted to edits such as these: [21] [22]. When I warned him because of the latter edit, he had this to say. Meanlevel 12:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

He vandalized after a final warning, clearly indicated intent to disrupt, and then disrupted again. I've sent him to WP:AIV. east.718 at 12:26, 10/18/2007
...and he's been blocked indef. east.718 at 13:05, 10/18/2007

Christopher Paul Neil[edit]

Resolved: The Joconde is not a suspect the Interpol investigation :p

This is an article about a suspect in a major child-abuse investigation. A new user has inserted a picture of a person unconnected with the case as an illustration of a technique which may have been used by Interpol in identifying the suspect. The editor claims that the person in the photo has given their consent for it to be used. An IP editor has also added an email address to the talk page (which I have redacted, but will still be visible in edit history), purporting to be that of the (innocent) person in the photo. I am concerned that this raises many BLP issues. Could some admins have a look please? DuncanHill 12:25, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think it's that sensitive an issue as long as the caption makes it very clear that the subject in the image is not Neil. It wouldn't hurt to ask the editor to get in touch with m:OTRS, though. east.718 at 12:34, 10/18/2007
User:Oblomow replaced it with the Joconde, which is much less sensitive. I think the subject is moot now (good idea btw). -- lucasbfr talk 13:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks everyone, the Mona Lisa twirl does a good job of illustrating the technique, and can't be mistaken for a living person, so should satisfy everybody. DuncanHill 13:25, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Admin assistance needed with requested move[edit]

Resolved: Page moved -- zzuuzz (talk) 15:53, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

A consensus has been established at Talk:Japan Railway#Requested move to move the article Japan Railway to Japan Railways Group. The page Japan Railways Group already exists as a redirect and so admin assistance is required to move the page. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. Tbo 157(talk) (review) 15:43, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

☑Y Done. For future reference this would normally be done through Wikipedia:Requested moves. -- zzuuzz (talk) 15:53, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks very much. A request was put up at WP:RM but Ive noticed that WP:RM is recently becoming heavily backlogged and so I put a request here. Apologies for any inconvenience I may have caused. Tbo 157(talk) (review) 15:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
No apology necessary, do whatever works best :) -- zzuuzz (talk) 16:15, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Tfd reset in order?[edit]

re: Tfd of Template:Largest_cities_of_the_European_Union

Last evening editing Leipzig I had to hunt hard to figure out which template had a tfd notice. It was this one cited, which was improperly tagged with {{tfd}}, the whole template being subst'd instead of the {{subst:PAGENAME}} but which in effect provided no backlink to the Tfd.
   IMHO, many editors wouldn't have ferreted out the cause of the weirdly located message, and so haven't voted. I'm a totally impartial party in this... excepting a non-deletionist bent! <G>
   That technical issue is now fixed, but I think the Tfd vote process needs restarted— or at least, given the anomaly, not closed for an addtional week as I've seen in some other situations where tagging went awry. I don't know if closing the tfd and reopening on another page is the right thing, or whether you admins have another method, but please take note. // FrankB 15:48, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Simon Le Bon/Simon Le Bon username question[edit]

I have wondered before if this username was allowed, and I just noticed the above comments about someone changing their username because it was the same of someone famous. I doubt User:Simon Le Bon is the lead singer of Duran Duran. There's also User:SteveLamacq43 which is the same as the famous DJ Steve Lamacq, but can't be the same because some of his edits were made while Steve Lamacq was on air. 172.141.108.180 03:03, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Lisa Daniels edited her own article on-air, and Stephen Colbert allegedly did the same (I remember reading a blog saying that the times on the edits were corresponded to when Colbert was on-air). So just being on-air doesn't automatically mean he couldn't hvae done it. hbdragon88 03:10, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Generally these usernames are not allowed, see the username policy regarding misleading names. File a request at comments/usernames for the input you seek. Keegantalk 04:12, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Username blocked, by the way. Keegantalk 04:18, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
His account is like 2 1/2 years old, if you read the first line on WP:Username: The username policy covers accepted practices and behavior in naming and operating a user account on Wikipedia for accounts created after 8 December 2006. His account was created before that, we can't even see the creation date it is so old. Here is a link to how the username policy was when he registered, it doesn't explicitly say that one should not use the name of a famous person, at least not as clearly as it does now. Jackaranga 20:37, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
I understand that, I left the user a note about the consideration of age of the account. In the best interest of Wikipedia the user should change names, which I told him/her. S/he hasn't logged back on yet but I'm on the ball there. Keegantalk 02:44, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

