Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive104

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

Noticeboard archives


Admin protected his talk page[edit]

Initially, I had another issue I was going to take up with an admin, User_talk:FCYTravis, but his talk page was locked. I posted here about my original issue (it ended up in the BLP noticeboard as per FCYTravis's request) and the protection on his talk page. He replied that "...semiprotection of my talk page is not an abuse. You want to post there, register an account. Free, easy and anonymous." Wikipedia:Protection_policy states that semi-protection may be used for "User pages (but not user talk pages), when requested by the user."

Especially for an admin, as IP users might wish to contact them, semi-protected talk pages are inappropriate, and I think FCYTravis abused his power in applying the protection.

As far as protecting his own page, he claimed that "My userpage is fully protected because... it's my userpage and nobody else has any business editing it." User pages are not eligible for full protection, he's acting like he owns his user page, and he should have had another admin lock his page to prevent a conflict of interest (he may have, I haven't seen the log). Fully protecting a user page was probably also an abuse of administrator powers.

I reported this here and not the protection page because there might be a more serious issue than just protection. 05:46, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, gotta say, protecting his talk page is a bit extreme; there are plenty of good-faith reasons for a new user to drop him a line. Even if his talk page was getting hit with vandalism, it should only get locked down for a short period of time. I'm informing FCYTravis of this thread right now... EVula // talk // // 05:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Which I, myself, would have done if not for... 05:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Does appear unusual as it been semiprotected since Dec 2006 dif Gnangarra 05:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
I recommend we firmly, but politely, suggest that he unprotect his page on his own. Then again, he'll be seeing my message... so..err... yeah. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 06:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
I think it's okay to sprot it for a short while if there's a good reason, but it shouldn't be kept permanently protected, especially when he's actively deleting pages and blocking people. I think he should unprotect it, if there isn't a particularly good reason for the protection. We are supposed to welcome anons editing and they need to be able to leave messages. Sarah 06:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I have un-semi'd my user talk page. The full protection of my userpage will remain - it experienced quite a bit of nasty repeat vandalism when unprotected, and I don't feel like wasting a bunch of my time making sure it's reverted. There's nothing in the least abusive about keeping it protected, unless you think you have a good reason you need to edit it. I await hearing about said reason. FCYTravis 06:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for unprotecting your talk page; I can't see any problems with your userpage remaining protected. Sarah 06:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
I have no good reason, although I think you should go to semi-protected, then see if there's a problem. 06:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
The argument for unprotecting your talk page does not carry over to unprotecting your userpage; leaving it protected seems fine to me. Personally, I would recommend tuning it down to semi-protected, but that's just me; there's very little reason for anyone other than you to edit your userpage (if you had more userboxes, there might be a greater case to be made for toning down the protection). EVula // talk // // 15:15, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps he semi-protected his talk page because anons repeatedly vandalised, trolled and harassed him? I used to edit regularly, but left for that reason. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

  • That would be why, for sure. And in this case the anon also violated Godwin's Law, so I don't think there's anything for us to do here except issue an official "so what". Guy (Help!) 07:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oh, for peat's sake, protecting one's own talk page is not an "abuse of admin powers" ... it is using one's admin powers, though possibly with poor judgement (though that is clearly debatable, as we are now debating it ;-). I wish people would stop arbitrarily decrying "admin abuse" where there simply is none. It is tiresome. --Iamunknown 08:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Yes - people are too quick to scream "abuse", when it's just a case of poor judgement. But semi-protecting your user-page long term and telling people who take issue to "get an account" is ludicrous. IP editors are not an underclass. Neil  10:26, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
How difficult would it be for a user to request and receive protection of his or her user page? Is there a reason why this should be an easier process for an admin? Or should an admin do the same thing a non-admin user does: request it of an admin? Wouldn't having those extra eye-balls on the situation bring added value? Isn't it worth (at least) setting a good example? If the admin feels setting a good example is a "waste of time", perhaps that admin shouldn't be bothered with the duties of adminship. (sdsds - talk) 15:48, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Somewhere above, I said that admins wishing to protect their own user pages should as another admin. It wouldn't be much trouble, and it would bring in a second opinion. Doctors don't treat themselves; admins should talk to other admins for their needs as users. 16:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
If you get trouble on your talk page from an anon, make a sub-page for anons and link to it. Takes all the fun out if it for the trolls, and a real anon can still talk to you. Unless it is to gain advantage in some sort of content dispute, I don't see why an admin could not protect their own page. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 16:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, but if your watchlist is of a moderate size, it's pretty easy to completely miss any comments left on the pseudo-talk page without the orange bar to alert you. I know there's a slim chance of me catching something like that among the 2k+ items on my watchlist (I really need to clear it out, though...). EVula // talk // // 16:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
I have a watchlist of similar size, and it worked pretty well for me back when my talk page was being hit by an IP vandal. One additional step I took was transcluding the unprotected subpage to my real talk page, both so that I could easily see any comments left there and so that they'd be visible to others as well. Then again, depending on the type of vandalism one is getting, this might not be a good idea. In my case, I wasn't concerned with anything the vandal might have done to the subpage, I just wanted to keep them from blanking the real content of my talk page while they vandalized it. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 20:48, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
In response to "people are too quick to scream..." If after I took it to the wikiquette notice board, he said "Oops, I didn't mean to leave that on. It's unlocked, you can comment now," I wouldn't say he abused his power. The response I got, however, wasn't quite so accommodating. That said, I'm satisfied with the outcome. I really just wanted to see the talk page unlocked. 16:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
So you were too quick to scream, then, and he fixed it. Thanks for that. Someone semi protected my talk page a while back, it stayed that way for months because I didn't notice or didn't remember. It's a trivially mistake to make. Needless to say, banned troll JB196 screamed hysterically about this atrocious abuse of administrator powers. One of the many reasons that complaints from banned trolls are not useful as critique. Guy (Help!) 10:12, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

"last" warning?[edit]

I've seen this before: a "last" or "only" warning, followed a few days later by lower level warnings. It is as if the posters did not see the "last" warning and just started over. Or it could be that they decided the vandal had reformed.

My question is: how long after a high level warning does the clock reset?

  • Suppose there is a bunch of vandalism, with escalating warnings to a "last" warning, then a week with a dozen good contributions, before another case of vandalism. Does the week of good contributions demonstrate that the vandal has reformed, so the newest vandalism gets a level 1 warning or does the vandalism just one week after the "last" warning trigger a report to WP:AIV?
  • Same start, but then a month-long break with zero contributions, before new vandalism. Restart at level 1 or report to AIV?

Sbowers3 16:40, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The short answer: It depends. Remember, the idea is to get people to stop unconstructive behavior; blocking (or banning) people is a last resort.
The long answer: Theoretically, warnings are supposed to given in a gradual manner, but experience will show that some people will respond well to a gentle request, while some seem to respect nothing short of having their ISP disconnect them and/or their computer taken away. Then there is the philosophy, experience and mood of the various Admins involved: I'd guess most will ignore a single warning from 6 or more months ago, no matter the severity; but it's clear that many recent warnings increase the likelihood that a user will be blocked.
I don't see any warnings on your Talk page -- if anything, the exact opposite. Are you thinking of a specific editor? -- llywrch 17:09, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Usually you can treat IP vandals as if they were a completely different person from the previous vandal, so starting over after a final warning and a break is appropriate. For an account vandal, if they took a month off after a warning and then started in again, I would create a customized warning explaining that they had been notified before that such behavior was unacceptable, and because of the long break I was giving them one more shot. Then if they screwed that up they'd probably be immediately blockable. --Masamage 17:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
IP vandals do have to be treated differently. They're often the same person, often different ones. You usually just have to look through the contributions for WP:DUCK problems, but to remember to assume good faith if you're not sure. My rule is this: if they got up to a level 4 warning yesterday, I will usually issue a {{uw-vandalism4im}} the next day. But I do agree, starting over can be a bit silly sometimes. The Evil Spartan 17:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Pfft, you're nicer than I am, Masamage. If an account vandal starts back up after having received a final warning, I'm nuking them right off the bat. :) EVula // talk // // 17:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I tend to do the same as EVula. But it can't be underscored enough that IPs are different, and cannot be treated like accounts. IPs show up at AIV often enough with a last warning from months ago. Natalie 18:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the above that it's purely a judgment call. Unless there's clear evidence that it's the same person - like the edits are very recent or they vandalize the same articles or vandalize the same way for each "session" at a computer - I assume it's a completely different person at a very public computer. I get disturbed when I see an IP that was clearly vandalizing several days ago and then the same IP writes "hi" in the middle of a low-profile article and immediately gets blocked for two months. In that case, it's quite likely that the "hi" vandal was actually innocently testing and suddenly they get a nasty scary block message. Losing one good newbie editor like that is worse than not blocking 10 blatant vandals in my opinion. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Masamage above, and I'd also strongly recommend blanking any earlier, obsolete warnings when "starting over". After all, we're trying to communicate with the user here. If they get a "You have new messages" notice and click it, only to be greeted by a chaotic wall of random warning icons and dozens of old messages of varying style and friendliness, they might not even notice the new warning at the bottom. Just remember to note the blanking in your edit summary. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 20:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
I really like the idea of simplifying the forest of warnings that a (presumably) new shared IP user sees. Except I think collapsing old warnings in a navbox-type thing would be better than blanking them. Makes it much easier for people leaving warnings to see what's been going on in the past, while making it fairly clean for inexperienced users. I was going to give it a try a couple of times and see if it helped/hurt, but unfortunately, I don't know much anything about navboxes. I've been trying to self-teach for the last hour or so in my sandbox, but it ain't working. So,
  1. Is there any reason not to condense previous warnings on an extremely busy shared IP talk page when you're re-starting the cycle?"
  2. Can someone who is smart and bored look at User:Barneca/Sandboxen/Sandbox and see if you can fix my navbox? It's getting screwed up on the | symbol in the block template.
  3. Better yet, is there already some kind of archive-top and archive-bottom type template out there that can do what I'm trying to do?
  4. If not, could someone smart and bored create one?
--barneca (talk) 22:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, I fixed the sandbox, but I don't see any way to make that change automatically. — madman bum and angel 23:15, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks madman, I knew there was some way to do it manually, just didn't know what it was. But as you point out, the whole idea would be diminshed if you had to painstakingly do that for each instance. I'm thinking something like a template you can apply directly above the warnings you want collapsed, and another template you apply directly below what you want collapsed, kind of like what Arknascar44 is trying to do on WT:AN, but with a customized title block to identify it for newbies as hidden warnings. --barneca (talk) 23:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Maybe a modified version of {{hat}}/{{hab}}? See User:Madman/Sandbox for an example. — madman bum and angel 23:42, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes! that's going to work fine. I'm going to play with it in my sanbox for a while (killing 2 birds with 1 stone, and learning something about template syntax at the same time), then I'll try it in real life a few times and see if it's practical or not. Thanks much, Madman. --barneca (talk) 18:02, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

