Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive100

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

Noticeboard archives


Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles)[edit]

This Talk Page is well overdue for consideration. Please could the issues raised there be addressed. Otherwise everyone is wasting their time posting there. David Lauder 17:30, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

User:IPSOS, the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn and overturning consensus as one user[edit]

Established editors have determined to delete The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, Inc. and enforced the decision in deletion review: [1]. However, without consensus or any comment on the talk page, user:IPSOS has now unlilaterally merged the majority of what was that article into the main Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn article and reversed a decision made by editors previous in consideration for the neutrality of Wikipedia made a year ago here: Talk:Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn/Archive 3 . It seems clear to me that user:IPSOS is more interested in portraying a partisan view of the contemporary direction of the historical organization (which bears no direct historical relation to the original Order)rather than in reaching a stance of neutrality for Wikipedia and for the main article, Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn. As it even says at the top of the article "this article is about the historical organization of the 19th century." I take that back. User:IPSOS has now changed this as well against previous consensus. He says on the talk page that consensus can change, but one user is not enough for consensus. He didn't even start a discussion on it before making such edits which I would consider disruptive. Can someone take a look at this behavior? Kephera975 18:28, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Administrator category proposal[edit]

I edit mostly science articles, and I don’t know how many times I’ve had to go looking for a science-related admin to help with a page move, topic specific help, or what-ever. With this in mind, I would suggest grouping admins by category (as well as by the alphabetized list). Basically, a Wikipedia:List of administrators of 1,100+ admins really doesn’t help editors find the help they need. In addition, with the growing number of admins, I would suggest that there is some effort using (requiring to have) admins that are knowledgeable in certain articles (or afds) to resolve issues (or close) in those areas to which they edit in or have knowledge in. An admin who was a degree in the history of science, for instance, would be well-trained to close on science history related afds, rather than random admins. In sum, I suggest that admins be categorized in some way and that there be some effort in the future to have admins close on afds to which he or she has knowledge in. In this manner, countless hours of volunteer work of well-intentioned editors can be spared, through needless mistakes. Thanks: --Sadi Carnot 00:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

We're janitors, not golden robed priests. We don't need to be a historical expert to see that an AfD on The Ascent of Austrian Royalty shows a strong consensus to keep, etc. Categorizing by skills like 'history merges', 'AFD closers', 'Speedy deleters', etc would be more useful, if you were to do such. - CHAIRBOY () 05:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
I'd suggest asking at the relevant wikiproject; most of those have a bunch of admins involved. >Radiant< 09:17, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Gosh, Radiant and I agree on something. Yeah! Find the appropriate project from the project list and ask them for help. Start here: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Directory.Rlevse 10:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the loose ideas. The issue, however, is not just about afds; a grouping would be useful for subtleties, e.g. admins who like doing cleanup in the image categories, admins who like doing page moves, admins who can see the sub-topic (i.e. topic specific) issues in drawn-out edit wars, admins who like doing page protects, etc. I spend enough time as it is on project pages, this really doesn’t help speed the process. A good point to start would be a proposal to have all admins categorize themselves, beyond the standard:

These are just rough ideas, but aren’t editors and administrators supposed to work together? Thus, when I see comments such as “maybe we should hide our mops for a while”, etc., I see an elusive wall building. Adding categories would help break down the wall, i.e. bring more of a connection between administrators and the editors. This is an idea (clean-up project) that I was hoping that one or two admins would take the lead on and get the other admins involved. --Sadi Carnot 17:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's a very terrible idea, but I suppose the bureacracy watchers will disagree? :) Seriously though - if you asked me about page moves or history merges I'd have to point you to someone else, but I can more or less deal with vandalism, page protections and images, for example. ~ Riana 17:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't see any harm in administrators categorising themselves as such, as long as there is no requirement to do so. I wouldn't say this is bureaucratic if there are no requirements or prerequisites to placing yourself in such a category. Of course, we'd have to work on the above names, as calling an administrator to help with a "troll" might be quite insulting if such a person isn't a troll. WP:CREEP wouldn't apply... as they're on categories, not instructions. --Deskana (banana) 17:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Might I suggest: Category:Wikipedia administrators (who dislike being in categories) ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 18:01, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
I really don't see the purpose of more categories. Everyone knows I'm an admin, that should be enough... besides, there's very little a regular editor can't do when it comes to plain article editing. An expert user is the same as an expert admin. David Fuchs (talk) 18:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

My inner smartass couldn't resist.[2] DurovaCharge! 06:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Here’s an example of where an editor was looking for Iranian admins to ask for a Farsi spelling. From the discussion, we see that admin categories are very useful for users (or serious editors) in need of janitorial assistance, i.e. clean-up things they can’t do on their own, because they don’t have admin tools. As User:Lar (admin) puts it: "It is useful to know who the admins are and categories have advantages over lists". --Sadi Carnot 13:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
One wonders why said user could not have asked a normal editor at WP:IRAN if he was after someone who spoke Farsi. Oh indeed checked Category:User fa. Is there some reason why only administrators are fit to pronounce on spellings? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 14:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
One doesn't need administrative tools to do translations, though. Couldn't such questions be addressed by, say, the Languages Reference Desk? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't like this idea at all. --Cyde Weys 14:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

What is the point of being an admin then if you’re not willing to make yourself available (by category) for users who need your help? --Sadi Carnot 14:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
There's no reason not to have some categories,, just as for admins who will userify articles on request. DGG (talk) 21:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Being an admin has nothing to do with specific knowledge categories. Admins have the special ability to do a few special things, none of which have to do with actual content. I don't see the point, what is worse is that I see people taking an admin's(science) opinion of a user's(science) opinion.
The categories relating to specific type of behavioral problems may be handy, I seem to remember there was a cat for admins who would deal with heated issues, forgot what it is though. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 21:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Stuck with bad coding halfway through a SOCK[edit]

I'm sorry to bother you but I am halfway through filing a WP:SOCK and cannot finish the process because the title is messed up. I am at the point where I now need to label the puppet pages and the puppetmaster page with the templates. However, the title is fouled up somehow -- instead of reading "Jebbrady (2nd)" it's got brackets and whatnot, see here. Please, if anyone can fix it so it reads correctly, I can finish this process by giving the puppetmaster/puppets a good working link via the mandatory templates, which I've been struggling with for more than an hour. I'm sorry if I should have gone somewhere else instead of WP:AN. -- Lisasmall 20:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Better? --AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
AnonEMouse, there are no words for my gratitude; thank you so much. -- Lisasmall 20:16, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious! is pretty good. LessHeard vanU 22:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm in-between a rock and a hard place.[edit]

Resolved: I'm working with Vanilla2 & the others to resolve this without password sharing - Alison 04:23, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

There's a member named Vanilla2, who wants to change his/her signature. But he/she can't figure it out. So what User:Hornetman16 wants to do is send an e-mail and get his/her password and do it for him/her. Would this be OK? Cheers, JetLover (talk) 21:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I hope it is.--Hornetman16 (talk) 21:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Giving away your password is not a good thing to do. Also, instructions can be found at WP:SIG#Customizing_your_signature. Good luck, Navou banter 23:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
We know it's not a good idea or thing to do but is it against policy is what we want to know.--Hornetman16 (talk) 02:07, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
It's probably just a bad idea. Something to consider is creating a sandbox for code/examples, and asking the user to copy and paste the code into their signature preferences. Do you know exactly what issues from WP:SIG#Customizing your signature the user is having a hard time with?-Andrew c [talk] 02:15, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
From the looks of Vanilla2's talk page, this is basically resolved. An admin is already involved there, so this discussion can probably be closed, and no need for password sharing.-Andrew c [talk] 02:20, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Fidelfair (talk · contribs)[edit]

Resolved: for now, user blocked by User:Butseriouslyfolks

The above user has uploaded numerous non-free images without rationales. I tagged several today, which resulted in a discussion on my talk page. At first, the user was deleting the 'no rationale' tags from the images, now the user has begun changing the dates on the tags to 70 years in the future so they don't come up in the deletion categories. I don't want to get into an edit war and would appreciate some help. Videmus Omnia Talk 00:19, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted the date changes. Possibly one image is appropriate under fair use for identification of the game, but the remainder most likely won't. Cheers Kevin 00:44, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Houston, we may have a problem. My "friendly reminder" on the user's talk page does not seem to have worked. User:Fidelfair has now proposed WP:FURG for deletion three times, accusing another editor of "vandalism" for removing the tag. See [3] and [4]. Also proposed Category:All images with no fair use rationale for deletion here. The user seems to be motivated by a genuine belief that tagging and/or speedy deletion is inappropriate for articles with no fair use rationales...a legitimate point we have been discussing. But I'm afraid they need to be warned or stopped before making a mess out of the guideline pages. Also urged to discuss and work with the system rather than break policy as a form of protest. I'm a non-admin so this goes beyond my expertise and authority. Please help before it gets any worse. Thanks, Wikidemo 01:55, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

How to deal with anon with dynamic IP[edit]

Please examine the history of Roe v. Wade. Ever since the 12, and IP address from a Verizon account in Boston, Mass. has been adding the word "corrupt" to the lead. At least 7 different IP addresses have made the edit (all starting with I've only been an admin for a month an a half, so I'm still learning (and I probably won't stop learning either). Anyway, I've decided to semi-protect the page, at least for the next 48 hours as a measure to prevent those edits. I was wondering if this is what other admins would have done, and I'm also curious what can be done when it comes to dynamic IPs (say, if someone had reported a 3RR on this page). Thanks for the advice.-Andrew c [talk] 04:14, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

How many articles does Wikipedia delete per day?[edit]

