Noticeboard archives

## Old/first generation FAs

There are many FAs which got promoted under the old FA criteria. A quick glance at these first generation FAs reveals that several of them fall way short of FA-quality under the present guidelines. Political integration of India and Malwa are just two examples. The former, for example is almost entirely unsourced! Even the sparse referencing is studded with non-RS sources. The latter too has serious sourcing issues. And sourcing is just one of the issues with these articles. Both suffer from rambling prose, possible POV, MoS issues, non-WP:EL links in external links etc.,. I am sure that there are more FAs like this. Is there any way that these articles can be de-featured without having to go through the motions? imo, de-featuring these articles is only fair because it would be a travesty if these articles were to hold up more deserving FAs from gracing the main page. Also these FAs are certainly not among wikipedia's best and shouldnt be anywhere near the main page. Thoughts? Sarvagnya 11:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes - {{sofixit}} springs to mind. And this is not an issue requiring administrator attention - it would be better off being brought up at Wikipedia:Village pump. Neil  11:52, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
{{sofixit}} springs to mind. Yes. And if you peek into the recent edit history of the article, you'll see that i've been doing my bit to "sofixit". Being Indian myself and being reasonably familiar with the topic, I can tell you that the article needs a complete overhaul and large portions of it may even need to be restructured and rewritten. And I dont see that this has to go to the pump. Lot of admins gather here and if enough admins agree with what I'm proposing, it should save us all a lot of trouble. Wikipedia, afterall isnt a bureaucracy, for us to keep running from pillar to post. We could probably agree on something like ... "If atleast half a dozen editors of long standing admins agree that an article is not FA-quality, the article should be downgraded to say B-class." - this of course, would apply only to FAs promoted under the old guidelines. So do you have anything else to say other than "sofixit" and "take it to the pump"? Sarvagnya 12:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Admins do not have special authority over content issues, which is what FA/FAR/FARCs are - such issues are determined by the community, of which all admins happen to be a part, but only in the fact we are all also editors. Issues such as this ought to be discussed on the Village Pump because it is the appropriate location for such discussion. Admins do not have special authority to revise community-determined policy - everyone has an equal right. Neil  13:24, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Just work through them gradually. Nominate them at a slow enough rate to (a) allow work to be done on them, and (b) not to overwhelm FAR. Carcharoth 12:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Both these articles have already appeared on the Main Page (see here and here, and thus will not appear on the Main Page again for the foreseeable future. See the "Article Milestones" template on the talk pages to confirm this. Just let these article appear on FAR in the fulness of time. ie. Don't overwhelm FAR with excessive nominations, and, as always, be prepared to work on the articles you nominate. Carcharoth 12:01, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree. FAR is the way to go. That is exactly what it is for. This is not an admin matter at all. --Stephan Schulz 12:11, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
So whenever the FA criteria changes all FAs should be un-FAed for not meeting FA? Luigi30 (Taλk) 13:19, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
A generally good approach is to comment at the article talk page and solicit help from the relevant wikiprojects. Brush it up a bit yourself if you have the knowledge and sources. If no one steps in to help after a month, then FARC it. I've done this a few times. DurovaCharge! 16:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The bottomline is, an article is FA if it meets FA guidelines. If it doesnt, it shouldnt be FA. And if it doesnt by a good distance and by reasonable estimate requires substantial work, we shouldnt have to go through a pointless FAR to get it de-featured. I dont understand the community's obsession with bureaucratically holding on to FAs when they are clearly not FA-quality and also stand no realistic chance of making it past a FAR. Sarvagnya 03:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Articles get promoted to featured, standards get tougher, articles get reviewed and either improve or are defeatured. Nothing new here. Those two articles you list are more like third generation FAs. This is what a 'first generation' FA looked like. And the articles being promoted to FA now? In two years they'll be sub-par unless they continue to improve. We don't go and wipe away the featured status of every article immediately each time the standards go up. Yes, that means that some of our featured articles are still under what I would call 'third' (inline references only for salient points) or possibly even 'second' (detailed and well written, but few references at all) generation standards, but that's hardly a problem. The day will come, I am convinced, when we adopt FA standards requiring that every fact in an article not only be referenced, but that those references have actually been looked up by independent reviewers and verified to support the information. When that happens every current FA will be failing of those standards... but we won't de-feature them all immediately. There would be no point to it. Ditto with the present. We allow a 'grace period' for articles to continue improving towards the current standards. The point of FAR isn't to get things de-featured. It's to see whether people will put in the time to get the article up to current standards so it doesn't need to be de-featured. --CBD 11:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

## Strange articles

I occasionally come across some strange articles. That have issues with the scope or just seem like they don't belong in an encyclopedia in the form that they are in. If they are stubs and contain very general information like Food crisis I have nominated them for deletion. But some of these are large with specialized information that would not want deleted, but they don't fit in very well either. Like Comparison of open source wireless drivers, Empire of Japan (additional economic and financial data), and Identification in Burkean rhetoric. What should I do about these sorts of articles? —Preceding unsigned comment added by BirgitteSB (talkcontribs) 14:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