(unindenting) Thanks everybody for useful advice. I've been seriously fighting vandals for the last couple of weeks. Today, I found vandalism, looked at the Talk page, saw a "final" warning, then no contributions at all for a week, then a level 2 warning, then the next day a level 3 warning, then the vandalism I found. Sbowers3 21:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Dissonance on policy RfC listing[edit]

There are two separate ways being used to list policy RfCs. I used a temporary solution to show both lists on the RfC page.[1] I pointed out the issue and requested comment on the talk page.[2] I've notified the operator of RFC bot (talk · contribs), so they are aware of the situation.[3] I'm just raising this here, because it is likely to cause some confusion until it is resolved and wider input would be welcome. Vassyana 18:23, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Advice needed on multiple accounts[edit]

Hi there. User:Memestream is arguing strongly that the article he created on Neo-Darwinism not be deleted and the material that most other editors regard as original research be replaced in the article. His edits to Evolution and Modern evolutionary synthesis have likewise been reverted. This user is clearly a sockpuppet account of User:Lindosland (e.g. diff) and my invitations to discuss these multiple accounts have been ignored. Could an uninvolved admin look into the edit histories of this user and see if there is reason for concern - both accounts have edited Political correctness and the behavior of the Memestream account might be regarded as disruptive. Thanks for any advice. Tim Vickers 17:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

This seems like a pretty cut-and-dried case of good-hand/bad-hand, avoidance-of-scrutiny accounts proscribed by WP:SOCK. Lindosland (talk · contribs) has made some generally good contributions, but Memestream (talk · contribs) is disruptive, tendentious, and a serial abuser of article talk pages. In fact, the account appears used largely to stir things up. I would strongly recommend limiting this user to one account (preferably Lindosland), and either voluntarily abandoning or indefinitely blocking Memestream. Thoughts? MastCell Talk 17:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
In response to me notifying Memestream of my actions, he made this edit on his user page and claimed he had responded to my questions. I cannot assume good faith with this user any longer, can I hand this over to somebody else please? Tim Vickers 17:46, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
There are cryptic comments on Memestream's talk page that are almost confessions. I am pretty sure I haven't broken any rules ... As I understand it multiple accounts for the reason I stated are allowed. Editing without logging on is also allowed. and I hasten to add that I do not seek to deceive in any way, I just decided to see if I could avoid any bad experiences on one topic spilling over into another topic. I also prefer not to explain exactly what I do, and then get limited. Most likely, the user is referring to WP:SOCK#LEGIT. I guess there is a fine line between separating user accounts based on content/interest vs. separating user accounts based on disruptive behavior. What is clear is the user isn't abusing multiple accounts to game talk page or deletion discussions.-Andrew c [talk] 17:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the Memestream account has pretty clearly been used as a "bad-hand" account to stir things up while segregating the "good" edits to his other account. I've indefinitely blocked the Memestream account (with the autoblock disabled) - based on Memestream's activity, I think it's completely legitimate to ask him to limit himself to one account. Of course, if there's disagreement on that score, I'm happy to hear it. MastCell Talk 17:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

There is ongoing discussion at User Talk:Memestream as to the appropriateness of this block (in response to an unblock request); any interested admins or editors are welcome to comment there. If there's a feeling that the account should be unblocked, then I won't stand in the way. MastCell Talk 23:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
I have commented there, generally, but not in the manner of a unblock request decision. LessHeard vanU 21:45, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Cydebot hits one million edits[edit]

Cydebot has crossed the one million edit mark. As far as I am aware, this is the first user account to make 1,000,000 edits on any Wikimedia project (and possibly any wiki on the entire web). 1,000,000 edits accounts for roughly 0.6% of all edits to the English Wikipedia. I just thought I'd post this here to let anyone who might be interested know. --Cyde Weys 02:56, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations. ;) — madman bum and angel 03:05, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Wow... thats special. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 03:06, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
According to current models of edit-count inflation, by 2012 this will be the minimum standard for adminship. --Haemo 03:07, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
So when is someone going to create Wikipedia:Cydebot two-million pool? --B 03:23, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
ROFL, Haemo. — madman bum and angel 03:32, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
<standard complaint> Yeah, but the stupid bot has screwed up my page formatting by cat reorganizations so many times that it is a worthless piece o' ... </standard complaint> Keegantalk 06:49, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
He's messed up our project stuff too, but only once. Betacommandbot and OsamaKbot are far worse.Rlevse 11:47, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Per Haemo, I would suggest we create Wikipedia:Requests for godkingship/Cydebot before too long. Moreschi Talk 12:53, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose Too few edits, lacks experience. 11231343 15:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Oppose No original mainspace edits. 2345245 15:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Support Plenty of experience, should promote this user and ban all users with less than 1 million edits. 345556 15:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Note: The 3 votes above are a parody. They are not to be taken more seriously than the godkingship comment above it. Archtransit 16:44, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Oppose, few significant edits in portal talkspace. 18,352 18:08, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

0.6% eh? Is that percentage going up or down? I presume it must be going down, but maybe in some far distant future when we are all dust, Cydebot (or its direct descendants) will still be editing away, shuffling wiki-paper (categories) to their hearts content, and their proportion of contributions will converge towards, but never quite reach, 100%! :-) Carcharoth 21:10, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and Haemo seems to have misread the graph. I make it 100,000 edits by 2012... Carcharoth 21:12, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Of course it will reach 100%. See 0.999.... :) Garion96 (talk) 21:15, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
It'll never reach 100% because without the chaotic principle the bounteous principle serves no purpose. Consequently, unless there's someone complaining about it, it serves no purpose and will cease to exist. Or something like that.iridescent (talk to me!) 21:26, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations to Cydebot, he'd (she'd? it'd?) make a good GodKing. :) Kudos to Cyde for running him too. · AndonicO Talk 00:40, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


Resolved: blocked 24 hours by Rlevse

User:Noway419 has been ignoring warnings regarding his edits on Under Pressure which directly violate Wikipedia’s style guidelines, despite repeated warnings on his talk page. He has offered no explanation and has replied to comments on his talk page by blanking it. – Zntrip 18:00, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours for 3RR violation. Next time this same such case should be filed at WP:3RR. If different circumstances it would be the appropriate noticeboard or if none of them apply, WP:ANI. This board, here, WP:AN is more for generic questions. Rlevse 19:18, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt response. Next time I’ll be more careful about the board I go to. – Zntrip 19:59, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Carlos Latuff hs been locked for three months.[edit]

Resolved: unprotected by Rlevse

Does this article still need to be blocked? User:Jayjg blocked it on 14 June and has since disappeared from Wikipedia. I was not watching the the article at the time. As far as I can tell from looking at [4], the dispute was about the inclusion of a couple of sentences about a cartoon competition in Iran. Although this is a subject that might cause splits on pro- and anti-Israeli lines, it appears that editors coming from a range of views wanted the text included and only one editor was removing it.--Peter cohen 19:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I've unlocked it.Rlevse 19:26, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks--Peter cohen 19:30, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/COFS[edit]

The above arbitration case has recently concluded. COFS (now Shutterbug) is asked to refrain from recruiting editors whose editing interests are limited to Scientology-related topics. Anynobody is prohibited from harassing Justanother, and Justanother is urged to avoid interesting himself in Anynobody's actions. All Scientology-related articles are placed on article probation. For the Arbitration Committee, Cbrown1023 talk 03:13, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Horrible logo sorting TfD[edit]