WT:UW[edit]

Could someone comment on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_user_warnings#HTML_tags? PxMa 21:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

User:24.33.95.171[edit]

User:24.33.95.171 returned with propagandistic edits in Macedonians (Greek) article. He has done the same in the past. I reverted once his edits and I asked him not to do this but he didn't stop. - Sthenel 21:44, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm new and messed up once already. Can someone else block this IP? Bearian —Preceding comment was added at 00:23, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Done! If you need any help with the tools, just drop me, or one of the other admins a note. --Haemo 05:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:UAA[edit]

I have reported possible username violation usernames on WP:UAA as early as 30 minutes before I am posting this message. However, there is no evidence that administrators has visited WP:UAA. NHRHS2010 Talk 23:26, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

UAA is not an urgent task. Someone will get around to it. ViridaeTalk 23:41, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

New Metrics on Wikirage[edit]

You can now sort the wikirage not only by period of time, but also by Quality Edits, Unique Editors, Total Edits, Vandalism, Reversions, and Undos. RSS Feeds for all these variants are also available. w3ace 00:07, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Durova/Fire[edit]

Somebody asked me to draft a page that would address how to handle a certain class of problem without creating troll bait. It's about how to respond to emergencies. Feedback is welcome. DurovaCharge! 00:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/SevenOfDiamonds closed[edit]

The above-linked arbitration has closed, and the committee has recognized that the SevenOfDiamonds account is a sockpuppet of NuclearUmpf. It has been blocked indefinitely in accordance with this decision. For the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (t) 01:15, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dalmatia closed[edit]

This arbitration case has closed and the final decision is available at the link above. Giovanni Giove and DIREKTOR are each subject to an editing restriction for one year. Each is limited to one revert per page per week (excepting obvious vandalism), and is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page. This notice is given by a Clerk on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad 01:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Proposal to begin a Wikipedia:Disruptive editing/Noticeboard[edit]

I propose to create a new noticeboard to help editors understand, comply with, and enforce the disruptive editing guideline. We already have specialized noticeboards like WP:BLPN, WP:COIN and WP:RSN. These work well to help editors get assistance applying those guidelines to real cases.

With the demise of WP:CSN, more cases of suspected long term abuse are heading to WP:ANI, often unformed and poorly explained. The lack of evidence and organization prevents the community from taking proper action and places the suspected editors in an uncomfortable situation. A specialized noticeboard for discussing suspected cases would help filter out frivolous cases, and would generate proper evidence for those cases requiring community attention. With the help of editors experienced in the WP:DE guideline, those requesting assistance would be much better prepared to file a request for community sanctions at WP:AN or WP:ANI.

This new board would not have any special powers. It would simply be a centralized place to discuss specific cases of long term disruptive editing. I've created Wikipedia:Disruptive editing/Noticeboard as something to look at, discuss, and edit. - Jehochman Talk 17:01, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

How does this interrelate to WP:RFC/USER? Addhoc 17:24, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
The discussion board is a place to talk about suspected cases. It's focus is education, explaining to editors what is and is not disruptive, how to avoid being disruptive, where to go with specific cases and how to present them. We might send people to WP:RFC or WP:RFAR or WP:AN/WP:ANI. Our users are often confused about how to navigate these situations. The board would provide guidance. - Jehochman Talk 17:44, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Ok, are you intending to update Wikipedia:Disruptive editing#Dealing with disruptive editors? Addhoc 19:51, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, if there is a consensus, that section could start with "Suspected cases of disruptive editing may be reported at Wikipedia:Disruptive editing/Noticeboard" and we'd make some other changes. I'll propose new wording at Wikipedia talk:Disruptive editing. - Jehochman Talk 20:15, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Since nobody has expressed any concerns yet, and I just came across an interesting case of possible disruption, I've posted that