If the issue is that their context is unclear, then {{context}} may be what you are looking for. If their scope is the problem, then you could either try raising the issue on the talk page, or raising an AfD or RM to discuss what to keep and what to move elsewhere. Warofdreams talk 15:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
The strangest one I found was Library damage resulting from the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake. Articles like these tend to be people dumping their research papers on Wikipedia. I recently cleaned up Arsénio Pompílio Pompeu de Carpo from this to this. But sometimes they are not needed or so obscure it is not clear how to start rescuing them. I sent the library one to AfD to see what to do, but it was kept and I did a brief tidying, moving lots of data to the talk page. Carcharoth 14:40, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

## Incivility, Trolling and accusations by Jack Merridew

You're new (you started editing 25th Sep) yet you know all the wiki terminology? You also know how to provide diffs and where to post this message. Have you edited before under any previous account at all? It would really make this situation different if you had.
Seraphim Whipp 18:24, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
• No I have not, but I have been looking and reading code for a while as I am interested in the simplified HTML format (I'm a web designer). I had made a few anon spelling corrections, but decided to get more involved last week. I feel it mayhave ben a mistake now and wikipedia is not the place for me. Punkguy182 18:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
'triff.... that was that editors last edit to date! Was he a sock? Well, we'll never know now... Can we remember not to WP:BITE and WP:AGF, pretty please? Trolls and socks will come and go, but perhaps trying to encourage the WP:BOLD enthusiasts (or at least lead them gently into this "Encyclopedia tht anyone can edit"). Remember, we were all new once. LessHeard vanU 20:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Aww I tried to make sure that it didn't sound bitey. In this suspicious situation, I was trying to give them a legitimate reason that would explain why they are so knowledgable about the workings of wikipedia, despite being brand new. I remember when I was new...I definately couldn't have told you what a sockpuppet was and I didn't know this admin noticeboard existed until a few months ago (although that could be because I'm a bit slow sometimes :( ). Since that didn't come across properly, I'll modify my tone for the future.
Seraphim Whipp 21:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
I wasn't trying to target you with my comment, and I apologise if that appears to be the case. I did AGF with your response, but thought the point was made by the other editor. Perhaps it is to the good, you need a reasonably thick skin to edit in some areas of WP! I've left a welcome message on their talkpage; maybe they will come back and maybe not... LessHeard vanU 21:43, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I stand by my statements to the effect that User:Punkguy182 is a reincarnation of User:R:128.40.76.3. Given that he has since copied a portion of my user page onto his user page, I would say it is quite likely that this ‘user’ is also User:Jack..Merridew who copied my entire user page and attempted to impersonate me. I am sure someone will end up restoring the sockpuppet tag I added to his user page once this is all said and done... and he's blocked again. --Jack Merridew 13:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I also think they are the same user, but I doubt a CU will provide definitive proof, given his apparent use of different IP ranges for different users in the past. Note also, User:R:128.40.76.3 socks have copied excerpts of my userpage to his user page: User:Mad kemist [9], User:Tim.Boyle [[10], and User:Curious Gregor [11], but in a slightly different manner than was done with Jack's page. Whether User:Jack..Merridew is a User:Gorge He or User:R:128.40.76.3 sock seems besides the point, which is that User:Punkguy182 is clearly here to troll. Pete.Hurd 16:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

## Edit waring by CapitalR (talk · contribs)

• Note All the templates created by the user have now been nominated for deletion as they are depreciated and redundant. Thewinchester (talk) 15:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• I reviewed the situation and left an appropriately detailed warning on the user's talk page. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 15:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

It has been pointed out repeatedly to User:Giano II at [12] that the image is not in the public domain. User:Giano II remains defiant and refuses to consider any alternative licence. 41.208.217.170 20:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

This seems just plain silly. Yes, there's an infinitesimal chance that the photograph was first published after 1937, but it's a minute one. It was taken in 1879 for god's sake. Aside from anything else, given the sitters there's a reasonable chance this is a crown copyright in which case it's undoubtedly now in the public domain. Can you really not find more problematic images to worry about? – iridescent (talk to me!) 21:10, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
There's actually no chance that the photograph was published after 1937, as it was published in 1879 by being handed out to the participants in the house party that is the subject of the photograph. - Nunh-huh 21:27, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Contrary to "anons" statement above I don't care what copyright tag it has (I see it has just been changed [13] so long as Anon is not trying to have it deleted), as that is plainly daft. I just though {PD-old}} was the most logical. Giano 21:43, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Anon never mentioned the word "deletion", but simply requested that the tag be changed. If the change had been made then, all this fuss could have been avoided. 41.208.243.92 07:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Not quite true [14] you mention deletion twice in this one short post. You also kept reverting my changing of the tag. Never mind all is well that ends well. Giano 07:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
FGS [15] If Carnildo is happy what on earth is all this about? Giano 06:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Truly, if Carnildo is satisfied that's the last word on the matter. No administrative action is required here; the IfD will run its course. Mackensen (talk) 10:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The administrative action is required here. The IP needs to be investigated for sockpuppetry and the account(s) has to be blocked for pesky harassment. --Irpen 21:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

## Extra eyes needed

There seems to be a fascination to adding false future destinations to the G8 article. I think this is due to some website or another linking to an incorrect past revision as a joke... but subsequent vandalized versions are staying unreverted for way too long and I have no idea how much longer this will continue. Some extra eyes would be helpful. --W.marsh 01:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to watch the article. NCurse work 05:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• It got Farked, heh, that's where it's all coming from. ♠PMC♠ 22:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