Could another admin please take a look at [TfD]? Don't worry about there not being consensus, precedent on TfD is that copyright templates are decided on their merits as copyright templates, not always community consensus. Regardless of the outcome of the TfD, the logos it is used are all fair use, some with rationales, some without, and some others may need to be deleted. I am admittedly shaky on image copyright policy, so another set of eyes would be appreciated. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 03:59, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

User is following me, deleting all my discussion threads[edit]

Resolved: moved to ANI, please make comments there

Whenever I propose an edit on the discussion page of an article he deletes them for no real good reason at all. Can you please do something about this? This is gettign EXTREMELY aggraviting and annoying. Shutup999 17:31, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

This report should go to WP:ANI, not this board. However, I did skim his edits, and I'm not sure what, exactly, you were referring to. Please provide diffs of the specific reversions you took offense to so we can better determine whether his actions are inappropriate. Someguy1221 17:40, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
I can not find the edits at the moment, but the user is infact removing Shutup999's comments from any talk page, calling him a sock puppet. Regardless of this editor being a sock, his discussions were legit and not vandalism. SpigotMap 18:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

SpigotMap could not have said it any better. Can somebody please help me with this. Shutup999 21:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

This is being discussed at ANI, and the IP user in question has joined the discussion, so I'm going to mark this as resolved. Further comments should go to the ANI discussion, to keep everything in one place. Natalie 14:13, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Harassing emails[edit]


Someone is harassing me via email for blocking him for 48 hours for vandalism. I saved the emails and asked him to cease on his talk page. What should I do if this persists?Rlevse 19:13, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

E-mail block? GDonato (talk) 19:17, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Possible, is there a wiki procedure, like if it got bad enough, would I forward the emails somewhere or paste their contents to a page? Harassment is a vio and could be a case for a long block I guess.Rlevse 19:19, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
One or two is enough to justify an e-mail block in my opinion. Do not reply to them. GDonato (talk) 19:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
He sent me two. You mean block within my email program or is there a wiki email block one can do?Rlevse 19:24, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
On-wiki it says: "Prevent user from sending e-mail" on Special:Blockip GDonato (talk) 19:31, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Huh, all the times I've used that form and I never noticed before!Rlevse 19:34, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
It's a somewhat new feature :D --ST47Talk·Desk 20:28, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, several new features have been added there recently (we can block for 72 hours now, for example). · AndonicO Talk 00:42, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
We could always block for 72 hours if it was added in manually - those various times are more like suggestions or quick links. There's always been an "other" option. Natalie 14:14, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Vandal on my wiki[edit]

Hey, I have an Ace Combat Wiki [5] and a vandal with a dynamic IP hit it. (Followed a link from my userpage) How do I do a range block? The IP's I want blocked are:

Thanks, Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 02:48, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

  • I'm not sure how WP:AN can help you, but my guess is that you don't want to range block that since it's too much an area to range block. (You'd be looking at something that's bigger than /16). - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 03:08, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

But could you tell me how to do it? For more, see [6] [7] [8] I've got to do something, this my website on the line here. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 03:12, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

mw:help:Range blocks Cowman109Talk 04:16, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
The MediaWiki software won't support blocking anything larger than /16 . Unless you want to do a lot of those blocks (to block everything from to, you would need a /4 or 4,096 /16 blocks), you'll have to protect the pages or the whole wiki, block them as you see them, and/or file an abuse report with the ISP. Mr.Z-man 05:18, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
I see that those same three IPs have also vandalised the English Wikipedia, and since there are targets in common we can assume they are controlled by the same person. Can someone check if they're open proxies? If this is the case, the solution for the original poster might be to import Wikipedia's list of open proxies periodically. Range blocks aren't going to work in this case; the first two IPs are in Israel, and the third in the UK.-gadfium 06:06, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
They do not appear to be open proxies at this time. --ST47Talk·Desk 14:36, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


Can someone with a little extra time take a look at this article? I think it's a real place, but the article is a true mess and definitely needs tags and probably some serious pruning. Thanks. --MZMcBride 05:16, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I think you need Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup and choose the appropriate templates. Also, see if there is a Pakistan or similar WikiProject and ask for assistance there. LessHeard vanU 10:15, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Actually, it looks like there was a good version a while back[9] so it might be just a matter of bring that to the surface as a starting point and adding in the new information. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 17:53, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Review of deleted US Civil War generals pics[edit]

Please take a look at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content#Examples of OK images orphaned and tagged for deletion by bots. In particular look at the upload log of Robert Luna III, and his talk page that is full of warning tags left by bots (and, rarely, by humans), but no welcome message, and a contributions log that shows no sign of noticing or being aware of the talk page. A look at one of the images marked PD-US by age shows that in some cases other humans have come along and added a license tag. I've gone through this upload log, and picked out the US Civil War pics. Can admins help out by undeleting these pics and adding at a minimum {{non-free historic image}}, and probably {{PD-US}}. I'm also mystified as to why these pics were deleted like this, without any sort of effort to salvage them. Could the deleting admins clarify this? I understand it was probably part of a "clearing the backlogs" effort, but still, it is a lot of effort to undo all this and restore the links on the articles. Of courser the original uploader should have done better, but why is it still possible to upload without a license tag? At the very least, admins looking at these pics should do better than the uploader and take more care than the uploader did. And a general plea: when you see an old B&W photo in a 'speedy deletion' category, please stop and think "hang on, this might be an old public domain picture - it is probably worth changing the tag on this so someone else can investigate this if I don't have the time". Carcharoth 12:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, the images in question are:

Thanks. Carcharoth 12:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I would be happy to help with this. And I agree absolutely with the plea. Also remember that simply scanning a public domain image does not give the scanner a copyright on it. If it's public domain, digitizing or otherwise changing the format does not restart the copyright timer. Natalie 14:34, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Working on this right now. I'm also going to archive all of those old warnings and leave a welcome message in their place. If the user does return and check their talk page, the warnings may confuse them and/or freak them out. Natalie 14:40, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks very much for doing that (and others who helped as well). Much appreciated. Carcharoth 18:26, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I think this thread is nearly resolved now. Only outstanding issue is whether the deleting admins need to take more care, or just to chalk this one up to experience. I would say the bots need to take more care, but they are only bots, so we should pity them for not having human brains. What do people think? Carcharoth 18:26, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

My bot, Polbot, always tells me that she pities me for not having a bot's brain, but that's another story. :-)
Look, there are two competing goals here. One is the goal that we want to save as many salvageable free images as possible. The other goal is that we don't want to allow unsourced, unlicensed images to sit around on our servers indefinitely. These are both valid goals. Our policy says that after 7 days we should delete images that don't have license tags, and there's nothing wrong with following that. It's much better to look through each untagged image to see if it can be salvaged. Heck, if you want to be a saint, there are all kinds of great things you can do to save images! You can do a Google Image search or library search on each unsourced image, and add licensing and sourcing information, before their 7 days are up. You can add image copyright tags for untagged images where the license can be understood in text. You can add use-rationales for non-free images that don't have them. And that's all great to do, and those who do that work should be commended! But no one is required to do that. It's still policy that images without tags be deleted after 7 days, and if no saint comes along quick enough, that's what happens. This is because the alternative (we keep ambiguous images around until some saint decides to research the license information) was tried, and became absolutely unmanageable. There was a time when the majority of images on Wikipedia's servers were not within policy. So that's why it's best to research each image before deleting according to policy, but it's still better to process the speedy-deletion backlog mercilessly than to let it build up indefinitely. If someone does much-needed backlog work, I won't criticize them for not being a saint. – Quadell (talk) (random) 12:40, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


Resolved: Image and user talk pages have already been deleted, as per the user's right to vanish. EVula // talk // // 15:46, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Please deactivate my talk page and this image because I'm gonna leave Wikipedia. Rafünümän 15:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, so the image and my talk page have been deleted. Thanks a lot. Best wishes and enjoy Wikipedia, bye. Rafünümän 15:48, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

"Ru-sib" wiki about to be closed[edit]