A few months ago I recall a stastic that this site deletes around 5000 pages a day. Been looking for confirmation of that and can't find it anywhere. I'll accept estimates from the CSD regulars if that's the best we can do. Would appreciate help! DurovaCharge! 14:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

This (warning, may take a while to load) shows that the last 5000 deletions (including images, pages, categories, templates, redirects, and so on) took place over a span of last 24 hours 55 minutes. 5000 pages in 24 hours is probably a little high based on that (although it tends to be higher when school is in, thanks to the friends of gays). Maybe 4000 a day. Neil  14:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Here are the stats for all of august:
| date(log_timestamp) | count(log_timestamp) |
| 2007-08-01          |                 5375 | 
| 2007-08-02          |                 5042 | 
| 2007-08-03          |                 7971 | 
| 2007-08-04          |                 3733 | 
| 2007-08-05          |                 5767 | 
| 2007-08-06          |                 9873 | 
| 2007-08-07          |                 4379 | 
| 2007-08-08          |                 3551 | 
| 2007-08-09          |                 4240 | 
| 2007-08-10          |                 7756 | 
| 2007-08-11          |                 4273 | 
| 2007-08-12          |                 7056 | 
| 2007-08-13          |                 5546 | 
| 2007-08-14          |                 4425 | 
| 2007-08-15          |                 3214 | 
15 rows in set (31.88 sec)
August '05 we were deleting about 1000 per day, August '06 averaging 3000, and 6 months ago averaging 5000. --ST47Talk·Desk 15:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Beautiful! Thank you very much for the breakdown. DurovaCharge! 15:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

But how much if NawlinWiki went on break... --W.marsh 18:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

That user only has bout 200/day, so not much of en effect - not even if our #1 admin in terms of deletions, misza13, left would there be much of a dent :) --ST47Talk·Desk 19:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Any thoughts about breaking this down by ns? --After Midnight 0001 19:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Miszabot deletes mostly images though, right? I thought we were talking about articles. NawlinWiki's stats there are pretty staggering. --W.marsh 19:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Actually,Miszabot archives talk pages. Misza13 does deletions, but is presumably a real person. Natalie 22:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Well I'm making an effort to get the word out and address this on the non-Wikipedian side of the equation. When more people understand the scope of this project we may succeed in reversing the trend. DurovaCharge! 22:44, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Think about all the wasted effort that goes into creating pages that get deleted (and the admin efforts to delete them). Granted, some are created as vandalism. But I'm sure many if not most are due to users not creating appropriate articles/uploading inappropriate images. It is rather staggering. I guess that's what your hinting at Durova? Flyguy649 talk contribs 23:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Very much so. :) DurovaCharge! 04:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

There you go, per namespace:

date (Main) Talk User _talk Wikipedia _talk Image _talk Template _talk Category _talk
2007-08-01 1584 273 162 64 8 1 3015 56 39 16 141 11
2007-08-02 1376 907 104 83 12 3 2272 39 103 11 122 7
2007-08-03 1406 3790 143 63 9 0 2366 47 56 8 76 7
2007-08-04 1272 336 98 53 30 7 1498 27 62 1 344 5
2007-08-05 1295 2166 99 24 18 6 1914 70 39 4 120 12
2007-08-06 1462 5834 208 171 20 2 1926 124 56 17 51 2
2007-08-07 1352 242 205 232 15 6 2188 34 28 2 68 6
2007-08-08 1378 244 164 164 7 7 1407 16 41 13 100 9
2007-08-09 1661 293 227 250 14 5 1281 26 350 15 108 10
2007-08-10 1359 4379 227 48 10 3 1137 14 36 18 499 23
2007-08-11 1166 235 122 153 21 11 2153 201 35 0 168 3
2007-08-12 1031 3398 145 72 8 3 1841 38 378 8 118 16
2007-08-13 1562 2230 256 184 13 1 931 80 122 56 88 22
2007-08-14 1458 253 115 66 192 45 1650 24 329 65 178 28
2007-08-15 1501 769 142 78 8 6 2131 35 37 3 84 14

Images seem to be most active, although my bot does at most one third of that. Mainspace is less fluctuating. Talk: stats are tained by DerHexer occasionally mass-deleting talk pages of redirects. There's also the BJAODN spike in Wikipedia: on 14th. Cheers, Миша13 20:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC) (I tweaked the table headings a bit to make them narrower. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 22:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC))

Thanks, that's interesting. I think that the image numbers are true for this period also, as opposed to most of July when we were clearing the 30 day backlog. --After Midnight 0001 23:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

If these are straight log counts, one small tweak is needed to adjust the numbers. Restorations are in the deletion log, and are effectively a -1 to the pages deleted per day count. In January, when I last did a detailed review, restores were runing about 1.1% of all log activity. This was down from ~2% in December 2006. So net deletions is about probably about 96% to 98% of the numbers. (User space, followed by Main space were the spaces with the highest restore rate, but even user space was below 4%.) GRBerry 13:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

  • I once asked what was the total number of deleted pages in total. Ever. I never got an answer, but I think it is safe to say that the dead (pages) on Wikipedia outnumber the living (pages). Carcharoth 00:21, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

User:TTN performing large-scale AWB edits, merges and redirects without clear consensus[edit]

This needs administrator attention but I don't know where to report it. I'm posting here on the advice of User:Parsifal after getting his opinion on the matter. TTN (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has been making hundreds of high-speed AWB edits to add merge or move tags, then doing the redirects himself soon after with edit summaries that claim there is consensus or no discussion. In many cases, he did not allow sufficient time for consensus discussion to take place, or did not make a good enough effort to verify that people were aware of the discussion in the first place. I don't believe he is necessarily violating policies - in fact, he appears to be interpreting several of them (most notably WP:FICT, WP:BRD and WP:N), but his merges are clearly disruptive to a large number of editors (as can be seen on his talk page), and my attempts to talk to him about this have not appeared to help matters at all.

The pages he's moving relate to multiple WikiProjects, including WikiProject Video games (which I'm participating in actively). Many editors on the Wikiproject page have expressed concerns about his behavior and approach, but he refuses to stop. Most of the time, he counters by citing WP policies (even in the face of questions about how he's interpreting those policies), and in some cases stating that he's going to continue on his campaign because he knows what's right. (Here's an example of such a statement: [5]) His AWB tag placements and mass redirects and are easy to see in his contribs because there are so many of them. There is also a long discussion on the CVGProj Talk page, where we basically made almost no headway and in which I repeatedly advised him to slow down and be patient with the discussion. (His general tone came across to me as "Can I merge it now? Can I? Huh?")

Would someone please take a look and either ask him to stop and respect consensus, or advise me where the correct place is for me to post this notice? I thought about WP:AIV, but I wasn't sure if this would be considered vandalism or not. I also considered WP:RFC or WP:RFC/U but he is moving so fast with the automated edits, by the time an RFC could do anything, the damage would be unrecoverable.

Any help or advice would be much appreciated. Thanks! — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:20, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Would you mind giving an example or two of where he went ahead and performed a merge against consensus? Where there was a discussion, and the proposal was defeated, but he merged anyway? i said 00:12, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
I'll try to get these together as I have time. I haven't done a great deal of research into this (haven't had the time, and I'm on a tight time budget now as well), but here's some evidence of his tendency to push things through:
  • "There is no discussing this part" (preceded and followed by reverts)
  • Merge discussion on Talk:Scrubs (TV series) - please read TTN's replies to the discussion. So far, everyone who has responded to the initial merge proposal has opposed it, and TTN has insisted on pushing through a merge anyway.
    • This seems to be the pattern in almost every merge discussion TTN takes part in.
  • I cannot find a specific example where TTN violated a clear consensus, but see this diff and a few diffs following that one (linked to the CVGProj discussion) where he merged without a clear consensus.
    • That discussion also has at least one user calling out TTN's apparent general practice of discounting the opinions of people who have dropped out of the discussion or haven't been able to reply in a timely manner.
I hope this will help. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 01:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
For the first diff that was ok per WP:BOLD, and it was reverted without discussion. There should have been discussion by the reverter, and there was not. In the Scrubs discussion, TTN is backed by policy and guideline, (WP:NN, WP:V, WP:WAF) the opposes were WP:ILIKEIT or similar related opinions. As for Goomba, I read the discussion and when TTN merged them, he had asked at least twice for anyone else objecting, and no one did. The converstation had waned. The following revert war (including an admin) was awful. I personally agree with TTN on most matters relating to cruft, but I do agree he is a bit more agressive than he needs to be. i said 01:54, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
I'll try to address some points the next time I have some time, but quickly I agree that I am fairly harsh and pushy, but there really is no alternative way to go about it sometimes. People are used to the current state of the site. They think it is fine to cover topics without establishing some sort of real world notability, so they either ignore the set, totally non-disputed policies and guidelines, really cannot grasp them at all, or they just completely avoid the topic all together, usually throwing comments back at me any way that they can (usually about the merging).
I have to make it clear to those who ignore them that they cannot be ignored or passed off as nothing, explain it to the people that just don't get it, and deal with the turnabout people without trying to stab myself. They don't take it very well at all, and they are the majority of the people that I deal with. That requires constant pushing (or else everything just somehow falls apart), so sometimes that may leak into normal discussions that actually deal with how the articles can fit the guidelines and policies. I should probably watch that a little more, but otherwise, there really is no actual alternative other than just dropping any sort of merging/redirecting, which I don't plan on doing. TTN 02:12, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
It appears that more people support TTN's merging, and as pointed out, there doesn't appear to be any clear violation of policy or consensus going on, so I withdraw my notice. Thanks. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I support genuine mergers, but not mindless redirects. The JPStalk to me 09:36, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Merge Disscussion for I-35W Mississippi River bridge <- Replacement I-35W Mississippi River bridge[edit]