## Policy for transferring photographs to Commons

A humble suggestion follows. Motorrad-67 21:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• Before doing anything to initiate a transfer, the photographer must be contacted to discuss the potential transfer. No transfer will ever be made without prior communication with the photographer.
• The person wishing to execute a transfer (transferer) must ascertain the photographer's opinion about making the transfer. If the photographer does not understand the meaning of the transfer or the nature of the Commons, the transferer must explain this to him or her.
• If the photographer agrees to the transfer, the transfer may be made.
• If the photographer does not agree to the transfer, discussion must continue to ascertain the reason(s) for the disagreement in an attempt to implement reasonable and mutually acceptable procedures to secure agreement.
• If no agreement can be made, the photographer will be provided the option to have his or her photograph(s) deleted completely from Wikipedia. If the photographer does not agree to deletion and does not agree to the transfer after reasonable efforts are made to secure his or her agreement, the transferer may transfer the photographs 14 days after the initial contact with the photographer was made.
The best place to discuss policy isn't on the AN, it's on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Will (talk) 22:03, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I have posted it there. Motorrad-67 22:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Could someone look at this, it's a sock puppett case that I got into when it was on ANI and it is snowballing. This user keeps dropping notes on my talk page, I want to help but I'm not very knowledgeable in sock cases and I'm now in over my head. Can another admin please help? Thanks. Rlevse 01:53, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

• User:SarahLover has been indefinitely blocked as a suspected sock, obviously picking up where another account left off[16]. Keegantalk 02:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
• Can you be more specific? What sort of further help do you need? I see Betacommand's analysis suggesting all of these are related. I'd hate to actually run CUs on all these userids. I suggest WP:DUCK. ++Lar: t/c 02:21, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
• Hey Lar, I think the issue was over the fact that SarahLover was not blocked, although a non-admin placed the indef-blocked sock tag on the userpage. A CU could reveal the underlying IP, but I'm hardblocking to take care of that anyway. So, case closed I think. Keegantalk 02:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
• Other users were hard blocked, so why can the person keep editing? Dynamic IPs, different computers? Also, the reporting user seems frustrated that the sock can keep creating accounts--can anything be done to stop this? Rlevse 02:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser, second door on the left. Seriously, it is the only avenue to take care of account abuse. We as admins don't have the capacity to track socks to the extent required here. Keegantalk 02:34, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
• Hard-blocking users is only effective for 24 hours via WP:AUTOBLOCK. It's not like hard-blocking IPs. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:40, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Rats, this guy's really bad. Sounds like we really need CU to stop this guy.Rlevse 02:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
• Learn something new everyday. Keegantalk 03:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

## User:Luffy1794

This user keeps removing deletion templates w/o following policy despite two warnings i left on their talk page. The Placebo Effect 02:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I have left a message for the user, plus a standardized welcome message (and a 3RR warning at that). The user hasn't reverted the most recent templates, and it's been about an hour, so perhaps your message did the trick. We can always still monitor the situation. -Andrew c [talk] 03:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

## User warning template inconsistancy

I've noticed that even after the user warnings have been cleaned up, templates such as Template:Test4 have not been made consistant with their new counterparts (Template:uw-test4. Most of the older templates are only editable by admins, so I mentioned this here.--Avant Guard 19:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The reason the older templates have not been made similar is that, when the newer ones were made, the admins who used the old ones didn't want to see them changed. Perhaps it has been long enough now to just redirect {{test4}} to {{uw-test4}} and so on. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:42, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
There is probably a better place for this discussion, but as somebody who uses the test templates, and not the new ones, I would not like to see them simply redirected to their new counterparts. For numerous reasons, including my dislike for the new wording and use of icons, I (and I assume others) prefer not to use the new templates. - auburnpilot talk 20:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
• I suggest boldly changing them (it's only a redirect, should not be a big deal), and if there turn out to be objections, discussing the matter on WP:TFD. >Radiant< 08:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

## Portal:Current events

Portal:Current events has been under continious attack today. The project page is semi-protected, but the templates (such as Portal:Current events/2007 October 1) are not. Therefore, a better system for supervising and protecting these templates is urgently needed. --Camptown 20:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I've cascade protected it for 12 hours, after which an admin should restore the original protections. Maxim(talk) 21:40, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

## User:ClaimJumperPete

### FYI

An FYI. There's an odd persistent vandal, ClaimJumperPete and sockpuppets whose habit is to insert seemingly misguided "ant-vandalism" comments in random articles, using a highly stylized southern U.S. accent. He plays the "just trying to help" and "I don't understand why you don't like me" games, but has also started scoreboarding his vandalism (see Example 1, Example 2). I've asked for full protect on the user and user talk pages this vandal can edit, to stop the scoreboarding. I mention the guy here:

• to alert a wider range of admins, since he plays the naive user game very well
• to inquire if there's more that can be done

I'm not an admin and don't know all the tools you guys have for squashing vandalism. Studerby 19:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