Public service announcement: according to this, the infamous "Siberian" ru-sib Wikipedia is now about to be closed, after a procedure that was dragged out for almost a year. Happy news. Interwiki bot operators might want to take note. Fut.Perf. 16:00, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Good news indeed, judging by all the problems this WP created. It shows how hard it is to assess whether or not a language is fake or not ;). -- lucasbfr talk 16:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Good news, though it did take a bit long to get on with it. Hopefully the dev's will be more discerning with future requests for new wikis. :) The Evil Spartan 00:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
The motion started in late October, when User:Mikkalai investigated the content of some articles in ru-sib. A brief discussion here in English Wikipedia was followed by a much longer one in Russian Wikipedia, which resulted in a motion to have Zolotarev's project shut down. In the meantime, Zolotarev and his associates infested the Incubator, suggesting a plethora of new wikipedias, including one in pre-1917 Russian orthography and a Russian Wikipedia spelled in Latin script. I wonder if they have not suggested an English Wikipedia in Chinese or Greek script, too. --Ghirla-трёп- 15:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Note that that does not mean the whole Siberian saga is over. The two main proragonists have moved on to pastures greener, where they can compete with and parasite on Wikipedia: Wikislavia, hosted on Volgota and warmly embraced by Metapedia - but no longer paid by the foundation of course. If you still doubt that the project had to be taken off here, have a quick look at Metapedia before they change their main page: they have Siberian nationalism as featured article and a DYK on the political tendency of the group. --Pan Gerwazy 02:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Die russisch Großstaatchauvinisten feiern Ihre Sieg hier auch. So schön :] --Deutscher Friedensstifter 08:12, 21 September 2007 (UTC)!
"Gott sei des Herschers Schutz mächtig und weise
Herscht er zum Ruhme, zum Ruhme uns.
Furchtbar den Feinden stets, stark durch den Glauben,
Gott sei des Tsaren Schutz!"
Und nun 'ne Wodka mit Schnaps!--Pan Gerwazy 15:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
    • So about how many bots will run to remove all instances of the soon-to-be-closed wiki? User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 08:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
This is rather an unusual occurrence, isn't it? Have wikis been closed before? -- ChrisO 08:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
It happens once in a while, but usually because of a lack of active users and articles. -- lucasbfr talk (using User:Lucasbfr2) 08:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Moldavian Cyrillic was --ssr 08:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Z: Do we need top use bots to remove links to ru-sib? do we usually do that? --ST47Talk·Desk 22:09, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Sure; I seen it done when the Belarusian Wikipedias were being toyed around with by the devs. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 00:03, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Block review (possible conflict)[edit]

I have blocked a user that I was involved in a dispute with six months ago on the same, or similar, topic. I had forgotten about the incident and was reminded of it reading through their talk page. As such, I am posting the block for review here, to ensure it is appropriate. IAF (talk · contribs) engaged in serious edit warring/disruption at Indian religions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). A user asked I review and/or intervene due to the repeated reverts and related issues. I blocked IAF for one week.[10] This is based on repeated behaviour, multiple revert violations in the past few days and a 96 hour block for similar issues last month. Please let me know if this block is appropriate and if I should have refrained from acting directly. Thanks! Vassyana 19:18, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

This fellow is a right troublemaker, unrepentant edit-warrior and POV-pusher. The block is fine, and is even more fine if his accusations of sockpuppetry are without merit. Moreschi Talk
To clarify: IMO this should be his last block of limited duration. Next time he should be permanently removed from the site. Moreschi Talk 19:33, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposed change to {{PD-Art}}[edit]

Hello I have proposed a change to {{PD-Art}}. At the moment the template ignores one of the basic property laws, by making it sound like if the uploader is in the USA, they may release a work into the Public Domain, even though the copyright is legally detained by a person in another country. If you are interested in discussing please see Template talk:PD-art#International issues, Thanks. Jackaranga 02:04, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

My comment on there was too long, sorry, so I reduced it to 3 lines 3 line version, please read if possible, PD-Art on wikipedia and on the commons are almost entirely different, needs to be corrected. Jackaranga 04:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Help Sought[edit]

I added some scholarly information to these articles Hurrians, Armenia (name), Proto-Armenian language, Armenian language, Graeco-Aryan language. These two users User:Ghirlandajo and User:Dbachmann, have changed them without any rationale, they have not given any reason, nor do they attempt to talk about in the talk page. I really need an Administrator to look into this for me, also, I suspect that User:Ghirlandajo may be trying to start a 3RR war, he has been blocked for doing such a thing in the past. Please look into this issue, thank you!--Moosh88 23:11, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

You may be well served to heed Dieter's advice on your talk page and also familiarize yourself with the outcome of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2. --Ghirla-трёп- 09:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
This board is not for disputes, so this should be taken to WP:ANI. However, I did look into this and what I did not see was any evidence of your trying to contact either of these users yourself, nor do I find anything but 1RR by these users against your edits. Please try to ask these users for their reasons yourself, and please try to assume good faith and not accuse others of vandalism when they appear to not like your edits. If they continue to revert and not discuss or provide meaningful edit summaries despite being politely asked to, then repost this on WP:ANI. Someguy1221 23:34, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Need Admin to LOCK Plácido Domingo article asap[edit]


To admin, please look at the revision history on the edit warring. The anonymous editors have getting out of hand, it is hard for us to protect the article day and night. We would be appreciate if the article could be locked from anonymous editors, at least for a week. - On behalf of Wikipedia:WikiProject Opera- Jay 15:26, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The vandalism is going now as I am writing this, can someone lock it now. Thanks - Jay 15:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Sprotected. In the future, please place a request at WP:RFPP. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:35, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks.. I appreciate it very very much. - Jay 15:37, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Potential vandal?[edit]

I don't know if I've brought my concern to the right place, so feel free to redirect me (nicely please) if I'm in the wrong place. I occasionally look in on the help desk to see if I can help out. Today, I came across Hello, I am a reformed vandal... and my first thought was... "I know how to get unblocked automatically. Would you like to know?" sounds more like a vandal's challenge (something I've seen before) than an attempt at rehabilitation. What do you think, am I being paranoid? Astronaut 19:18, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't unblock, sounds shaky to me.Rlevse 18:36, 24 September 2007 (UTC)



In the creation of this page, editors have created pages listing every episode in which this actress has appeared (example: List of Raven in TCS episodes). Incidentally, they have been copied and pasted from IMDb. What to do, what to do? AfD? CSD g12? Or am I wrong in assuming they should be deleted? — madman bum and angel 20:13, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, your example was deleted. Are any others still there? Someguy1221 23:25, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes. They're linked to Raven-Symoné#Television; another example is List of Raven in KP episodes. — madman bum and angel 13:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
I've deleted the two others I've found and left a note on the creator's talk page. -- Merope 13:37, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. :) — madman bum and angel 13:44, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Out of curiosity, what speedy criteria would something like that fall under? A friend of mine was asking me about whether he could tag them for speedy, but I wasn't sure what criteria to suggest he use, so suggested a PROD instead. It'd be good to know if stuff like that is taggable easily... Tony Fox (arf!) 15:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, since it was copied and pasted from IMDb, criterion g12 could apply. — madman bum and angel 16:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Aha. Makes sense to me - I'll remember that for next time. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Request temporary undeletion[edit]

In Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/R 2‎, 2 deleted pages, which seem relevant to the discussion there, should probably be undeleted for the duration of the RfA discussion. The pages are: User:R/Rant (deleted under CSD U1) and User:R/Single Letter Group (deleted and undeleted several times). Although these pages are covered by CSD U1, I think they should be available for public viewing during the RfA. Od Mishehu 09:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Can we get some action here? I think it's important for people to be able to see this. Cheers, ➪HiDrNick! 20:43, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Maybe post this on WP:DRV/CR? - Alison 20:47, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Actually, if I were in a position to decide, I'd keep the pages deleted. I saw WP:SLG, and truthfully, it wasn't so interesting. I think people can discuss the candidacy without seeing every deleted contrib that "R" has offered. Shalom Hello 21:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Looking at the RFA instead, several users have raised those pages as issues. I would consider it appropriate to undelete these pages for the duration of the RFA. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 21:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
If I remember right, /Rant is only a line or two. Someone asked me to come here for my "permission" even though you don't really need it. Anyway, you have my permission to undelete. --(Review Me) R ParlateContribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 21:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Restored per user's request and author's permission. Let me know if there are any revisions that should not have been restored. — madman bum and angel 21:52, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Err, what exactly was your reasoning behind protecting it? -- John Reaves 22:04, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
It's stated in the protection summary. Is there a reason it should be edited? It was my impression it was restored merely for RfA-goers to review before voicing their opinion. — madman bum and angel 22:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying "Restored for review" was your reason for protection? "It doesn't need to edited" isn't a reason for protection. -- John Reaves 22:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

OK. It should not be edited. — madman bum and angel 22:47, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
I've posted a short explanation at the top of each page so anyone who comes across them will know why they've been temporarily undeleted. Newyorkbrad 22:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


A "new" user insists I reverse my speedy deletion of this article, as CSD A7 doesn't cover phrases. While I have a small amount of sympathy with the wikilawyering logic, this is one of the first times I've applied IAR to my use of the tools. I believe that without any references to support the contention that it is notable, this is a speedy article - it just seems plain daft to take it to AfD. But, as I am using IAR in support of CSD and in case I have misjudged the case, I am happy for other admins to review my action here. If I'm wrong, I'll reinstate the article, list it for AfD and apologise to the article creator. --Dweller 09:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Well I have no sympathy for a new user, User:QQ MORE NOOB, that knows so many policies and how to Wikilawyer. If Dweller hadn't deleted it then I would have. Wikipedia ain't phrase of the week. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 10:18, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, what he said. The Rambling Man 10:43, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
WP:CSD#G1 (no meaningful content) would have covered it. It doesn't have to be gibberish. Or A1 (no context). You did the right thing. Neil  13:57, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Obvious troll, sock. I suggest someone block him ASAP: knows a bit too much about policy. The Evil Spartan 16:52, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't think a block is in order. He hasn't done anything wrong. "Knowing too much about policy" is hardly grounds for blocking. Neil  17:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
It's a ground for blocking if you're a bad-cop sock account. As for "not doing anything wrong", I can't imagine how you don't see this user as a troll. User comes here, creates crap pages [11] (good enough reason to block), removes speedy tags (good enough reason to block), jumps into wikilawyering about how it's not speedyable (how'd he know that?), complains that he can vandalize his own talk page if he wants (and does so), and uses breathtakingly good edit summaries (I hardly can use ones so good), clearly showing he's a sock - good enough reason to block. Sheesh, this is the kind of wikilawyering and bowing to trolls that makes Wikipedia often so useless. The Evil Spartan 17:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I blocked indefinitely. Can't see how this person could be acting in good faith. Grandmasterka 17:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