The discussion has been going on for 9 days and seems to have slow down. I think it is time to close it. The discussion is taking place here at Talk:Replacement I-35W Mississippi River bridge. Since I am not a Administrator here I don't think I should close it and risk getting blocked. so I a administrator to close it for me and determain the outcome and make the merger or not. Sawblade05 18:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. There is no consensus, with slightly more opposed to a merger. (Current count: 13 keep two articles [with some qualifications], 12 merge.) In the absence of consensus, should the "default" position be to retain two articles? Kablammo 10:18, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Plagiarizing from Wikipedia?[edit]

Hi. I wasn't sure where else to put this, but I know that the Times of India's wholesale plagiarism was reported here, but I don't know whatever became of that discussion. Anyway, I was reading this article from The Daily Telegraph (Australia) about a Chinese couple wanting to name their child "@." One thing I found peculiar is that they wrote, ". . . the symbol may have a different name (see below)," even though there was nothing below. So I went to check out what Wikipedia had to say about the at sign, and the intro looked particularly similar... ~ UBeR 00:54, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Good catch, and one for the Signpost I would think. Have you tipped them off? -- But|seriously|folks  02:38, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
...see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Suggestions for more information! :) Cbrown1023 talk 01:48, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


Appears to be an automated account that is violating numerous WP:BOT policies. Q T C 09:29, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes that does look odd. I've blocked for now and will inquire to its apparent owner. —Wknight94 (talk) 09:41, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Can administrators please check WP:BRFA before blocking bots that are apparently unauthorized? When bots are in trial, they are not required to have a bot flag as implied by the blocking administrator's summary ("Bot running without bot privilege per"). They are required only to limit their edit rate to two edits per minute and to do only what the operator said they would do. Granted, User:RonaldBot did not have a user page that was explicit enough regarding its function, and I'll talk to the operator about that. But please look into these things before interrupting trials.
Thanks! — madman bum and angel 00:55, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Seconded. :-) Cbrown1023 talk 01:44, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Help in moving page[edit]

Resolved: All fixed back again - Alison 03:25, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Someone has moved La Ronde (1950 film) to Roundabout (movie). I'm not bothered whether "La Ronde" or "Roundabout" is used, but there are two films called "Roundabout". Roundabout (film) already redirects to Roundabout (disambiguation), and Roundabout (movie) should do the same to avoid confusion. However, I can't move the article back to Roundabout (1950 film) as that already exists (it's a redirect made during a previous move).

In short; I'd like

Fourohfour 11:16, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

It's messed up. The correct title is "La Ronde", as the Arthur Schnitzler and IMDB article will attest. While this is the English Wikipedia, this doesn't stretch to renaming books and movies like that (imagine if that happened to La Cage aux Folles. I'll see if I can fix it - Alison 12:12, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Ok - fixed (I hope!) How does it look now? - Alison 12:21, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Help about a page in Category:Empty pages for speedy deletion[edit]


Currently, in Category:Empty pages for speedy deletion, the page Talk:Lucario is listed (even after a purge); however, nowhere in this page does the SD tag appear, nor does the category. Despite a purge of the category, the page is still here. Anyone has any idea what is happening (or what I am missing) ? Schutz 16:41, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Gone now. Problem solved, but I am still wondering what this was. Schutz 16:44, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
I just purged the talk page itself, because of Talk:Lucario/to_do -- zzuuzz (talk) 16:45, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict, I should reply before fixing ^^)I don't know what triggered it (probably a template that was marked as {{db-empty}}), but there's a simple work around: just edit the page and save it again, that forces the page to be rebuilt and removes the incorrect category. -- lucasbfr talk 16:47, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zacheus-jkb[edit]

This arbitration case has now closed and the decision may be found at the link above. -jkb- and Zacheus are admonished for their behaviour, and directed to refrain from importing outside disputes into the English Wikipedia, disclosing real names or other identifying personal information on-wiki, and from making personal attacks and uncivil remarks. For the arbitration committee, David Mestel(Talk) 21:48, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Railpage article[edit]

Please note that I have raised a COI issue about the following user on the COI noticeboard. User:Doctorjbeam. There are other issues too, including the silly listings for deletion which no person who seriously wanted the page modified or deleted would do, and the second nomination for deletion which is not what it seems. I suspect a Railpage version of the Lernaean Hydra. Can an administrator look into this, I can PM my other concerns.Tezza1 23:17, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Why is this article full-protected with constant unpleasant discussion on the Talk page? From a perusal of the various AfDs, Railpage Australia seems to be above the notability cutoff, and it is not terribly written. (I would shorten it about 20% if given a free hand). The article has existed for 15 months and attracted plenty of editors. Any remaining activity by editors with a conflict of interest (company employees and not just rail forum members) hardly looms large. User:Doctorjbeam, who may be an employee of a company connected to the site, has edited Railpage Australia a total of five times, and I didn't see him voting in any of the AFDs. (He added some rather boring information about the site servers). Thus the COI angle seems way overstated. I'd still advise Doctorjbeam to volunteer his affiliation on his user page, now that he's outed himself with an image upload. EdJohnston 00:55, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


Resolved: indef blocked - Alison 03:53, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Obvious sockpuppet of User:Light current, see edit history even aside from name. Maybe I'm supposed to report this elsewhere, but I need to get to bed. Matchups 01:06, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Sockie. Blocked indef - Alison 01:10, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

BCBot and commons[edit]

Ive started a bot to move images to commons please see User:Betacommand/Commons βcommand 05:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Your list is broken at "Wikihermit", FYI. Incidentally, how did you make that list? I see I am on there. I have not had too much involvement in images, and it doesn't look like enough to be all admins. Prodego talk 05:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
It started out as a subset of admins, (admins that I know) and then I tossed a few non-admins that I know I can trust. then there was the approval process. βcommand 13:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Where was the discussion, apart from the Bot approval discussion? Was there a discussion at Wikipedia:Images (or where-ever the most active image area is)? Not everyone watches the Bot approval process. Also, when you say you've "started a bot", I think you might mean you have plans for a bot. The bot has been approved for trials (50 edits or 7 days), but doesn't seem to be running yet. You might want to word things differently, as I, for one, read "Ive started a bot", to mean that you were in the process of running it and operating it. Carcharoth 01:40, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Well the bot is currently operating, it transwikis images per the instructions. βcommand 09:50, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
From what I can see, this is still just a trial run. Can you point us to where the results of the trial run will be discussed? Thanks. Carcharoth 00:30, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
At the BRFA page... Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BetacommandBot Task 7. Cbrown1023 talk 01:53, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Would it be OK to post links at the BRFA page to the discussions about this function? Carcharoth 11:58, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Why wouldn't it be? :-D Cbrown1023 talk 17:06, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Non-free images in project space[edit]

The archives for Wikipedia:Today's featured article contain numerous non-free images in violation of WP:NFCC#9 - a couple of examples would be Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 15, 2006 and Wikipedia:Today's featured article/August 21, 2006. The pages are fully protected, so only administrators can remove the noncompliant images. Looks like a big cleanup effort is required. Videmus Omnia Talk 03:39, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, there are, I think, two issues here. First, to the extent that TFA archives are, one supposes, accurately to record, wherever possible, what a particular TFA looked like when it was transcluded on the main page, it might be useful for the community to confer on old TFA pages an NFCC exemption (the requisite fair use explanation may, of course, for those images that continue to appear in the articles they illustrated in TFA, is the same as that already properly given on the talk page of each image, and it is unlikely that the diminution in article length is sufficient to render inappropriate any fair use claim); indeed, I would suggest that a consensus to that effect likely already exists. Second, it is not clear, I think, that the community ultimately will not countenance TFA's being granted an NFCC exemption (see, e.g., this discussion), such that a removal of all of the TFA-archived non-free images might be undone in the not-too-distant future. It may be that amongst the TFA archives are non-free images the use of which would be disfavored even in mainspace, and those ought probably to be removed, but on the whole I guess I mean to suggest that this should be about 9000th on our things to do; inlining images is rather trivial and may in fact be counseled by NFCC, etc., but I think one might, in view of the relative insignificance of this potential NFCC violation, do well to wait for the community to determine whether an exemption might be conferred. Joe 05:18, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
The "what it looked like on the Main Page" argument holds no water, as it can still appear in the page's history, so there's no need to leave it active. I do agree, however, that there should be an exception, but I also have a much more liberal attitude towards Fair Use images anyway (generally because my primary articles I edit are all of fictional characters or concepts, where there's no possibility for Free Use imagery to be used). EVula // talk // // 05:22, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

This problem has been raised before. A few months ago (May this year), I discovered that many of the archives for TFA had redlinks for images that had been deleted. I then replaced many of those redlinks with free pictures. While doing this, I noticed that many non-free images still remained, and raised this point. It seems that nothing got done. See Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article#Tidying up archives from 2005, Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article#Rest of archives checked (2004, 2006 and 2007), and Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article#Replacing deleted images in the archives. There are two main points to consider: (1) Should the pages of the TFA archives that people browse show what the blurb and pic looked like on the day (remember that sometimes the pic changes during the actual day itself) - I think people should link to dated versions in the page history for historical purposes. (2) Should the pics in the archives be updated, removing non-free pics, adding free pics where available, and replacing poor quality free pics with better free pics? I think such updating should occur, because the content at the TFA archives is randomly re-used at Portal:Featured content. It is this ongoing re-use of old FA blurbs that leads me to agree with Videmus that a clean-up is needed, but I would urge Videmus and others to use {{editprotected}} to (a) request removal of the pics in question, and (b) suggest a free image that could replace it. See here for an example of around 20 edit requests I made. Carcharoth 12:20, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Here is an example of ongoing updating of the TFA archives. An image was deleted on Commons, the Commons delinker removed the image link at the TFA archives, and someone replaced it with a free pic. Carcharoth 12:30, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and I've been going through the archives from 2004 to 2006, and in most cases the pages are not fully protected. I am currently compiling lists of (a) TFA blurbs using non-free images; (b) TFA blurbs with red-link images; (c) TFA blurbs without pictures. This should only take a couple of hours. I will post the results at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article. It looks like a big cleanup effort will not be required - I can probably do most of this myself. I'd appreciate it if others held off until I've finished, as otherwise we will just duplicate efforts. Thanks. Carcharoth 12:50, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Restored Edits disappearing[edit]