You may also want to mention this at WP:LTA.--Avant Guard 20:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Thanks for the notice, Studerby. It appears that all the known and declared socks were all blocked independently by different administrators, so it is nice to tie it all in one package so we can keep an eye out. Appreciate it. Keegantalk 20:06, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
CheckUser filed. Lets see if we can catch some sleepers, or an IP address. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 20:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
I've taken the liberty of posting Studerby's comment on WP:LTA along with a modus operandi section that I've written.--Avant Guard 21:04, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Ah, thanks for the transfer over to LTA, I overlooked that board. Sounds like the admins are on the case... Studerby 22:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

### Threat

The vandal just used a new sockpuppet, User:GhostofPete, made the general threat in this edit:

It won't take ya long ta be figurin' this is yer ClaimJumperPete. n' I dun really care how fast yar gunna be choosin' ta report this account neither, but I gotta cupple uh werds for ya pal. I been noticin' yer takin' quite n' involvement revertin' my rosters, ya know i had to be takin' notice uh that. 'nother thing, it's kinda clear that ya got an interest 'n silencin' me. Perhaps ya might want to know what yer gonna be up against. Ya might be thinkin' dis is sum sorta game: yer bullet hit the mark. Jus' the other day me 'n a friend kicked it off the same time, he dern got 37 hits n' I got 31 before we were both cleared out. Soon enough yer gonna see a site such as CJP.suddenlaunch3.com or a better variant. A forum where I'll be roundin' up a posse of dudes I dun even be knowin' yet. Ya think 'am havin' a wild time doin' this? ya don't know the half of it. But y'all got a choice. ya can either get ma' account unblocked, and move yer merry way, er I can keep doin' this till the cows come home. Ya herd that clear: If ya unblock me, ClaimJumperPete, I'll never be makin' another edit again, 'n it'll be over. But if y'all shut me down again, it'll be back ta yer status quo right here. Otherwise 'am perfectly fine wit dis lil' charade, in all actuality. The ball's in yer court, pal. GhostOfPete 02:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

...and we can do this 'til the cows come home, too. Don't feed the troll, vandals are dealt with as they pop up. Keegantalk —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 03:19, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Newest sock added to checkuser. Hopefully, he'll keep making accounts so we can CheckUser him and report his ISP. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 13:41, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

## AFD socks

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London tunnel run contains many socks. Send help. Luigi30 (Taλk) 13:01, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

## User:Skateremorocker continues to delete sources and citation requests, among other things

Here are some of his edits of the past 10 days:

Examples of sources being deleted:

Examples of citation requests being deleted:

Examples of changing sourced information:

Hoponpop69 23:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, but why was this not even acknowledged by anyone?Hoponpop69Hoponpop69 22:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

What I see is a classic content dispute over the band The Classic Crime being a Christian band or not. This does not require admin attention. Please talk it out on the talk page. Though I will say that Skateremorocker's remark "or I will ban you" was inapropriate.  – EdokterTalk 23:02, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

We've tried that but it didn't really work, so I'm using Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal. Thank you for responding. Hoponpop69 01:30, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

## Wiki admin going out of bounds

Hi,

I need your help. There is an admin called Leuko who is vandalising an article on American University of Antigua. I feel that Leuko is extremely biased against a medical school called University of Health Sciences Antigua, and has added an unnecessary line worded as, "For the unaccredited medical school with a similar name disapproved by many U.S. states, see University of Health Sciences Antigua" at the beginning of the American University of Antigua article. I have made an edit and he threatened to ban me. He tries to edit most medical school articles, and in the end, all that is left is "[a certain medical school] according to Leuko". Would it be possible for you to help me?

Thanks

DrGladwin 17:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

First, Leuko is not an admin. Second, Leuko's preferred wording for the disambiguation message at the top of American University of Antigua College of Medicine violates NPOV. My own feeling is that the names "American University of Antigua College of Medicine" and "University of Health Sciences Antigua" are not similar enough to warrant disambig notices at all. I have removed the message accordingly. Third, your removal of it is not vandalism and Leuko was wrong to imply it was such. Forth, this noticeboard was probably not the best place for you to bring up this concern, as it does not involve use of administrative powers. Mike R 17:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Mike. I always thought Leuko was an admin from the way he "bosses" over other other mods. He even threatened to ban a fellow mod! Can you believe that?! Leuko hacks through articles and no one, I say no one, is allowed to undo the changes he has made. Notice his edits and the sentiments he as stirred up on his talk page from his previous edits. People who go against him are threatened by bans. Anyways, thanks for your help. DrGladwin 17:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Replied at User talk:DrGladwin so as to desist from clogging up AN. Mike R 17:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Sorry to keep posting here, but it is clear that Leuko is implying he is a mod/admin. He posted on my talk page a message regarding a different medical school and indicated if I continued making certain edits I would be blocked from editing. He very clearly implied that he has this power. I have removed this from my talk page as it is plain silly and very bullying of him. While he makes no explicit statement of being an admin he clearly implies it. BTW, the article in question is Caribbean Medical University. I beg for your assistance. Bstone 17:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Looks like he used a standard 3rr warning template. There is nothing wrong with any editor warning other editors to not edit war. No idea if it was warranted in this case, but there's nothing automatically wrong with a non-admin using that template. Friday (talk) 17:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Has Leuko been notified that this thread exists? There are mechanisms for resolving disputes with particular editors. In general, unaccredited schools are a touchy subject. Leuko has worked on a number of these articles. We've had issues in the past with these articles and how to present accreditation info. I would strongly suggest following the dispute resolution methods, such as asking for a third opinion or filing a user-conduct request for comment, rather than soliciting people with a dislike for Leuko to comment here. MastCell Talk 18:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
MastCell, it's not a question of disliking Leuko. It's the question of him threatening to ban other editors and mods if they make changes in articles that he disapproves. I had removed one line from the AUA article (this same line has been removed by an admin), and notice the warning Leuko wrote on my talk page: he simply threatened to ban me. I feel this is not right and is against our principle of "Being Bold." DrGladwin 18:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
It should be pointed out that in posts on DrGladwin's talk page, Leuko specifically and unambiguously stated on DrGladwin's talk page would be blocked from editing if he continued with certain edits. He wrote, "you will be blocked from editing" (emphasis not added). Leuko's incivility, bullying and implying he has the ability to block someone is what is making is incredibly uncomfortable. Thank you for the dispute resolution links. I shall be following up with them. Bstone 18:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
The block warning is a part of our standard warning templates. They in no way indicate that the person leaving the warning will be doing the blocking and, in fact, are for the use of all editors. See WP:WARN. -Chunky Rice 18:40, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