All of this discussion -- to a conclusion I agree with, BTW -- & no one suggested we tell this guy "QQ MORE NOOB"? Maybe everyone else decided to assume good faith -- or demonstrate some maturity -- except for me. -- llywrch 19:26, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Shared public terminal IP[edit]

This is a shared public terminal IP. Do not block for long periods. Be careful about blocking, see the talkpage. -- 14:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Only two edits other than ones publicising this notice, so not exactly an major source of edits. ➔ This is REDVEЯS 15:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, and both of those edits have the same tone as the person putting up the shared public notice. Hmm, sounds fisy. The Evil Spartan 16:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Look at contribs; obviously same user as User talk: three sections above. We're being trolled. --barneca (talk) 16:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Yep. Both IPs have expressed the same views on communism. — madman bum and angel 17:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Gosh, that led me to a ton of blockable accounts. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm assuming you're being facetious... there are other obvious correlations we've already made between those two IP addresses. — madman bum and angel 23:11, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
The IP is an open proxy belonging to Canaca-com Inc. The user claimed to be from Liverpool.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


Could somebody check something for me? LOVEHATE is a newly-created article, but it was created with an {{unsourced}} tag already on it, with a date of March 2007. This indicates to me either that it was a recreated previously-deleted article, or it's been copied and pasted from somewhere else. But there's no prior edit history. Any clues as to how to research this? Corvus cornix 21:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

  • The page log doesn't say that the page was ever deleted, and the log doesn't show any deleted edits. It's possible that the user who created the article just copied/pasted an infobox from somewhere, including the {{Unreferenced}} tag, without knowing what it was really for. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 21:43, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Protection templates, new style[edit]

The Wikipedia:Article message boxes project has now changed and standardised the styles for most of the message boxes that goes on article pages. We are now planning to change the protection templates to have a matching look when on article pages. But they will keep their old look when they appear anywhere else.

Here is an example of the new look. (Note: Exact colour for the left-side colour bar is not yet decided, and we will of course have the old full text in them, this is just a short example.)

Padlock-silver-medium.svg Editing of this page by unregistered or newly registered users is currently disabled.

Any input is welcome, see discussion and more examples at Wikipedia talk:Article message boxes#Protection Templates and Wikipedia talk:Article message boxes#Next steps.

--David Göthberg 02:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The new design is ready to deploy. Have a look at {{pp-meta}}. --David Göthberg 23:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Good. I'm not sure this warrants a mention here. Also, this temp. is usually made small anyway. Good job all the same; this {{ambox}} thing is really catching... -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 10:19, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, since some people did complain that we didn't announce the previous round of changes enough before we deployed them we thought we should announce this change a bit more. And an admin within our project suggested announcing this here since it is admin related.
--David Göthberg 08:45, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Possible suggestion: Consider re-wording to "Editing of this page by unregistered or newly registered user is currently prohibited" Disabled is jargon and possibly not understood by non-WPedians. Newly registered is not very specific (2 hours? 4 days? 1 month? 6 months?) Or even more direct is "Editing this article requires requires a user name created more than 4 days ago." Archtransit 21:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Prohibited implies that it is possible but that you don't have the right to do it. I prefer disabled, that is more neutral. I'd prefer not giving everyone the time they need to wait either, per WP:BEANS :) -- lucasbfr talk (using User:Lucasbfr2) 08:04, 25 September 2007 (UTC), UNNET and Peter Lundgren[edit]

A while back, User:Durin got a legal threat which caused him to leave Wikipedia. The organization claims to be, an arm of something called UNNET, headed by someone named Peter Lundgren in Sweden. I asked User:Davidgothberg, as a Swedish editor in Sweden, to look into Mr. Lundgren. Despite several attempts to reach him, User:Davidgothberg has been unable get Mr. Lundgren to return his phone calls. I think we can close this entire episode as a really bad hoax, and hope that Durin may come back some day. I am sure that he is not going to have to worry about real litigation any time soon. Corvus cornix 15:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Durin was a great admin, and the fact that we pandered to this abuse is a shame. Hopefully he will see past the whole incident to come back. The Evil Spartan 17:13, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Block evasion[edit]

Resolved: IPs and main account blocked The Evil Spartan 17:15, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Tweety21 was indefinitely blocked 14:22, 22 September 2007 and is now editing from an anonIP (one of a number she's used, see: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Tweety21). If there are intermediate steps I need to take before reporting this, or if there's a more appropriate forum, please leave a comment either here or on my talk page. Thanks. Precious Roy 18:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

==Tweety21== this is not an evasive measure just one to stop Precious Roy from his stalking behavior of all my articles. If you look at his history of edits this will prove it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:34, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me that I neglected to include the IP you were editing from. Precious Roy 18:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Now this editor has gone through the list of WP:AFC articles I created (on my user page) and tagged 5 of them as AfDs. If that's not harrassment and disruptive editing, I don't know what is. Precious Roy 18:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Has broken WP:3RR now (see this edit history). Precious Roy 19:26, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Special:Log broken[edit]

The Special:Log page seems to be broken; the "user rename log" option is, for some reason, displayed as "&lt;renameuserlogpage&gt;". (Is there a problem in the Mediawiki namespace, or is it a software bug?) - Mike Rosoft 20:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

There don't appear to be any changes to the MediaWiki namespace that would cause that problem. (The edit history of MediaWiki:Renameuserlogtext is empty.) This is a MediaWiki bug, so file it on BugZilla. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 20:57, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
ITYM MediaWiki:Renameuserlogpage. But yeah, looks like rev:25997 is probably to blame. I'd revert it, but I'm not on my home computer right now. Might want to ask someone on #mediawiki. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 22:27, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Meanwhile, submitted as bug 11446. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 22:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
My watchlist has been broken since I got on about 45 minutes ago. The Evil Spartan 17:16, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


It has been brought to my attention that someone impersonating me has got themselves blocked and their user page is the first result on a Google search for my name and "wikipedia", User:Mr. Thomas Dalton. Could someone please delete that page, and the associated talk page? In the interests of transparency, I won't do so myself. Thanks. --Tango 22:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Done.--Alabamaboy 22:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! --Tango 12:15, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
"Brought to your attention"? I'm not ashamed to admit I sometimes google for my own name. ;-) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 22:57, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Actually, anyone who doesn't occasionally Google their own name is asking for trouble. Never know when someone might impersonate you (or worse, write nasty things about you in their blog :-).--Alabamaboy 23:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, but in this case, I was actually told about it on wikien-l. --Tango 12:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


See Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Mastereditor101. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 23:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not even transcluded yet. It may never be. Isn't it a little early for WP:SNOW, and for the oppose? --barneca (talk) 23:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, if an RfA hasn't been transcluded onto the main RfA page, it's a non-issue. Don't need to comment on them until they are live. EVula // talk // // 00:11, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Just experimenting with the "Nominate yourself" button I guess. EdokterTalk 00:13, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Well probably got it wrong, there are other errors on the page too. Secretlondon 00:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Yeah that's most probably a test/mistake. Maybe someone could delete it and leave a (nice) message on his talk page? -- lucasbfr talk (using User:Lucasbfr2) 07:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Norval White[edit]

This article is up for deletion, but looks like it will survive. My question is this: I've been working with the author on a single point, whether or not White lives in France. The author tells me that he has met the subject at his home village and has pictures. I've advised the author that this could be seen as violating WP:NOR. I have faith that this is a good faith editor trying to create an article on an undoubtably notable subject. Suggestions?--Sethacus 01:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

As this is not a contentious claim, it's not ultra-vital a reference is immediately present. I would leave the place of residence there, tag it with {{fact}}, and move on; if you personally believe the author that the fact is true, and the fact is an uncontroversial one, why leave it out? Neil  12:39, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Subpage of Elaragirl:[edit]


I came across the retired editor Elaragirl's subpage User:Elaragirl/Teacup, which has a distubing entry User:Elaragirl/Teacup#Elaragirl_is_not_a_gangbang. It seems to be implying that the editor Gracenotes is either attracted to young boys or a paedophile. This is a serious accusation which should not be taken lightly. It is both a personal attack and if I were Gracenotes, I'd be deeply hurt by the comment. Seeing as the user is no longer active, and since it could be potentially upsetting to other members, should this text be removed? I'd have done it myself, but I wanted the communeity to develop consensus first. Elaragirl was a (Wiki)friend of mine, but still, I wouldn't want anyone to have their feelings hurt. A similar thing happens in the section User:Elaragirl/Teacup#Elaragirl_is_not_here_to_discuss_bullshit, where from the looks of things Elaragirl attacks Daveydweeb's site after discussing Citizendium - however, my browser couldn't access the page, so this is just hearsay. Anyway, just thought I'd bring this to attention. Cheers, Spawn Man 08:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