Resolved: The edits just took a couple minutes to show up in the history

A while back I deleted the history of User talk:XavierVE, as he's an indef banned user and the page is full of various personal attacks and links to attack sites and the like. Another user has requested I restore the talk page history as best I can (there is clearly some shit in there that needs to stay deleted), so I started to go through it revision by revision to restore whichever edits I could - but those edits I tried to restore just disappeared. They no longer appear in the article history or in the deleted edits history. Does anyone know what's going on? WilyD 13:58, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes it takes a little while for the cache to to catchup with a restore... give it 5 min or so and check again. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 15:44, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Brian.gratwicke and his edits to Robert Mugabe and my Talk Page[edit]

There is persistent vandalism of Robert Mugabe. Since he is a living person, I presume the special care as pointed out in WP:BLP applies. In the last case of vandalism, User:Brian.gratwicke inserted the term "illegitimate" in the description of him as the president of Zimbabwe. I removed it, and, because he has been warned for his edits before, and has been on wikipedia for quite a while, I issued him with a "uw-vandalism4im" warning given the nature of the vandalism to a living person's article. He objected to this on my talk page, and I replied stating that if he wanted to claim that the election was rigged, he should be able to come up with the appropriate references. His reply was to accuse me of being a troll. I take this to be an extremely serious accusation as to my credibility without any supporting evidence, and certainly was not my motivation and never has been as one can see by my previous work on wikipedia. I would like to request some immediate action taken to deal with this problem. He is "demanding" that i withdraw the accusation of vandalism and has now repeated the accusation that I am a troll. He is attempting to escalate the matter, by alluding to an idea that I may be a ZANUPF stooge, which is clearly insulting and derogatory and without foundation,but I am refraining from replying.  DDStretch  (talk) 17:00, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I think you went too far by giving a vandalism warning to an established editor for a good faith and legitimate edit (even though the edit was POV). Mugabe's last election was heavily criticized as unfair and he is seen as a dictator by a number of people around the world; the use of the word "illegitimate" is therefore valid (although such a POV word should have references to support it, along with wording like "seen by opponents as illegitimate". Either way, this wasn't vandalism and you shouldn't have accused him of such.--Alabamaboy 17:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
It is possible that it was not vandalism, but the edits here indicate a previous history of unreferenced and inflammatory content added to the article. The editor has been around long enough to realise what you said about POV pushing, especially to an article about a living person. However, the issue of the accusation that I am a troll and the allusion to me possibly being a ZANUPF stooge remain, which I note you have not commented on (yet).  DDStretch  (talk) 17:48, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Reapplication of IP block[edit]

I'm bringing this to AN as it's not an incident per se - while it hasn't edited, there are plenty of reasons why the IP should be blocked for as long as possible:

I should elaborate on the third point - Sheneequa (talk · contribs), an ED admin, had performed a checkuser on my behalf and told me that the ED biographer, "Die clown die", had edited from two ISPs - one being RoadRunner (which was used by sock/meatpuppet Geoffrey Mitchell (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log)), the other being Grande Communications, a small Texan ISP that Sixty Six had edited from (WHOIS the IP if you don't believe me). The username "Die clown die" was most likely because of CSCWEM's block of the IP, so given the harassment of multiple admin and users in good standing, he should not edit Wikipedia under any circumstances. Will (talk) 01:37, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Usually we don't block until there has been abuse... While I am quite familiar with the abuse that SixSixty and his socks have dished out (to myself and others) I don't feel comfortable with the potential collateral damage until there is some abuse. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 02:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard needs more sysops![edit]

With all the news this week, conflict of interest is a big thing. The conflict of interest noticeboard is flagged for backlog and has 99 open cases. Please pitch in. And if you aren't a sysop, you can still help by investigating and posting warnings or making recommendations. DurovaCharge! 20:49, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Fox news block[edit]

I must make a comment about a recent Fox News IP block by User:Adam Cuerden. It was universally agreed that a block of this IP was not at all appropriate here; however, Adam Cuerden went ahead and blocked it anyway here. As this is certainly an office issue, someone pointed out to Adam that he should do something. However, Adam has not been willing to respond to my comments on his talk page that the community thought a block was inappropriate; nor, for all I can tell, did he make a mention to the Communiations Committee. I ask for someone to address this, as the block was clearly overzealous, and Adam has not discussed the issue. The Evil Spartan 17:35, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree, this is a bad block to place without notifying the Communications Committee. Major government organizations and corporations need to be reported for abuse so the Foundation can take care of any implications that may arrive. — Moe ε 18:35, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Furthermore, FoxNews has its own Abuse address, I'm sure. If we're talking about a very brief block, it's probably pre-emptive, but a long block of a range of IP's? No. Has anyone lifted the block? Evil Spartan, have you notified the blocking admin that this discussion is taking place? It looks questionable to block a whole IP range, but he should present his reasoning in terms of policy violations. (I cannot imagine any good coming from FoxNews, except a test pattern, but that doesn't matter.) Geogre 12:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
I have unblock the IP, no vandalism or POV-pushing for quite a while Alex Bakharev 13:19, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
I had two people, one telling me to remove it, the other asking me not to. I decided to let them fight it out. Adam Cuerden talk 16:20, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
You "decided to let them fight it out"? Seriously? Did it occur to you to thoughtfully consider their rationales and seek additional input from the community (which you should have sought in the first place) instead of washing your hands of the matter by simply ignoring it? —David Levy 17:23, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Wow. Speechless. Sarah 15:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

User:Alx 91[edit]

Alx 91 is removing orphaned tags from numerous images which he has uploaded, and has added warnings to a few images (Image:NASDAQ logo.png and Image:Corona can.jpg) which seem to be unwarranted. Brianga 04:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I can’t see anything wrong with his edits, worth reporting to administrators. He is correct in removing the orphaned templates, because the images are no longer orphaned! He uploaded all the images first and is now including them in the appropriate articles, the bot tagged them in-between, which is why there is a 7 day delay, to allow users to insert the images into the correct articles. On that image of that can of beer, he was right to use a copyvio template, a can of beer can’t be released under GNU GPL, it is all copyrighted by the manufacturer. Obviously he was wrong to use Spanish though, but hardly a major offence. Jackaranga 09:50, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
You can’t license a photograph of a copyrighted logo on a can of beer under the GNU GPL, imagine if people did the same with books, and photographed all the pages in the book and released the photos under the GNU GPL. People could do the same with photos, with magazines, why not also film a movie in a theatre and release the copy under the GNU GPL ? Copyright specifically forbids you to reproduce the copyrighted material by any means including digital means, so the tag was correct allthoug in the wrong language. Jackaranga 10:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Statistics on protected edit requests[edit]

I was interested in the number of protected edit requests that are made and how long it takes to respond to them. So I kept track, since May 25, of the requests while my bot updated the table of requests. Since the table is updated every half hour, any request made and resolved within a half-hour window between bot updates will not be counted by these statistics. The bot recorded 1025 protected edit requests in 88 days, about 12 per day. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Breakdown of requests by type
Type of page Percent of requests
Mediawiki 6%
Fully protected template 44%
Fully protected (other) 31%
Semiprotected 11%
Not protected 7%
Time to service requests
Percent finished
within this time
1 33%
3 50%
6 63%
12 79%
24 89%
48 96%

Looking for more eyes to review an interesting question[edit]

Help on promoting BetaWiki[edit]

I've recently come aware of a site called BetaWiki. Personally I'm using it to translate system messages into my native language. But I can see that it would also be helpful for managing english system messages. As you know, system messages can be edited by sysops at Special:Allmessages. The problem is, these changes only appear at Wikipedia, that's fine as long as the changes are only help full for Wikipedia and not for other Wiki sites. But sysops here often make general changes here that could benifit other wiki sites. MediaWiki:1movedto2 MediaWiki:article MediaWiki:badsiglength just to name a few. It would be nice if somehow all sysops would be asked to submit general changes like this to BetaWiki. After they have been verified they will be sent to MediaWiki and soon live on all Wikimedia sites. What do you think? Dose anyone have the time to start Wikipedia:BetaWiki, I'll at least add a small section at Wikipedia:Administrators' how-to guide. --Steinninn 17:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Crafting a response to attempted GFDL revocations[edit]

Recently, Wikipedia has been placed under extreme danger by the attempted revocation of a GFDL licensure grant by an admin, who then proceeded to delete all of his images. Needless to say, the license itself and the Foundation (read the general disclaimer) consider the GFDL non-revocable; if it were revocable, Wikipedia would not be able to keep working, as even a moderately active contributor who departed and wanted to take his ball home with him could cause the deletion of hundreds of articles that he had contributed to. Now imagine even 5% of departing users trying to take their ball home with them and you can see how the majority of the most edited articles on Wikipedia would have to be deleted.