it's a standard template message - if you don't like the wording then obtain consensus to change it, the fact that certain words within are highlighted does not provide you with a stick to hit Leuko over the head. Do some basic research in future before attacking other editors with such claims. --Fredrick day 18:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Unless one reads and is familiar with WP:WARN they would immediately to the conclusion that the person issuing the warning has the ability to make good on it. The policy for issuing warning should change as it is very ambiguous as to the standing of the person issuing it. Notice that by issuing this message two casual editors (DrGladwin and myself) were both convinced Leuko as an admin. Be that as it may, I will be drafting a request for mediation based on Leuko's incivility and bullying. I don't see the need to post here again. Bstone 18:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Contrary to what you and DrGladwin believe, it doesn't matter whether an admin or another editor or a kitten issues a warning. Your response to one should be the same regardless: you'd ignore it if it's meritless or adjust your actions accordingly. However, I'd warn against going for the former method, as some tend to see every warning they receive as meritless, even when some are not. – tariqabjotu 19:18, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Malcjennings has decided to add literally hundreds of external links to a specific site ([28]). I'm not entirely sure whether it's external link spamming or not. Second opinion before I set VandalProof on his contributions list? Any help much appreciated. If people agree, it'll probably need more than just me reverting: about 200 added, and the account was only created today(!). Regards, AllynJ (talk | contribs) 20:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I checked a few of the entries; the linked to website is merely regurgitating other people's advertising copy and reprinting the game instructions, which are copyrighted. I'm sure it's a very helpful site for people who have downloaded warez, but I can't think of a particularly good reason wikipedia should link to it. Studerby 21:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
(third opinion) Oh, definitely external link spamming. Someone else already gave them a final warning, and they seem to have stopped half an hour ago. Revert all. I'd help, but I'm not automated. --barneca (talk) 21:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
I added the final warning before spotting this thread, even though they were only on level 1 previously, as I looked at their contributions beforehand. I didn't revert any of the changes myself, as I too am unaided, but I called on User:Moonriddengirl to rollback the changes. However, this leaves a lot of links to cpczone.net, and many of the user's edits were simply modifying the existing links (possibly spam). Would it be too much to remove all ELs to cpczone, while leaving any legitimate uses of the site as a reference? --Dreaded Walrus t c 22:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

I'm not really sure what's with this page. Obviously, wikipedia is not for image galleries. The page isn't linked from any page in the mainspace either. So, what's the consensus on what to do with this page? -Royalguard11(T·R!) 01:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the talk page, which redirects to an archive, the page appears to have been used as a testing ground for the image dispute related to Muhammad. Not really sure what the standard practice would be, but I'd suggest deleting Muhammad/images and moving the talk page (Talk:Muhammad/images/archive) to an archive of main talk page. - auburnpilot talk 01:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Finished. – Moe ε 02:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

## User:VitasV: List of Mario universe games

Resolved

User:VitasV has created the above. I am under the impression that personal pages are not allowed. he has also put a warning message on the talk page. I wish not to put a signature, as I fear attacks if I report this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by StuartDD (talkcontribs) 09:22, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks sign bot!!!! StuartDD ( t c ) 09:28, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, the user in question hasn't broken any rules. Unreasonable demands to not edit, sure, but the pages are in fact allowed as it has an obvious purpose for the 'pedia. See Wikipedia:Subpages and Wikipedia:User page. --Benchat 12:20, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
I'd agree with that, but there is no indication that it is a sub page, and therefore he can't claim it to be personal. StuartDD ( t c ) 12:25, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I have moved the page to his userspace where it belongs. The page looks like it might be part of his encyclopedic work, so we can assume good faith and leave it alone. Kusma (talk) 12:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Well seeing as it's in userspace (even though it tosses naming conventions out the window), and I would call it a subpage although it technically isn't one. He's not claiming it to be personal anyway, just telling people not to edit (people are entitled to ignorant opinions). Heck, look at my sandbox, I use it to formulate template designs and article edits all the time. <edit conflict hit me here> thanks Kusma. --Benchat 12:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
It's a sub page now, so that deals with it. Thanks. StuartDD ( t c ) 12:36, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