To me, this reads like "I only flirt with Gracenotes and hate it when others flirt with everyone". English is my second language, so I'm probably overlooking something, but I can't find the personal attack or accusation of pedophilia that you see. Could you explain? Kusma (talk) 08:25, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
The text was "And while I'm sure this is going to piss a lot of people off, I'm not going to act like some females on Wikipedia who have to constantly flaunt the fact that they're a woman, flirting with everyone and making vague, slightly creepy overtures to young men. The problem with this is that there's only one reason to be doing it, and we don't need to go into that on wiki, do we? I limit that sort of shit to Gracenotes ... but alas, my pining is for naught. :p" I read that as "Some people on here make passes at young boys, which is slightly creepy and Gracenotes is one of them..." or something along those lines. The term paedophilia doesn't occur anywhere, but it could take that way and I think it is meant to be taken that way... Spawn Man 08:39, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
I read it the other way: "I am not like some woman flirting with young boys. I only flirt with Gracenotes". But English is not my primary language either, so... -- lucasbfr talk (using User:Lucasbfr2) 08:54, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure it is humorous :). But you might want to ask User:Gracenotes first. -- lucasbfr talk (using User:Lucasbfr2) 08:28, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
I'd already asked Gracenotes, but she hasn't replied yet. Agreed, the rest of the page is humorous to a degree, but it could be offensive to some people and hurtful to Gracenotes. Anyway, just wanted to discuss it with you guys. :) Spawn Man 08:39, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Gracenotes is a boy. His first name is Matthew, not Grace. Nothing to see here, move along folks. —bbatsell ¿? 15:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
It's humorous. I think it's an IRC in-joke, but yes, you're best off asking Gracenotes. Will (talk) 08:53, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Um, the quote says "young men". How do you go from that to "young boys"? And I interpret the comment at saying that Elaragirl pines for Gracenotes. Note the humourous emoticon at the end of that sentence: "alas, my pining is for naught. :p". Carcharoth 09:13, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Erm yes, but Elaragirl is a girl... I think...? I've been wrong before... Young boys, young men, all the same really, but we shouldn't be arguing whether or not it is offensive until Gracenotes comments... If she does... Spawn Man 11:11, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
"Young boys, young men, all the same really" ahh, no, they aren't, actually, big difference, big....--Tom 15:41, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Then why did you bring it here? —Wknight94 (talk) 11:35, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Because, I thought it might be offensive to Gracenotes, so wondered if it should be deleted. I couldn't just bring it to Gracenotes to delete because then that would be a COI and I couldn't just give it to any old admin because I wanted there to be consensus. Every time I post here, I either get abused for bringing up a potential problem or get thick resistance even after the problem has been resolved! have you even read my post below before you made a comment asking why I brought a potentially hurtful piece of text to an admin's board?? I'm not going to comment any further, but let it be noted, that admins on this board have a bad attitude and out of the three times I've used it, I've been harrassed three times. If Gracenotes and Elaragirl hadn't been friends, then it would be a different story. I'm not supposed to keep up with all the cliches on Wikipedia - I saw a possible attack and I reported it. I really don't know why I'm getting slack for it. Frankly, I don't know if I want to use this feature again... Spawn Man 11:45, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
It's a joke, Elaragirl and Gracenotes were friends, it's all good. --CBD 11:19, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Hehe. Flirting with Elara? At your peril, my friend. I've always hoped she comes back, she was a legend who really spiced the old place up. It can get a bit stuffy sometimes, Elara was a great antidote. And yes, Carcharoth's interpretation is correct...but did we really need to have Elara's pining, or lack of it, all over AN? Anyway, if you're reading this, Elara, we do want you back. Cheers, Moreschi Talk 11:27, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

False alarm then people - Sorry, just being cautious; I'm not up to date with who's friends with who on Wikipedia and was just looking out for another's feelings. Hopefully you'll understand. Anyway, thanks for clearing it up... And yes, I'd love for Elara to come back to Wikipedia... Spawn Man 11:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
It should probably be noted that Gracenotes is a guy. -- John Reaves 15:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

U.S. Route 1/9 Truck[edit]

Yes, there's a bot. Neil  11:43, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


This account was posted on the account blocking page and blocked[12]. I ask that it be unblocked, because it is a normal, proper name and does useful things. I also ask, not for the first time, that you avoid giving blocking privileges to users who are retarded.

Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:33, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

What account? Grzegorz Chrząszcz vel Brzęszczykiewicz (talk · contribs)? Correctly blocked for being too long. Choose a shorter username. Also, insulting other editors is very unlikely to help. Sandstein 21:47, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Uh, what ever happened to WP:BITE? Seriously, who the hell are we to find a user who created their account on the 16th and then block them without warning 6 days later after they made multiple productive edits? Unless anyone objects very shortly I'm going to unblock the user, apologise, and refer them to WP:NAMECHANGE. Cowman109Talk 21:51, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
The name is a violation of WP:IU due to the fact it is too long so unblocking may not be a good option, GDonato (talk) 22:11, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
I have a problem with this one and refused to block it once at WP:UAA. Polish people have long names! Do Polish genealogy and you'll be amazed how long some of their names are. So now we're blindly blocking people who use their own names?! That's awful. —Wknight94 (talk) 22:13, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
If I may quote WP:IU directly, Length alone is not always enough to forbid a username, however; there are many productive users with acceptable usernames over 20 characters in length, and even some with over 30.. I agree that the user's name is a tad inappropriately long (and uses foreign characters), but when a user has made positive edits for 6 days after creating their account, we don't just go blocking people without notice. We're supposed to ask them to change their name first, not block them and get them rightfully upset as this user is now. Cowman109Talk 22:14, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Three questions. First, why even make it possible to create a username that is going to be judged too long? Second, is the name above too long, really? I don't know about everyone else, but I almost never need to type a username to get to their talk page; that's what wikilinks are for. And if you're just going to refer to them, you can always call them GCvB, or if you have to make a wikilink yourself, just copy/paste. And third, does the "you've been blocked for an inappropriate username" template seem a little bitey to anyone else? Not to add another gratuitous layer of complication, but shouldn't we talk to someone who's name just seems inconveniently long more sweetly than to someone with a "badfaith" name like User:I made love to your mother multiple times? --barneca (talk) 22:15, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
(ec) I would recommend WP:RFCN as it is certainly not blatant as it is a real name but that is not always enough reason. GDonato (talk) 22:17, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm sure if there were some technical reason why long names were harmful, it would be disabled past a certain character limit in MediaWiki. I'm asking user:ST47 to reply here before I go unblock the user, though. I'll still suggest to the user that he should see WP:RFCN WP:NAMECHANGE (woops, wrong shortcut), however. Cowman109Talk 22:18, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Blocking someone who uses their real name is terrible. When I said that above, I didn't realize they had already made good-faith edits to *drum roll* Poland-related articles! Now we're punishing an entire nationality?! Please unblock this person ASAP. —Wknight94 (talk) 22:20, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Reply to barneca: there is a technical way to stop long usernames. Add .{x} to MediaWiki:Usernameblacklist, and usernames of x or more characters will be prohibited. The blacklist doesn't affect admins creating new accounts while logged in, so overriding it is possible. In this and other cases, context is an important part of determining what is "too long", but it would be a good idea to have a maximum length of less than 255 (the number of characters the database can store) GracenotesT § 00:11, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
What is the message displayed if someone tries to create a name that is too long? I hope the message is not too WP:BITEy... :-) Carcharoth 00:37, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
MediaWiki:Blacklistedusernametext. Looks like it could use a facelift; go ahead and edit it if you wish :) GracenotesT § 00:40, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the link. The honour of updating that (and updating is needed) will have to fall to someone else. Carcharoth 00:53, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