Consequently, I have codified up a policy on Revocation of GFDL which I believe sums up the response we should have to attempted revocations of the GFDL. Note that this already describes a common practice, that is, the banning of anyone who attempts revocation of the GFDL (similar to how we deal with legal threats). Please discuss this proposed policy on the relevant talk page. Do not discuss it here; this is merely a notice pointing you to the correct place. We should keep the discussion centralized.

Thank you, Cyde Weys 15:11, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Just a note on prior history: we've had people do this stuff during the lifetime of Wikipedia, including I believe admins going around deleting stuff. Of course the only "policy" we need for this is the GFDL and the only tool we need is the block button.
I've taken the liberty of moving the proposed policy to Wikipedia:Revocation of GFDL is not permitted. --Tony Sidaway 18:12, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Tony is right, if a person does not understand that GFDL is irrevocable, and is performing disruptive actions based on this lack of understanding(such as removing content), and ignores explanations, then blocking seems warranted. I agree that the license itself and our rules about disruption covers this, but an explanatory essay is a good idea. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 18:31, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Please people, Only you can prevent forest fires. --Cyde Weys 00:06, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm amazed that we have admins who don't understand free content! How did that happen? Secretlondon 14:12, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Show me one RfA where this is a question. What? None? Oh, there you have your answer... RfAs should come with standard basic questions regarding GFDL, tools, and other objective criteria. Instead of the subjective popularity contests/pet issue referendum that they are. If we choose admins without basic knowledge of the objective nature of wikipedia, you can't blame them. --Cerejota 17:44, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
To the best of my knowledge, there's absolutely nothing stopping you from asking this question to each and every candidate. Feel free to ask. :P EVula // talk // // 15:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Who says that they don't understand free content? Oh, right: the people pushing for an extremely narrow action. This section opens with a conclusion, says that it's bad (which is contained in the opening conclusion) and then says that everyone must listen up. I don't suppose there is any room at all for anyone anywhere to in any way disagree with the conclusion or to point out how utterly it begs the question? No. Figured. Geogre 20:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Which admin? the only user I know that tried this was Mabler and he's not an admin Jaranda wat's sup 20:49, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Though I agree that some guideline on this is appropriate, I imagine that the wording of what is proposed above might be questioned. (If WP's lawyer feels that it is important enough, perhaps he will give advice). We *already* have a policy called Wikipedia:No legal threats. How about changing that policy so that proposing to withdraw your GFDL permission for your WP contributions will be interpreted as making a legal threat? Then such behavior would qualify for an indefinite block until the threat is withdrawn.
We don't actually know whether revocation is legally possible. (We hope that it isn't). The essay written above appears to be making demands on forces beyond our control. But it *is* within our power to prevent editors from asserting revocation and *then* continuing to edit Wikipedia. If necessary, we could also say that revocation is a cause for immediate desysopping. EdJohnston 21:28, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Revocation or an attempt to do so should definitely be a reason for immediate desysopping, and banning if possible - someone attempting to revoke the GDFL license of their contributions obviously does not care for Wikipedia anymore, and the effect is so frustrating that a ban would probably be justified. Now, it seems to me that pages which have been edited by other users probably can't have their GDFL revoked based on one user's claim, but this is something for a lawyer to look into. If the GDFL is revokable, we'll need to change something, because it would be altogether too evil to allow revocation - it would allow anyone to sabotage almost any article. We need legal counsel. Nihiltres(t.l) 22:00, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
It was I, yes I, who requested to revoke GFDL on some images I uploaded (because I didn't want them being moved to Commons and deleted here where I can't watchlist them). Although my concerns have pretty much been resolved, I still believe it would be possible, and indeed legal, providing no subsequent transformative amendments, or derivations, have been carried out. There's a pretty detailed explanation on my talk page - and yes, I do understand free content, thanks, Secretlondon. I am no longer threatening to revoke GFDL, however, because it's pretty clear it would be way more trouble than it's worth (far too many people believe they understand the rules perfectly). Neil  08:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I suggest that Neil should have his adminship revoked based upon this behavior. Someone who starts deleting his own images en masse in a WP:POINT reaction to the regular process of moving images to Commons, has de facto demonstrated that he cannot be trusted with the tools. >Radiant< 11:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Huh? It's not POINT, if a person believes that it is compliance with policies and the terms of the license. Images are not documents. We have to realize that. Suppose that Leonardo's Mona Lisa were before us. PD-old. Fine. Now, one of our clever Wikipedians takes the digital image, puts a moustache on it and goatee. Fine. What he may not do is call it Mona Lisa. He can call it L.H.O.O.Q., but, because the image is a single event rather than a process, because it means all at once rather than in sequence, "showing the contributor" means changing the title. I would say that if our user:Duchamp simply re-uploaded his "Mona Lisa" with the same file name, he has replaced a work that was licensed with one that is not. Therefore, I, for one, would argue that altering an image and popping it all over the place violates the GFDL by creating unfree from free files. This is not as simple as all of these analogies to articles would have us believe, and it damn sure can't be settled by pronouncements from on low. Geogre 13:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Sure, lets de-sysop him! Ill grab the pithfork and torches! Lets go! (NOT). I think that is a rather snap decision that I strongly disagree with. Neil is an experienced editor with a large number of contributions to this project. I believe his actions were in good faith based on his understanding of the policy. Why are people demanding his head? Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 13:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Dude, way to exaggerate everything way out of context! Hyperbolic appeal to emotion is the best way to encourage sensible discussion! >Radiant< 15:00, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Responded to Radiant on his talk page. Neil  15:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I dont see how I took it out of context? That is basically what is going on. My apologies if it discourages sensible discussion, I will however spurn any reccomendations that seriouley punish a long time contributor who may or may not of had a lapse in judgement. That is my pet peeve on this project, how quickly the community will turn on anybody who does one thing wrong. It has nothing to do with over exaggerating the situation at all. I percieve this as a very real problem. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
George the language of the license is in very clear English and "grants a world-wide, royalty-free license, unlimited in duration". Even if it is possible that a court challenge may find this part of the license unenforceable, that is something for courts of law. Wikipedia needs to see its contributions of irrevocable or it cannot build an encyclopedia off of them, and we cannot be offering our content to mirrors in an irrevocable manner. Someone who chooses to make their content "unfree" after making it "free"(as in freedom) to us, is incompatible with the projects goals and their contributions are now a burden instead of a gain. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 13:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
You're missing my point. My suggestion is that a change of an image that maintains the same name cannot show revision histories, the way the History tab on an article can, and therefore, while a GFDL photo I upload is yours to mess with, if you change it and keep the same file name you have made a new creation, one that should not be passed off as mine. In other words, altering it and yet keeping the same name violates the GFDL because it makes a new work without a new license. GFDL means that you can have it, but you can't call it the same thing, if it's not the same thing any longer. When there is a true image wiki, where clicking on revisions takes us back to see the contributions of each person in the history, then we can say that GFDL is not altered by the manipulation. We don't have that now. Right now, Duchamp gets to say that Mona Lisa always had a hot ass. Geogre 20:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
How many times do I need to say "I am no longer threatening to revoke GFDL"? Have you read what I said just above? Hopefully most people don't view my contributions as a burden after one disagreement. Hypothetically, I actually agree - someone threatening to revoke their contributions after other editors have amended the text/image in question does not share a compatible viewpoint with that of Wikipedia. However, that wasn't what I was claiming at any point. Neil  15:28, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
From his comments above, User:Neil is no longer revoking, or threatening to revoke, the license on his contributions. But he still seems to be saying 'I could revoke if I wanted to' (see his User Talk). I wish he would stop saying that, because it still has overtones of a legal threat. He is free to say whatever he wants outside of Wikipedia, but I don't think he should say that in here. From Neil's comment on Radiant's user talk: From my point of view, the matter is dealt with; I have re-uploaded my images, and, indeed, a few more. I would accept Neil's statement as a resolution of this issue, so long he doesn't persist in discussing revocation as something he could do. EdJohnston 15:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
My opinion (and only my opinion) is that revocation might be possible. I don't think expressing an opinion (and not one I am alone in having) has any tones of a legal threat. Unless the thought police are now in charge. However, I guarantee I will never again ask to revoke GFDL or other kind of Wikipedia licensing, nor support anyone else attempting to do so, in any way, shape or form. I do not want to - my concerns have been addressed. How's that? Neil  15:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
My concerns have been addressed as well. EdJohnston 16:01, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


I request that action be taken to look into edits made by User:Sherzo on the List of United States Presidents by military service page. He has, for at least the ninth time, edited it to a NPOV. He has been asked to stop. This time he changed George Bush's service to AWOL with the reference being a highly controversial and onsided movie produced by Michael Moore, Fahrenheit 9/11. He continues to vandalize this page after being warned over and over. This is still a highly controversial topic with it's own page on wikipedia. When you warn him he makes taunts back to the person who warned them. Thanks. User:Bluecord August 18, 2007

Good faith edits aren't vandalism, no matter how much you disagree with it. I suggest instead of 'warning' him about his actions, that you talk with him to see why he prefers this revision. Thank you! — Moe ε 21:12, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Also, the admin's noticeboard really isn't the right place to bring these kind of problems, because we have no power to arbitrate content disputes. Natalie 21:30, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

These are not good faith edits. This is a politically slanted edit that he has been talk to about several times. No one is in concensous about this edit and he is a blantant jack ass to anyone who tries to talk to him about it. What we are asking for is at least a warning block.User:Bluecord