## Requesting Outside Opinions

Earlier today, I placed WP:RFA on WP:MFD, which was speedy closed by Deskana as being an invalid forum for debating the RFA process. Ryan Postlethwaite moved it to WP:RFC over here. I would appreciate comments from admins and non-admins alike (on all sides of the debate), as I feel there are some serious flaws that need addressing. ^demon[omg plz] 17:06, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

## WoW

I'd like to report 82.45.40.89  as a sockpuppet of Willy on Wheels. He has similiarity to his other socks. The use of "WWWWWWWWWW" [29] [30], the term "fucking bastard" [31] [32], and more if you check his contribs. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 22:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Those are signs of an uncivil vandal, but far from proof that it's actually the same person as the earlier famous vandal (who, I think, had more class and couth... he just moved articles to titles with "...on Wheels", without cursing anybody out as far as I know). *Dan T.* 22:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Did you even click the diff links? Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 22:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I think it's a pretty blatant WoW sock. east.718 at 22:32, October 2, 2007
Or a "me-too" vandal trying to ride the coattails of WoW's fame or infamy, anyway. Didn't the real WoW supposedly "reform" and apologize? *Dan T.* 22:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Accoriding to a rejected arbitration case, someone claiming to be WoW said that the one who apologized was not really him. hbdragon88 00:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed with Dan T; this WoW sock business needs to stop. That's not Willy's ISP, at least not the one I remember, and any random jackass with an internet connection can fill the edit summary with the letter 'W'. Moreover, this is a non-static IP that hasn't made an edit since June and which has no sockpuppets active on it. What would you have us do? Mackensen (talk) 22:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• Frankly we shouldn't care whether or not this is the "official" WoW. It's irrelevant. If it's a vandal-only account, revert, block, ignore. Even the Ancient Greeks had that one down pat. >Radiant< 08:55, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
• It's worth noting, that this IP hasn't made an edit in nearly 4 months. SQL(Query Me!) 08:59, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
• At the risk of feeding the trolls, I heard last night that WoW (or a wannabe) hit another Wiki site – not recently, though. (Details available in email.) I guess he gets around, like a social disease. – llywrch 20:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

## User:Burgz33

I just semi-protected his user page based on this which he repeated. I really like the last two sentences. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 02:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Is this a static ip? WP:LEGAL might be invoked if so. LessHeard vanU 12:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Not likely. He'll be back with a new one again, see Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Burgz33. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 14:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Just incase anyone's wondering, s/he is wrong and can't revoke their edits. See WP:REVOKE for more specific info. James086Talk | Email 14:27, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Ha, well, the contract can only be severed on stipulations, like any contract, not just an "I say so." You can only have the license revoked by misuse, you can't revoke it. Once you hit save, it is free for anyone to distribute and modify as long as credit and source is given. Paraphrasing Essjay, only hit save once you're sure about what you want to put out there. Keegantalk 05:08, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

## SALT

Resolved

Forgive me if this is not the proper forum and please tell me where I can post this. We have been having problems with user(s) creating an article Ronald A. Carson. It has been deleted 9 times (See the Deletion Log) as it is about a non-notable person. I am not sure if the same user (User:Alinob77) keeps re-creating it or if it is different users, however I do know that Alinob77 has created it several times. See the latest Deletion Review for this article. The original creator used sockpuppetry to try and keep the page undeleted. He had 7 sockpuppets (See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Alinob77 and Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Alinob77 (2nd)). The use of sockpuppets in the Deletion Review caused a lot of problems. The Deletion Review concluded and the page was deleted (for the 9th time). To my knowledge (using Wikipedia:Protected titles/October 2007) I don't think the page was salted. Is there any way to get it SALTED to prevent recreation and avoid further problems? - Rjd0060 21:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Done. Page salted. --B 21:54, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
OK. Great. Thanks - Rjd0060 21:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

## Wikipedia:GSFDL

I've opened a discussion on the next generation of our license at Wikipedia:GSFDL since admins tend to deal with copyright issues rather more than most comments from as many as possible are requested.Geni 02:50, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

## Image protection on the main page

I notice admins protecting Wikipedia images before they are added to the main page. I don't believe that's necessary anymore because of the cascading protection. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.

I'm less sure about images on commons. If an image from commons is on the main page but is protected on commons, does it still need to be uploaded here to prevent vandalism? —Wknight94 (talk) 01:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Ideally, all images should be protected prior to being put on the main page, as it is possible for a vandal to vandalize an image right before it gets placed on the cascade-protected main page (especially DYK and ITN, as they aren't on the cascade-protected Main Page/Tomorrow prior to being on the main page). However, if an image is already on the main page (or Main Page/Tomorrow) without normal protection and it is protected on commons, then it isn't necessary to c-upload it. Basically, if you don't know exactly how cascade protection works, you should upload and full protect before placing any image on the main page. --- RockMFR 01:31, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

RockMFR is correct - non admins can't upload images to the same title as an image on Commons. So if the image is protected on Commons, it need not be here. Those who are admins on Commons can protect it there rather than having to upload a local version. Otherwise, if the image exists unvandalised on a cascaded page, there's no need to protect it as well but if its possible for it to be vandalised just before automatic inclusion on such a page it should be. There's probably no harm in people playing safe and double protecting though. 01:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