That's not me. That's good advice, but instead of giving it here, you need to put it on his talk page, preferably being politer than the blocking admin. If the string is short enough to be a name, or a simple phrase, it should be short enough to be his username. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:22, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I blocked the name because it was too long and confusing, per WP:U. The blocked template suggests that the user change their name. --ST47Talk·Desk 22:23, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, I don't think we should be telling people that in any form when their username is just their real name. Citizendium insists on using your real name, we don't allow it. Not cool. —Wknight94 (talk) 22:26, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
And forget bitey, this is downright insulting to this poor guy. "We don't like your name" is what we're telling him. —Wknight94 (talk) 22:28, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
I unblocked the user and I'm suggesting they see WP:NAMECHANGE. Cowman109Talk 22:29, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Admin-warring is not helpful when you know ST47 opposes an unblock. GDonato (talk) 22:31, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
This doesn't qualify as warring IMHO - it's just common sense. Let's hope we didn't alienate a good user forever. —Wknight94 (talk) 22:33, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Hm? ST47 didn't oppose an unblock.. I asked him to respond here, and he did. No harm comes from unblocking the user. If I misunderstood his reply, my apologies. Cowman109Talk 22:34, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. GDonato (talk) 22:38, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
FWIW, I find this particular block reason counterproductive (not in this case alone). Shouldn't simply suggesting that users with overly long or confusing names get them changed be the rule and not the exception? In my humble opinion, WP:U offers plenty of leniency with regard to this particular criterion. (For the record, I have a very, very long name, and it would probably have been blocked if I'd registered under it.) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:43, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. If someone is being cute and using an entire sentence as a user name, I would suggest that they change it. But this is the guy's name! We shouldn't even be suggesting that he change his name! Should we suggest he change it in real life too? This is not some odd name either - see here for another guy who apparently can't edit here under his real name. How is it confusing to refer to this user as Grzegorz anyway? Personally, I'd like to see Can't sleep, clown will eat me change his name before this person. I always have to slowly type CSCWEM when I refer to him. (BTW, I don't actually think CSCWEM should change his name but the point remains). —Wknight94 (talk) 22:49, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
To be brutally honest, I'm somewhat surprised some trigger-happy person hasn't already started an RFCN on CSCWEM. GDonato (talk) 22:51, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps this discussion should be brought to the talk page of WP:IU instead to change the wording of the policy? Cowman109Talk 22:53, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
If you do, please say so here because I want in on that discussion. This is embarrassing and I really hope the guy isn't insulted just at being asked to change his own damn name. —Wknight94 (talk) 22:57, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
(ec) GDonato, beware of WP:BEANS :) I don't think the policy needs changing; the wording is fine. I think there should be a generally more accepting attitude towards such usernames, backed up by the already generous wording of WP:IU. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
WT:U, thread started. Fvasconcellos, yes, of course, if anyone think about doing that in the immediate future I will be displeased. GDonato (talk) 23:00, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

FYI, I found where I originally refused to block this name after it was bot-reported. Maybe the problem is that there's nothing to stop people from reporting names over and over until someone blocks them. —Wknight94 (talk) 23:27, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

The block was not needed, in my opinion, and was severely counterproductive. Several important points need to be made here (and over on WT:U):

  • (1) Grzegorz Chrząszcz vel Brzęszczykiewicz is a real name. Username policy primarily applies to silly-sounding names and offensive names. This is neither.
  • (2) "Correctly blocked for being too long" - as has been pointed out, it would be preferable to have the underlying software limit the length of the username, rather than have both the user, and those upholding the letter of law, waste their time worrying about length of user names. I swear I've seen someone running around with a ruler measuring the length of names... (that would be the bot, then).
  • (3) The WP:BITE points are extremely important. Any admin or other user who sticks to the letter of policy and guideline while failing to see that their actions are alienating new users is a detriment to the project. I don't normally put things as forcefully as this, but new editors are the lifeblood of Wikipedia, and treating them with respect cannot be emphasised enough.
  • (4) This thread was started at 21:33, an hour after the block at 20:26. It took another hour before the user was unblocked. The unblock should have taken place straightaway, followed by an apology. Thankfully the user's talk page is now a bit more welcoming, though the editor has yet (as of the time of writing) to resume editing. If this editor doesn't edit again, I, for one, will be kicking up a huge fuss.
  • (5) "I blocked the name because it was too long and confusing, per WP:U. The blocked template suggests that the user change their name." - Hmm. Let's have a look at what the first part of the template says, shall we:

    "Your account with this username has been blocked indefinitely because the username may be rude or inflammatory, be unnecessarily long/confusing, be too similar to an existing user, contain the name of an organization or website, refer to a Wikipedia or Wikimedia Foundation process or namespace, or be otherwise inappropriate (see our blocking and username policies for more information)."

    Not very friendly, is it? Imagine what your reaction would be if the above was the first message you ever received on Wikipedia? The template gives a list of possible reasons for the username block, but the underlying message is "work out for yourself why your name is inappropriate, because I can't be bothered to tell you".
  • (6) Some of the other attitudes in this thread beggar belief:
    • (a) "unblocking may not be a good option" - um, the editor was making good contributions! Unblocking would not have done any harm, and keeping the editor blocked could potentially have lost us a new editor.
    • (b) "Admin-warring is not helpful" - again, this completely misses the point. Anyone with an ounce of common sense can see that an unblock does no harm in this case, and that the original block was a misguided application of the letter of the policy. It would only become admin-warring if the block was put back in place.

Apologies for bringing up all these points, but it is threads like this that make me seriously worry about the future of Wikipedia. Unless people who apply the letter of the law without regard for the spirit of the law, are told in no uncertain terms that they got it wrong, and learn from their mistakes, then there is no point in having pages like WP:BITE. And if people try to defend such blocks, that is almost as bad. Carcharoth 23:44, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Well said. Agreed 100% on every point including that I will throw up a fuss if the user never returns. I do want to mention that ST47 should not necessarily be singled out because I know many admins would have applied the same block - but they would have all been equally wrong IMHO. —Wknight94 (talk) 23:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Well summed up Carcharoth. I think this is one of those times where WP:IAR should be applied. · AndonicO Talk 00:50, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! :-) Carcharoth 00:53, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Another point, the bot reported the name as being 41 characters long, but I've counted several times, and I can only find 39 characters (including spaces). Do "ą" and "ę" count twice or something? Carcharoth 00:53, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
The user name is 39 characters long, and 41 bytes long. (See Unicode#Mapping and encodings.) The bot should probably use characters :) GracenotesT § 00:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Latin characters with diacritics (like the ogonek) use two bytes in UTF-8, I think. Gimmetrow 01:05, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Would it be sensible to ask the operator of user:HBC NameWatcherBot to increase the length limit by a few bytes? Cardamon 08:24, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad that this is sorted out. Now, is anybody going to warn the original complainant about using uncivil comments such as, "I also ask, not for the first time, that you avoid giving blocking privileges to users who are retarded" as being in possible violation of WP:NPA? I don't suggest that we should block, of course, this being an isolated case. LessHeard vanU 10:05, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm thinking more of a barnstar for pointing out the inappropriate block (spirit, remember, not letter). But as it is an IP address, I find warnings and barnstars a bit pointless in this case. You could go and chat to the IP address on their talk page if you like. Carcharoth 11:32, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

The problem is not retarded people at all, it's retarded polices. Wikipedia:Username policy is one of the most moronic, screwball things about this place. Who knows how many potential good contributors we lose because of it? I left a rant about it on the village pump a while back here. Sad to see the same problems still persisting. Moreschi Talk 12:21, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Nice points in that village pump post. You almost inspired me to MfD the username policy, but then I saw that it is an official policy. Maybe a "disputed" tag? Carcharoth 12:47, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Update: the timer is still running. Grzegorz Chrząszcz vel Brzęszczykiewicz (talk · contribs) has not edited since he was blocked around 18 hours ago. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:04, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Actually, he stopped editing about 2.5 hours before he was username-blocked. It is not even certain if he is aware that he was blocked. The only way to know for sure is to ask and hope he is still around. Carcharoth 13:12, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Could there be some advantage to modifying the template so it requires the blocking admin to include a specific reason? I think the point above that we are essentially asking users to figure out why their name is inappropriate is an important one, especially since the current template doesn't even list all the possible reasons. What I'm thinking is that we change the template so it's like CSD tags and has to include a specific reason, which I think will go a long way to making the whole blocking experience better. Natalie 14:31, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Agree 100% w/ Natalie. --barneca (talk) 15:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
There already is a reason tag with {{uw-ublock}} (e.g., {{UsernameBlocked|reason=being Polish}}). It has been there for some time. However, it is not required. The problem with making the parameter "required" is that some admins might not be aware that they have to include it, or may forget it. And, the only way to "edit" a block summary is to unblock and reblock (messy). If we had a block reason blacklist, this would be a piece of cake (great example of creeping featurism, too). GracenotesT § 17:14, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't think requiring something on the block message is likely since, as you've said, the only way to change it is to unblock and reblock and that's just annoying. I see what you're saying about people not being aware, but try tagging something for speedy deletion without adding a reason. You get huge read letters read "This must be replaced with a specific reason" or something similar. The same thing happens when people attempt to add the "hangon" tag to talk pages. Feature creep it may be, but that isn't always a bad thing. Natalie 17:20, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Big red text doesn't work here: the blocking admin would just see ({{uw-ublock}}) as a summary. It is possible to make a bot that annoys admins who do username blocks without a reason. (Not sure if it's a good idea, but it's possible.) GracenotesT § 17:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
I think we're talking about two different things. I'm talking about the message that's left on the user talk page, and I can only assume that you are talking about the message in the block log. The admin would see the message on the talk page, because when you press submit the current page loads. But yes, it wouldn't work in the block log. Natalie 18:05, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, we are talking about different things. Both are relevant, though. It seems to be a good idea to have the template require a reason, so long as everyone knows about it. GracenotesT § 20:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

For general interest[edit]

Those who have commented here may like to check out this discussion concerning fixing the username "policy". Moreschi Talk 17:29, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


While this username may be a real name indeed, it may also be a reference to "Grzegorz Brzęczyszczykiewicz", a fake name the protagonist of Jak rozpętałem drugą wojnę światową used when interrogated by a Gestapo officer (see the trivia section of the article). Both "chrząszcz" and "Brzęczyszczykiewicz" are also polish tongue-twister words. Миша13 22:03, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