Don't make personal attacks, or you're the one going to end up blocked. — Moe ε 22:40, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I haven't made any personal attacks. You can clearly see where he has though if you do any research. There have been many complaints made against this user besides myself due to his actions. However, no one wants to take action which makes it seem that you guys want wikipedia to be utilized for blantant political statements. I take great offense to your warning. I have never personally attacked anyone on here. All I want to do, being a veteran and history teacher, is to make sure that things are correct and not politically biased. This is the problem we are having.User:Bluecord

How isn't "he is a blantant jack ass" a personal attack? ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 00:04, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Er..."Blantant" - and you're a teacher? LessHeard vanU 00:16, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

More crap like this [6] trying to get editors blocked will result in you being blocked Bluecord. — Moe ε 00:18, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Moe, what the heck are you talking about?User:Bluecord

New editor: User:Sherzoe
Says he's Sherzo, which outside of this thread I have never had any contact with anyone named Sherzo or Sherzoe.
Sherzoe threatens to "sue my fucking ass".
As I said Sherzoe and I have never talked before, so threats of legal action from him are slim to none.
I just warned you of personal attacks you don't admit.
Need I go on? I can see straight through obvious sockpuppetry, I'm not stupid. — Moe ε 00:26, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Moe, I didn't have anything to do with that. I don't even know where that edit happened or who that is. I think you need to do a little more research before you make accusations against me. I am trying to be civil in this manner and would never ever do something like that to another user.Bluecord

Moe, THAT IS NOT ME. It maybe someone else who has had an issue with him, but not me.Bluecord

This is an unwaranted accusation. The user Sherzoe did not originate from my IP address. Please ignore any accusations that are made linking me with this user. Thank you.BluecordBluecord 02:06, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

User blocked indefinitely per checkuser evidence of sockpuppetry. Feel free to alter the block if necessary. --DarkFalls talk 09:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Like I'm ever wrong about sockpuppets :) — Moe ε 21:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

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

DNSstuff no longer permitting Wikipedia WHOIS requests[edit]

The IPvandal and other Wikipedia tools for WHOIS lookups went to the DNSstuff website, and they are now redirecting such requests to a subscription page. THF 22:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

You could try ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:47, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
WORKSFORME, I don't have a problem when I click the WHOIS link or any of the other ones. Cbrown1023 talk 22:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Also works for me, perhaps you have exceeded the number of permitted lookups. Check the dnsstuff banning info. Navou banter 23:23, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I'm not admin, but just telling you that it still works for me, and I've looked up info like that like 100 times now. Thanks. ~AH1(TCU) 23:28, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

See MediaWiki talk:Anontalkpagetext for more (brief) discussion related to this. It seems to be working for some, but not for all. Might be best to find a site that accepts everyone. - auburnpilot talk 01:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Does this explain the recent abrupt inquiry at my talkpage, perhaps? --Wetman 01:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, it works for me on one IP address, and not at the one where I do the vast majority of my Wiki edits, so it suggests that it is a cookie issue of exceeding the number of permitted lookups. Though that in itself is a potential problem. THF 14:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Can you figure out which cookie it is and remove it from your computer? Corvus cornix 16:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I would expect it is done server-side with IP addresses, not client-side with cookies. --Tango 18:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Whatever is causing the problem, something needs to be done. It makes it quite difficult to review vandals and unblock requests when the linked WHOIS doesn't work. - auburnpilot talk 22:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism bot block length[edit]

Just to get everybody else's feedback, to what length do you think we should be blocking these slew of vandalism bots that have been appearing? An example is (talk · contribs). I've seen other admins do indef, 1 year, 1 month, and 1 week. I've also seen different block reasons. Can we settle (or at least try) on a particular block length and reason? I don't mind what we settle on, just thought we should settle on something standard. -- Gogo Dodo 05:55, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

They are usually proxies or zombie computers, so indefinite should cover it. If ever a real person starts using the IP, they can always request unblocking on the talk page. Neil  08:55, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Umm, just make sure they are really proxies first. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 13:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
They are all open proxies, but the IPs are sometimes dynamic. I opt for five years where there is evidence that the proxy has been around for a while (tagged with {{blocked proxy}}), and six months where the IP is probably dynamic or the proxy is short-lived (tagged 'vandalbot'). I've seen blocks for one week and one month which is probably OK for short-term proxies. The only way this bot edits is through open proxies. -- zzuuzz (talk) 13:40, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Any automated vandal editing earns an automatic indefinite block as far as I'm concerned. The computer may not be an open proxy, but if not it is a zombie computer and will continue to do as much damage either way. Dynamic IPs do throw a minor wrench into things, but that's what {{unblock}} is for. (ESkog)(Talk) 15:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
That's what I said. I always knew ESkog was a smart guy. ;) Neil  15:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I would go with 6 months. Is the risk of one of these IP addresses vandalising in 6 months time really much higher than any other address? I don't expect so. If they are open proxies, then by all means block indefinitely, but zombie computers aren't necessarily going to remain zombies over a long period. In fact, a 1 week block is probably enough for most, since zombie's rarely have static IPs. --Tango 18:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Generally I agree with Neil and ESkog, though I'd suggest after the initial block to stop the vandalism in progress, WHOIS the IP and if it is dynamic you could probably drop it to 24/48 hours just so unblock list isn't getting inundated with IP unblock requests where the original vandal is long gone.--Isotope23 talk 19:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Username imposter or spoof -- policy?[edit]

Is there a specific policy which addresses someone coding/typing a sig line with intent to deceive -- to intentionally appear as if they were some other specific user? The policy at confusing usernames doesn't quite seem to cover this; the typed name doesn't "closely resemble" someone else's username, it is someone else's user name (if the IP plus-typed-name user and the regular User:Example are two different people; they seem to be so far). I'm trying an informal approach first to ask the IP user if they are User:Example, though the contrib histories suggest strongly they are not. While this is still informal, I'd like to be able to point the possible offender to the right policy against spoofing someone else's legit name, or using a fake sig to further an imposture. Thank you. -- Lisasmall | Talk 17:55, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

imping (the activity of pretending to be another user) I would think counts as disruption. --Rocksanddirt 18:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, impersonation is disruptive. Blocking is one of the appropriate solutions to disruptions. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 19:58, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Definitely blockable, it's fraud, deception, and disruptive.Rlevse 23:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Falsifying definitely counts as disruption. EVula // talk // // 23:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

(reset indents) Thank you all. Right now, WP:IMP and WP:Imp take you somewhere else. WP:Impersonate and Wikipedia:Impersonate take you nowhere. The section at WP:USERNAME on disruptive usernames includes Usernames that are similar to those previously used by persistent vandals or banned users but doesn't have Usernames that are, or appear to be, identical to those in use by other users. Since WP:USERNAME is a policy page, I'll make a suggestions about this to its talk page, WT:U. Thanks very much for the guidance. -- Lisasmall | Talk 01:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:SIG#Customizing your signature is relevant here; "In no circumstance should a signature be used to impersonate another user: in particular, a signature should not be identical to the actual username of another existing user. While not an absolute requirement, it is common practice for a signature to resemble to some degree the username it represents." Was that what you were looking for? --ais523 16:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


I just got a bot message saying that the image I'd uploaded for use on this page [Image:RebelStarcover.jpg] was orphaned. I went to the page to check it out and found it had been turned into a redirect. I went to the original Rebelstar page and all the content I wrote has vanished. There's nothing in the history apart from the redirect creation, and the page logs are empty. What's going on here??? Exxolon 01:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

  • A cached copy of the previous content can be seen here [7].Exxolon 01:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
The page history shows the page was moved to Rebelstar (series), which includes your original edits [8]. - auburnpilot talk 01:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Discussion continued on WP:ANI. Exxolon 02:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

cryptic content readded to BLP-relevant article[edit]

I am in a quandary over how to handle the editing of the Bob Casey, Jr. page. The vast majority of its last 50-100 edits are dealing wih this issue, so for now I don't have an diffs; the History page is pretty self explanatory.

The page had a Trivia section (discouraged of course) containing simply the sentence "Mr. Casey is proud of the fact that he knows how many bars of soap are provided for patrons of the Red Roof Inn in an interview on the Pennsylvania Cable Network." or something very similar. This content was added some time ago, and the Talk page shows other editors had issues with it before me. I added a "trivia" tag to that section.

Then the removals began, mostly by anons although also by User:Pittsburgh1. I put the tag back a few times, usually (but not always) mentioning something on the respective usertalk pages. With no responses forthcoming, I removed the material. Anons kept putting it back. Finally, I posted to the articles talk page, being firmer in that this needed to be (better) sourced and placed in some kind of context. I smile as I say this "helped", because then an anon put the info into a pre-existing section, but still with no context whatsoever(!). I kept the content but added a "fansite" tag as some of its language seemed to apply (excessive trivia, lack of context, irrelevant criticism(?) etc.). Well, it was removed. Currently I put it back.

I would like some comment as to whether indeed this material needs to be better sourced and better incorporated to the article (context etc.). My assumption all along was that 1) if it stays, it is much better not in a trivia section 2) Without good sourcing and context, it could be deleted without difficulty per BLP issues, albeit not severe ones.

So I ask, can I have some feedback as to whether my actions are justified? If it is not clearcut, I do not wish to edit-war, nor come across like I own the article. I bring this here rather than AIV (still within radius of good-faith) or BLP noticeboard (the proper action might be page protection). I will point out that I would be much more flexible if there was any feedback from the editors who inserted the content and removed tags. There was none.