One small caveat would be that the regular protection should have a time limit. Otherwise, the admin removing it from the main page will have to check that it doesn't become permanently protected. It seems simpler to let cascading protection do its job. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Oh absolutely - whether protection is here or on Commons, I can't see why it would need to be for more than 1 day... 01:50, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
With the exception of items on ITN of course, which have lingered on the Main Page for over a week in rare cases. - BanyanTree 11:23, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
But once it's actually on the main page, protection isn't necessary. RockMFR and WJBscribe are referring to the time before it gets to the main page. I'm not sure I follow that but I'm also not familiar with the processes involved in assembling the main page. (I know only that there are a lot of pieces to sort through!) —Wknight94 (talk) 21:42, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
There's a technical solution to that ... create a page that displays tomorrow's main page (ie, use {{#expr:{{CURRENTDAY}} + 1}} in relevant places) and cascade protect it. That way, everything is protected 24 hours in advance and you can take a look at it to make sure that it hasn't been vandalized right before the protection took effect. --B 21:59, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
We already have that I believe - Main Page/Tomorrow. Its just that DYK and ITN aren't included on that (as they aren't necessarily known in advance...). 07:21, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

## Portal:LGBT/Quotetemp re-write

I need some help in re-writing the template at Portal:LGBT/Quotetemp to where it supports more than 10 quotes from Portal:LGBT/Quotes. User:WJBscribe created LGBT/Quotetemp but said he copied it from another Portal. He said the template only supports up to 10 quotes. I haven't a clue how to do this. Any help would be greatly appreciated. – ALLSTAR ECHO 01:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The template (quotetemp) itself is just a wrapper that displays content when and only when one of the values given is equal to a calculation applied to the current time. The quotes page itself has each possible number available associated with a transclusion of the template with a quote for the content. To expand the template without breaking anything, you must first have a number of quotes equal to the number of possible values a new expression will create (just add quotes with additional numbers to the page), and then change the expression to cause it to output that new set of variables. If you make a total of 20 quotes available and replace {{#expr:({{CURRENTMINUTE}}*3)/20 round 0}} with {{#expr:({{CURRENTMINUTE}}-1.5)/3 round 0}}, it should expand it to 20. The important thing is making sure that the function resolves itself to the right set of different values over the course of the hour. ${\displaystyle \operatorname {round} \left({\frac {x-1.5}{3}}\right)}$ is the function I'm using to make it work - as long as you use ${\displaystyle \operatorname {round} (\operatorname {f} (x))}$ where ${\displaystyle \operatorname {f} (x)}$ resolves to the right set of integer values using {{CURRENTMINUTE}} and a fraction, you're fine and can easily have up to 60 without making the code much more complicated. Make sure, however, that the step function starts at zero for the fraction you use, or you have to offset it with a subtraction or addition in the numerator, as I've done here. This helps ensure that all quotes are displayed for the same amount of time. Nihiltres(t.l) 22:06, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

## User:Thomasteese

Resolved

I can't see it so there doesn't seem to be a problem. Mrs.EasterBunny 23:30, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe the contents of this page should be cleared? He hasn't made a revision since July, 2005 as evident here. - Rjd0060 19:02, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I have speedy deleted it as an attack page.-gadfium 19:33, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

## Raëlism/Raelian scheme

Here is the Wikipedia Raëlism/Raelian scheme:

The above categories and templates lead to a significant number of more articles that are soapboxes for Raëlism/Raelian. It seems likely to be growing due to those with COIs. The trifecta requirements of Wikipedia:Content forking, that a topic is to stay focused without going into unnecessary details, and that only material that is independent of the subject be used in articles is designed to keep Wikipedia from becoming a soapbox for the topic. The Raëlism/Raelian topic has gotten out of hand because the editors to this topic have not complied with these requirements. It would be nice if someone tackled this Raëlism/Raelian soapbox issue. – Jreferee t/c 20:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

## SEWilco revising quotes and diffs to hide a lie

I'm not too sure where it's best to post this since it involves an apparent misuse of admin and/or oversight rights to "massage" past diffs and a couple of quotes involving SEWilco to hide a lie. I just finished posting a long description at User_talk:Charles_Matthews, so I won't repeat it here. This is the link to it for the curious and/or more: [33]

FYI, I guess. -BC aka Callmebc 21:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Apparently Callmebc trusts his memory so much that he thinks people changed many Wikipedia database entries in order to change the records. See Callmebc's inability to read a document in Talk:Killian documents authenticity issues#Copy of "Mother's Day" talk moved from Talk:Killian documents. I assure you that if I had the powers which he ascribes to me, Callmebc would be viewing a private copy of the articles and leaving the rest of the editors alone. (SEWilco 21:54, 5 October 2007 (UTC))

## Alice Bailey

Resolved

The Alice Bailey article needs monitoring. Some editors there are anti-Bailey and work against the development of the article and seek to undermine constructive progress of it and have continued to do so for months. James 16:52, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