The user may be named Grzegorz Chrząszcz or Grzegorz Brzęszczykiewicz, not both (vel is similar to aka). He should chose one name/nickname, not two, for reasons discussed above.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  04:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Betacommand bot and a larger environmental threat[edit]

I commented above that I think Betacommand bot's over-reaching is symptomatic of a larger problem at Wikipedia. My comments got no reply there--I think they may have been lost in the middle of a discussion that had already moved on--so I'm going to take the liberty of re-posting part of them here, because I think the issue is important to the future of Wikipedia, and I'd like to know whether the admins here (or whoever else is looking in) share my concerns. Here's what I wrote earlier: I think there's a serious problem that is damaging Wikipedia and is not limited to the issue of this bot: people whose mentality is oriented toward rulemaking and law enforcement are making the environment inhospitable to people who are interested in creating high-quality article content. Those who are primarily interested in writing and research are unlikely to spend their time in policy and procedural discussions. The more heavily bureacratized and legislated Wikipedia becomes, the more mechanically and aggressively the laws are enforced, the less attractive this environment is for those interested in writing articles. You personally may not be as interested in the nuances of the writing and illustrations as in the efficiency of the programming or consistency of policy, but surely you recognize that the article contents do matter at wikipedia, and that the interests of volunteer writers (and contributors of relevant images) should be a consideration in all administrative matters. End of self-quotation. Do you agree with my characterization of this issue? If so, are there mechanisms in place to correct for this tendency? BTfromLA 20:01, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is the The Free Encyclopedia; that is one of its core goals. BetacommandBot, and all of the other image patrollers, do us a great service by ensuring that Wikipedia stays a free encyclopedia, composed of free content. --Haemo 20:05, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't think that's the argument, exactly... indef blocking anyone who ever uploads fair use would technically help us be the free encyclopedia, but some ways of enforcing the philosophy are just obviously bad ideas in the long run, if we want to continue having contributers. There is a long, long record of people who otherwise would be fine with policy getting really angry because an (often malfunctioning) bot is enforcing rules, and anyone who complains gets accused of being against Wikipedia's core goals. --W.marsh 20:09, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
We're not talking about malfunctioning bots here; we're talking about them doing a job which we, as a free encyclopedia, need done. Users who are "fine with policy" should be aware that said policy extends to images, just like any other contribution. Blanket accusations of being "against the encyclopedia" are, of course, silly, but all too often I've seen comments that simply misunderstand what image use on Wikipedia is all about — accusations of "vandalism" to image patrollers, of "ruining other people's work", and outright bad faith all around. People on both sides of the "argument", though there isn't one here, need to understand that everyone is doing it for the good of the project and that bombastic accusations on either side are totally unproductive. --Haemo 20:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Where do you see bombastic accusations in the present discussion? BTfromLA 20:28, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
From Haemo, I think. I read your post and thought: "fair comment". I then read Haemo's comment and though: "that's missing the point". This is about civility and WP:BITE, not WP:NFC. Carcharoth 21:06, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
The bottom line is if you're going to use other people's property for free (non-free media), you're going to have to take the time to learn about the necessarily complex rules and procedures that allow you to do so. Any article writer who doesn't want to deal with this is welcome to use only free media in their article, period. - Merzbow 20:08, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
BTfromLA makes some good points. What he writes, however, has nothing to do with fair use rules or Betacommandbot. Moreschi Talk 20:11, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments. While I am trying to address a larger issue than BetacommandBot, I think that the bot is related to (and symptomatic of) this problem. Take a look at the example of the bot's behavior that brought me to this page in the first place ("my 2¢...," above.) If that doesn't make the connection clear, I can try to spell it out in further detail. BTfromLA 20:25, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
(To Moreschi) Agreed, which is why we need more content-oriented admins (which I know you already know ;-), so the people with the sysop bit aren't completely clueless as to what editors need or want. --Iamunknown 20:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
BTfromLA is right, it is an important point, and an inherent achilles heel of the wikicracy that needs to be counteracted consciously. It is not entirely unrelated to betacommandbot, as the huge discussion above shows. That we need to get rid of unfree content is undisputed. The debate above is surrounding particulars of how this is being done. It boils down to this: admins need to remember that they are here to serve the project, not to build a watertight bureaucracy. We need the bureaucracy to be able to deal with the sheer scale of the project, but whenever bureaucracy is in the way of improvement of the pedia, we will bend the bureaucracy around the pedia, not vice versa. dab (�) 20:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. Carcharoth 21:09, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Dab misses an essential point here. The present consensus is that Wikipedia content is as free as possible -- that is, due to copyright laws & prior art, Wikipedia will never be 100% free-as-in-speech. On some points, I think the community is in practical consensus (e.g., "No, you may not have a free-use image of your favorite acress on your user page"); but on many, either there is currently no consensus, or the consensus exists against removing free-use content (e.g., the use of logos to help identify corporations or brands). But he is correct that the emphasis should be on the "how" -- not in building a powerful beaucracy or seeking "diktats" to effect these changes. -- llywrch 23:39, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
I am aware of this, and do not quite see how I am missing anything. I granted we need to remove blatant fair use violations, but this wasn't the point I made. --dab (𒁳) 08:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Hmm. Re-reading what you wrote, Dab, I now see what you meant. I've been annoyed by this ideological purity over image licensing for so long that I'm starting to see its advocates where none exist. Sorry. -- llywrch 22:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
We really do seem to be spending a disproportionate amount of time these days on images, rather than text. Neil  09:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
I think we will continue to do so as long as we allow fair use images. Patrolling hundreds of thousands of images for adherence to our non-free content criteria is quite difficult. I don't think any rule that is more complicated than "you can upload anything you like" or "free content only" is going to be enforceable without really large effort. For the record, I think we should move to "free content only" (good reasons for this move can be seen on Angr's userpage). Kusma (talk) 09:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
On the other hand, with a bit more organised effort, with proper use of categories and tags, it should be possible to get the non-free images under control and see the real scale of the problem and some of the details and proportions of different types of images. Just looking at the overall number and going on a case-by-case approach for each image, was never going to be very informative or efficient. A breakdown into different types is a much better way to approach the matter, and this is what has been happening and what is currently being made more efficient. Then more effort can be devoted to examining the free images and making sure they have sources, and making sure they really are free! In other words, even if all images are "free" we still trust out uploaders to be truthful, or we still have to carefully examine thousands and thousands of images. No different to the case with fair-use, except for some small proportion of the fair-use image (by no means all of them) there is some unknown chance of legal repercussions. Carcharoth 09:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

User talk:[edit]

OK, guys, just a heads-up. Please be careful when blocking this IP, as you'll cause massive amounts of autoblocks if you do block it. See the above talk page. From a concerned student, --HurricanVest 09:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Can we confirm this with the district? It seems an extremely inefficient setup, given the size of the region. I'm not saying the anonymous editor who added the caution is spreading misinformation, but he may be misinformed. — madman bum and angel 13:27, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, blocking the IP shouldn't trigger autoblocks (since most blocks are soft), only blocking accounts will. Since we don't know the underlying IPs of named accounts there's not much to be done... -- lucasbfr talk (using User:Lucasbfr2) 13:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Both this IP, and the newly created account HurricanVest, are acting very much like socks of a troll, including goofing around with sock notices of other users. An admin might want to look at the contribs of both and see if they think my hunch is right. --barneca (talk) 16:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Nice catch. I've reverted the problems I've seen, and I'm keeping a close eye on them. Thanks! — madman bum and angel 17:03, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Further comment: The IP might be a sockpuppet of Bugman94. [13]madman bum and angel 17:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Blocked indefinitely; this is clearly not a new user, was devoted to monkeying with shared-IP templates and sockpuppet tags, and seemed not to be contributing to the improvement of the encyclopedia. MastCell Talk 17:12, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Problem solved. ;) — madman bum and angel 17:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Suggest keeping an eye on (talk · contribs). Odd situation. User:HurricanVest was there earlier this morning. Per user and talk pages, long history of sockpuppetry and claiming to be unfairly blocked on a shared IP that Cyde said (back in August 2006) isn't really shared. 6 month block expired 7 months ago, with what appears to be a mixture of legitimate and vandal edits from there since then, and one vandal edit earlier this month. Still not shared? --barneca (talk) 17:57, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
The IP referenced is on a server for Webhosting. Very likely an open proxy.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Sefton Libraries do have a contact form here, select Technical Services and they should be able to confirm or not if their public terminal IPs are or not. Hope this helps. --Solumeiras talk 09:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

    • I'm referring to the IP that this section starts with...—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:00, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


Resolved: It would seem. EVula // talk // // 20:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Just a heads up: A lot of people experience trouble with Special:Watchlist, getting a database or 500 internal server error. Impact is unknown, but if all editors have this problem, a lot of vandalism is going undetected right now, and all editors have to cleanup big time when it's solved. Is anyone in contact with a dev? EdokterTalk 17:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

It seems to be solved again (for me anyway). EdokterTalk 17:23, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I was getting an error too. EVula // talk // // 17:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
I was having the problem in Firefox, until I did a CTRL+F5 to refresh the cache.--