Thanks, Baccyak4H (Yak!) 03:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with removing the sentence. Unless the fact that he made the statement has been commented on by other publications, I don't see how it is relevant or notable of itself. I think the BLP noticeboard is a more suitable place for these issues though. Cheers Kevin 04:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Threatened sockpuppetry by User:[edit]

I just blocked this anon for the usual 24 hours for vandalism to Mike Morgan, Ray King and User talk:CruiserBob. On the talk page he more or less threatens to continue with sockpuppets. I semi-protected the three pages above, but any vandalism to other baseball relief pitchers' pages or my user and talk pages by anons should probably be considered to be socks of this user.

Just a heads-up. Daniel Case 05:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

What is acceptable article tagging behaviour?[edit]

I'd like some opinions on whether it is acceptable to engage in mass-tagging of articles within a particular topic area, as opposed to raising general issues and concerns at a WikiProject talk page (if one exists)? I am referring to a series of edits by User:Guest9999. See Special:Contributions/Guest9999 for details, and in particular this series of 302 edits on 18 August. During that series of edits, Guest9999 placed many tags on Middle-earth related articles: 45 PROD tags were followed by nominating 24 articles for deletion at 2 umbrella AfDs, followed by placing 193 notability tags. The tagging seems fairly indiscriminate, as minor places were tagged along with major locations such as Rivendell, Rohan and Lothlorien. I have raised this at the user's talk page (several discussions there are also relevant, from here onwards), and pointed out that there is a WikiProject trying to rectify the problems with Middle-earth-related articles. I would be the first to admit that these problems exist. I've asked the user if they will consider raising their concerns at the WikiProject talk page, instead of putting notability tags on hundreds of separate articles, behaviour that I think borders on being disruptive. The user has replied to me, but the issue still remains as to whether this behaviour is disruptive or not, and I'd welcome second opinions. User:IronGargoyle has since reverted most of the tagging. Guest9999 has explained his tagging here and here. It looks like this particular case is being resolved amicably (and is possibly due to inexperience as regards the best way to flag up such issues), but advice on the general case of how to deal with mass tagging that disrupts the efforts of a WikiProject to carry out long-term merging and sourcing on a group of articles, would be welcomed. Thanks. Carcharoth 00:12, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

My own view is that the mass tagger believes he or she is doing the good thing, and such a tagger is probably not a newbie, but an intermedie, as it were. True newbies put two tags up and see what happens. Oldsters know about the sore spots and don't tag unless they want a fight. It's the sophomoric that are problematic. Until notified of the inappropriateness of what they're doing, they're trying to help. If they keep going after that, then we're looking at disruption.
The problem is the volume. 302 edits before being notified? Wow. Anyone who gets in 300+ edits in very short order probably (it's just probability) trying to say something, is probably highly motivated, and that kind of messianic impulse could be problematic in another context.
Short version: notify them. Until you notify them, AGF means believing they're trying to help. After notifying, weigh the intent -- is it to "fix Wikipedia" or "help Wikipedia?" The latter is wholly good. The former...maybe not so much. Geogre 12:45, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Excellent answer. Very insightful. :-) FloNight 22:04, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. Thanks, Geogre. Intermedie? That's a new one for the book. Carcharoth 23:31, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Just assume good faith. If no rules were broken, try considering whether the tags accurately represent the article and its current needs, and try to address it on the talk page or fixing the article. ~ UBeR 01:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, it wasn't the appropriateness of the tags, more the volume and switching from one set to another, instead of starting a general discussion, but it's all sorted now, anyway (well, apart from the clean-up work on the articles, which is still needed). Carcharoth 13:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

As the user in question I would just like to say that my aim was not to prove a point, disrupt Wikipedia or push my own POV. I am learning from experience that mass anything (deletions, nominations, tagging) on Wikipedia don't seem to go down well. I still think that most of the articles that I tagged should have remained tagged (although I did accidentally mess up the formatting on a few articles) and that the tags shouldn't have been removed without providing some evidence of notability - however that is not the point. I see now that the way that I acted was not the correct way to go about things in a project which is based largely on community consensus although I would say that I was acting in the way layed out by WP:BOLD, and that I did try to co-operate by withdawing the AfDs that I originally started when asked. [[Guest9999 22:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)]]

Absolutely. I agree that the problems you raised were very real, but as you now say, your method probably wasn't the best way to draw attention to the problems, though in some ways it was a bit of a wake-up call - a literal prod to carry on cleaning up those articles! I apologise if you felt my response slighted your contributions in any way, and I'd like to thank you for drawing attention to the issues. Please feel free to help out or come back later and see how we (WikiProject Middle-earth) are getting on. Carcharoth 13:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus closed[edit]

The above case is closed. A general amnesty for editors involved in Eastern Europe-related articles is extended, with the expectation that further editing will adhere to Wikipedia's policies. Future behavior problems may be addressed by the Arbitration Committee on the motion of any Arbitrator or upon acceptance of a request for inquiry by any user who edits in this area. For the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (t) 19:14, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

...So, we had pages and pages of evidence that everyone is deliberately obstructing each other, plotting onwiki disruption offwiki, the findings of fact included "In the course of these disputes, many of the editors involved have acted in some manner that violates Wikipedia policy; this includes both occasional editors as well as some of the primary producers of content on the topic", and the result was the long awaited...amnesty. In short, Arbcom intends to do nothing until someone decides to file another case, which, because as the Arbcom itself pointed out, the Eastern Europe articles suffer from "long-standing personal enmity between some of the editors working in the area, as well as by the broader historical and cultural circumstances of the region", is only a matter of time. So, if Arbcom has decided to let abuses go unpunished even when they acknowledge they're there, what's the point of having it anymore? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 15:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Obviously, this will show up again, but such is the ruling at the present time with the present ArbCom, and the result shows as much the difficulties of consensus among ArbCom members as anything else. I'm speculating, but probably some arbitrators thought, "Well, I'm sure they're not going to do it again," and some thought, "This isn't clear cut," and some thought, "It's clearly his fault (or his, or his, or his)." There is a value to a second case. I'm sure it seems to the involved parties like this is a rolling horror show that repeats every day, but just keep a cool head, keep vigilant, be polite, and abide by the ruling such as it is. Geogre 20:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Sometimes, before you lance a boil you have to let it fully form (so all the poison can be extracted). Just a thought. LessHeard vanU 20:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Extremely unfortunate choice of image, I'm afraid. I don't think the sores will look any better, and I don't think the people are the cankers. Geogre 02:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe they're hoping the editors will let bygones be bygones and work things out, with the understanding that a second arbitration would result in much harsher remedies. DurovaCharge! 20:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I should think so, but the participants have every reason to believe that it's going to happen again. I'm sure I'm not alone in hoping that they're wrong. If there really are masses of throw-away accounts being used, gaming of the policies, etc., then we'll have see it again. I hope not. (I think about the "my garden" rule. What you do in your yard, saying that your roses are beautiful, is fine, so long as you don't go into my garden to say that my roses are weeds. The problem is that the garden walls have shifted back and forth, and each gardener wants to claim the waste, and my metaphor just broke in half.) Geogre 02:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, it was better than the boil metaphor. That brought back memories of the contremps that led to a different arbitration case. Carcharoth 14:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Concerning Image:7674564574788.jpg[edit]

Hi! I'm an admin from Commons. Image:7674564574788.jpg was deleted on en: as a copyvio. The very same picture is now on Commons, where it's marked as PD-user-en, the author being a Richard Arthur Norton. I'd like to know what the original description was, and if possible what motivated the deletion here. Thanks in advance, Jastrow (Λέγετε) 18:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Here's the page history.
# 2005-07-03T05:21:20 . . Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (Talk | contribs | block)
# 2005-07-02T23:35:08 . . Chiacomo (Talk | contribs | block) (imagevio)
# 2005-01-02T02:19:26 . . Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (Talk | contribs | block) (The Portland Vase {{pd-user}})
According to the deleted history, the image is at . — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict):The file here was claimed to be a copyvio of this. Also note, the uploader changed the license from PD-self to promotional. While the link is not a pixel for pixel copy, the view is the same to suggest that the source for both images is the same. Needless to say, based on the uploader's change of license, I believe it is safe to say that they do not own the copyright of the image (and since this is a sculpture, not a 2D piece of art, the PD-old rationale doesn't apply either). Therefore, I believe it is safe to delete the image from the commons. Hope this helps. I can provide more detail if necessary.-Andrew c [talk] 18:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Confirm, it was the original uploader here that changed the tag to {{promotional}}. GRBerry 20:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Can I nominate this image title as "one of the vaguest titles ever"? hbdragon88 03:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks guys for your help. I'll delete the picture on your evidence. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 07:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Having trouble with a stubborn vandal[edit]

User:Laughing Man clearly vandalizes here. I warn, and he removes the warnings persistently, then he accuses my of vandalizing his talk page. He won't accept the fact that he vandalized, please help. Cheers, JetLover (talk) 05:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

If he removes things from his talk page, that is just evidence that he has read them. If he continues to vandalize, post the relevant diffs here and he may be blocked. — Carl (CBM · talk) 05:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
What was pissing me off is that he was accusing me of vandalizing his talk page. Cheers, JetLover (talk) 05:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Your anger is fair, but don't let it distract you from writing an encyclopedia. Accusations of vandalism get thrown around. Let it roll off your back and move on.--Chaser - T 05:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
So, let him accuse. Laugh it off. Remember that this is one user; proceed with good practice. Geogre 12:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that he shouldn't have called your edits vandalism...but don't you think posting the warning 11 times, 9 times after he'd asked you to stop, was going a little bit overboard? --OnoremDil 12:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

3 editors 'tag teaming' to keep false charges againt me[edit]

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

User:Calbaer made some false charges against me on Tbeatty's page, that I called him Gay, Link and when I answered them, Tbeatty erased them. This is not right! Tbeatty made trouble for me last night, and lost, and now he's doing it again. It is in no way fair or correct for him to erase my answer to Calbaers false charges! Please talk to him and ask him to just leave me be! Here is the 'diff'. Link Is that what you left me a message about? Thank you. ΞBMEDLEYΔSUTLERΞ 05:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I removed the false charges and NPA on Tbeattys page since he won't let me answer them. Please 'mediate' Thank you. ΞBMEDLEYΔSUTLERΞ 05:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I suggest that you stay away from him, and vice versa. Newyorkbrad 05:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
It was Crockspots who erased my words the second time! I will not let false charges against me stand! It was Crockspots who wrote that anybody with 'Bear' in their name 'takes it up the ass' not me! Now he erases my proofs to Calbaer who claims that I said that about him? I will not let that stand! Here is the link to Crockspots words on Conservatives Underground. Link Thank you. ΞBMEDLEYΔSUTLERΞ 05:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)]
Now Tbeatty put up the false charges one more time, with shading. I removed them one more time. He and Crocspots are making 'tag teamed' edits to keep false charges about me on his page. Please 'mediate' as an administrator. Thank you! ΞBMEDLEYΔSUTLERΞ 06:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Now Mongo put again the false charges! ΞBMEDLEYΔSUTLERΞ 06:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I see no attacks. Just a discussion of the content of your edits. You were asked not to edit tbeatys talk page. I see most of your posting as little more than taunts, especially your continual links to the crockspot posting. I think that Newyorkbrad offered some very good advice. Dman727 06:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Why are you entering the fight now? Calbaer accused me of making a dig at him! Crockspots wrote the homophobic words about 'Bears' 'taking it up the ass' not me. That is a false charge. Then Calbaer accused me of being homophobic, when I only point out homophobia, and I am Gay and I am out! I have a right to answer of remove the false charges and NPA's, or have an administrator do it. ΞBMEDLEYΔSUTLERΞ 06:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Newyorkbrad's advice is sound. I suggest following it. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Respectfully, Bmedley I am not interesting in your lifestyle. Nor is this a "fight". At least is not supposed to be (see [[9]]). I've read the postings and talk pages and honestly, well I think that you are unnecessarily escalating things. Dman727 06:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I have a right to have false charges against me removed, if the editors who make them or keep them won't be men enough to let my answers to them stand. ΞBMEDLEYΔSUTLERΞ 06:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Red warning.png
Blocked: 24 hours for violating the 3 revert rule on User talk:Tbeatty and for edit warring on other talk pages as well. It would be nice if other users would be willing to acknowledge Bmedley's claim that he was misrepresented, but there is, of course, no basis to force this. Thatcher131 11:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I didn't see the supposed "dig" that Calbaer mentioned so Bmedley was misrepesented there. Nor did I see Bmedley's charge that Calbaer said Bmedley called him gay (if you can follow that).. I just don't want it on my talk page. I thought the whole series of this on the RfAr was disgusting, defamatory and a violation of a whole slew of policies and principles of Wikipedia. The meat puppetry that was the RfAr doesn't need to extend to my talk page. --Tbeatty 20:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

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

Talk page blanking[edit]

Cuddlyable3 is blanking sections of talk pages against Refactoring talk page policy. They leave the blanked sections with the text WP:RPA. RPA is an essay which suggested that personal attacks should be removed from talk pages, however it isn’t and has never been policy but furthermore the content cuddlyable3 is removing isn’t personal attacks and I believe it is simply being used as an excuse. This has been pointed out around 10-15 times to the user. However, the user just continues and when a note is left on their user page warning about talk page vandalism they just remove it. Such as here: [10]. Administrator intervention would be great in this case otherwise this pathetically small but none the less incredibly aggravating issue is likely to have to go to arbitration if they will accept. Here is a typical cuddlyable3 RPA blanking: [11] Thanks for your time. WikipedianProlific(Talk) 16:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Cuddlyable3 removes two sentences from Talk:Fuel_injection. They may, or may not, be an attack, but they don't add anything to the discussion. So you restore the material. Cuddlyable3 deletes it again and you revert within 10 minutes. Let's say that I wasn't surprised that Cuddlyable3 reverted you, albeit more than 3 hours later. All this, and dubious warnings too. It's past time for this to stop. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Users may remove warnings from their talk pages per WP:TALK#User_talk_pages. It is taken to indicate that they have received the warning. Flyguy649 talk contribs 17:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

There are other reverts last month of more substaintail material. I suggest a more thorough read of the edit history of the user in question. Equally thats a breach of 3RR above. Even small sentences are fairly significant on the article as the general dispute was part of mediation and an ongoing dispute, so its removal is fairly important. In response to the second query I wasn't suggesting the user shouldn't remove warnings from their talk page but was rather trying to indicate the user isn't prepared to discuss the matter. We tried to go to mediation but the user backed out. I don't see why the warning was dubious in the slightest. Refactoring policy is fairly clear on this, that any material removed from a talk page should be reverted back if a user is not happy to have it removed. I'm a little dissapointed by the lack of a clear response in line with policy. WikipedianProlific(Talk) 17:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The warning is dubious because, while an RPA may be inappropriate, it is not vandalism, and a vandalism warning for non-vandalism is inappropriate. And why edit-war to reinsert an inappropriate talk-page comment? What sort of clear response would you like? Diffs are still available to demonstrate what the original talk-page comments were. If there's a deletion of substantive talk-page comments, why did you show us a diff of a legitimate RPA? It's not immediately apparent that Cuddly is doing anything wrong other than being the other side of your edit-war. THF 18:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Note these are article talk pages, not user talk pages. Thatcher131 18:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Point taken about the diffs, although with regard to the RPA removals being vandalism we pointed out to him that in line with refactoring policy we didn't want any comments removed, irrelevant of the RPA non-policy essay, especially when its really questionable whether its even a personal attack and that further removals would be considered talk page vandalism if the user was unprepared to discuss the matter. The RPA essay itself seems to me to suggest the type of personal attacks to be removed should be more like racial insults, obvious slurs and such that are clearly a personal attack. Anyway, moving on this is a diff of a more substaintial removal, which was a shame as these [12] comments were quite central to the mediation on the article. This isn't really an edit war as I have stated on teh talk page that I am not prepared to make more than the reverts I have made now (2) today. If this method of resolving it fails then I suspect I and the other editors involved will try to take it to the arbitration comittee but it seems like such a pathetic thing to take that far, yet its incredibly irritating to have your comments removed, and persistantly removed after you've asked for them to be kept. Thanks WikipedianProlific(Talk) 19:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Minor Update: It seems another user has found Cuddlyable3's RPA talk page removals to be vandalism and restored my original warning plus their own. WikipedianProlific(Talk) 19:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Who is adding the uncivil "[sic]" to your talk-page comments? THF 19:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Cuddlyable3. This following edit was the user page vandalism which consists of some fairly heavy and abusive language in this edit plus the addition of [sic] tags, the talk page comments were also cuddlyable3, here are the diffs. I hope that answers your question if I understood it correctly? WikipedianProlific(Talk) 19:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Stupid pointless crap. Final warning given. Thatcher131 19:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Agree with Thatcher131... this is a complete misuse of WP:RPA (which is only an essay); none of the text being removed is even close to a personal attack. If this was in the user talk space it would be one thing, but I don't think this needs to be tolerated in the article talkspace; it is disruptive edit warring over nothing.--Isotope23 talk 19:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the intervention guys. Believe it or not I think the user in question is usually well intentioned but just may be prone to getting carried away with it, i dont think this will take extreme punative measures, i'm sure they'll heed the warning and resume peacefull editing. As far as I can see this matter is now closed unless further erroneous RPA removals occur. Thanks for your time, sorry if I was not direct enough to begin with, I should have provided you with more suitable diffs. Apologies. WikipedianProlific(Talk) 19:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Agree with .Isotope23, this is inapropriate use (intentional or otherwise) of WP:RPA in the article talkspace. Seems there is clear consensus that. --Hu12 20:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jeffrey O. Gustafson[edit]

This arbitration case has now closed, and the decision may be found at the link above. Jeffrey O. Gustafson's adminship is suspended for a period of 30 days. For the arbitration committee, David Mestel(Talk) 21:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

George Clooney EL[edit]

Could some editors please add their comments to the discussion going on the George Clooney page? I have deleted Clooney Studio from the EL section for copyright violations (displaying pictures and videos without the copyright holders' permission), and they[24] continue to readd it. Wikipedia's policy states to delete any fansites that contain copyrighted material that doesn't belong to the webmaster. Clearly, this site does, and the webmaster even admits to it on the Talk page. There has been an ongoing discussion in regards to another fansite that was deleted as an external link on the grounds of copyright violatings, and this site fits the same bill. ( 21:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC))

Minor edit war[edit]

Editors who seem to be strong proponents of the "real-world content" directive in WP:FICT keep reverting Battle of Yavin into a redirect, essentially deleting swathes of verifiable, if not necessarily notable, information. The article has been edited by good faith contributers for over two years now, and I think the least it deserves is a hearing at AfD. Ichormosquito 00:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Proxy Puppets[edit]

A discussion has started at Wikipedia talk:Sock puppetry about the situation where a principal editors recruits another experienced editor, a proxy, to make edits on their behalf. A principal may try to do this if they have a conflict of interest or if they are concerned about public appearances. WP:MEAT focuses on new editors, not established editors. Is this sort of editing problematic, or should it be allowed? Please weigh in. We are looking for broad participation. - Jehochman Talk 01:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

A user to keep an eye on[edit]

Could someone keep an eye on Paulie's World (talk · contribs)? He's been trolling DRV lately. - A Man In Bl♟ck (