NB: Jamesd1 seems to have intended to put this notice here, but put it in the Administrators' noticeboard archive by mistake; so I am moving it here for him. As it happens,I am the "Some editors" Jamesd1 is referring to, and I would certainly be happy to have more eyes on the Alice Bailey article. I would love to have more editors participating (if they agree with my views, or not); and, certainly, administrators are very welcome editors - and the more experienced the better. Kwork 20:26, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. It may be useful to note that Jamesd1 (talk · contribs) (edit article count summary), who entered this report, seems to be a single-purpose account. He has edited only the one article he is reporting, plus a couple edits to very closely-related articles. There are one or two other SPA accounts working on the Alice Bailey article also, on the same "team" as James so-to-speak. There may be a COI issue with them, as followers of Alice Bailey's teachings , but I did not report the SPA/COI activity, because it seemed to me we were working it out OK with the help of several established non-SPA editors now contributing. Also, I am not now identifying those other SPA editors, because it seems to me they are learning about Wikipedia, and that the problem with them is less than it was a month ago. But since James entered this report, I thought I should provide the additional information about his SPA editing. --Parsifal Hello 21:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
This does not require administrative attention. Look to Requests for comment or Requests for mediation to resolve content disputes, or the Conflict of interest noticeboard if edit warring becomes an issue. Keegantalk 05:01, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. I concur that this report did not belong here, which is why I added the additional information for context. WP:CONSENSUS seems to be working things out OK on the article at this time. --Parsifal Hello 21:19, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

## Joshd1991

Resolved: Editor indefinitely blocked by User:CambridgeBayWeather.

just left this. It's based on his deleted pages from April 2007, I think. I just gave him an indefinite block and bring it here for review. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 16:28, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• I cannot imagine a more clear cut case for needing an indef block. WilyD 16:37, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• I completely agree. An indefinite block should certainly be used in this case. You made the correct decision. нмŵוτнτ 17:33, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• I don't see any gems of articles in this list. Yet he seems oddly defensive of what he's written. Yeah, an indefinite block is suitable. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 18:20, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• I checked all his contributions and I strongly support an indef block in this case. Neozoon 20:53, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

## Review of block of User:TerriHamel re USANA edits

I have been watching USANA for some months, attempting to mediate between those with pro and anti positions regarding the company, as an uninvolved admin. Recently User:TerriHamel has been editing in a non-consensual manner, including partially blanking the article and emphasising comment detrimental to a critic of the company diff (the status of Barry Minkow is commented on later in the consensual version), which was caught by User:ClueBot, on 30 September 2007, and today re-inserting the various accusations against Minkow and altering other text to a viewpoint more sympathetic to the company (diff1, diff2, diff3 and diff4). I reverted the edits and blocked the editor for 31 hours, pending this review request diff. Since I am involved in mediating between the factions editing the article, and reverted edits prior to blocking the editor, I invite review of my actions and comment upon the tariff/correctness of the block. LessHeard vanU 20:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC) seems oddly defensive of what he's written. Yeah, an indefinite block is suitable. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 18:20, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• I checked the edits and the differences and took a look at the article and the history. I support the block. Neozoon 21:22, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

## User:Tianasez

I've given Tianasez (talk · contribs) a 24hr block for continued POV pushing on a (truly odd) mix of articles after a (blanked) final warning. Looking over the contribution history (and the odd edit summaries & talk posts), I can't work out if this is a hoax user or a good-faith new account; can someone else offer a second opinion, as I can't make up my mind if I've been too harsh or too soft on this one. – iridescent (talk to me!) 01:09, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Hoax user, trolling. I fail to see a single constructive edit. In fact, most edits are vandalism disguised as verbosity [34][35][36][37]. I wouldn't mind if you made the block indefinite as a SPA-vandalism. Keegantalk 05:02, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Done. Just wanted a second opinion... – iridescent (talk to me!) 14:57, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
• I support the block, this is bad faith SPA-vandalism. Neozoon 21:24, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

## Block for review

I've preemptively blocked . See [38] for background. I'd appreciate it if someone gave this a second look. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:17, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Looks good to me. That's a hell of a find. Keegantalk 05:31, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely a good call. Rlevse 11:25, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Appreciate that action Neozoon 21:34, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

## possible user name problem

Resolved: User:GDonato blocked it. Mushroom (Talk) 13:36, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Please refresh my memory if this isn't the place for this. User:If you think wiki pedia is reliable you have downs syndrome does not look like a suitable username to me. Let me know if I'm overly rigorous. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 13:11, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Disallow (soft block) the username for several reasons: it is both disruptive and offensive, violating WP:U. нмŵוτнτ 15:26, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Because the user went on to create more usernames that violate policy, I hard blocked the account. WODUP 16:15, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
For reporting username violations, see WP:UAA in the future.--Avant Guard 17:58, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, will bookmark the link. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 21:28, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

## Dealing with users' insistence on use of their images

How do you deal with users whose goal seems to be mostly to push their images on articles, disregarding presence of other, possibly better images as well as article layout? New user itsandrewomg (talk · contribs) has been mostly adding his images to Tucson, and is stubbornly replacing an image with one I strongly feel does not does as good a job on List of United States cities by population.

Problem is, I'm not sure how exactly to deal with that. It's not disruptive per se (and I admit this is a bit silly, but I'm very queasy at the idea of leaving a FL in a state I feel is less good than it was), and I'm not sure how to approach the user about it as he seems pretty wiki-immature too (e.g. "ditto. lawl"). Circeus 16:56, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Try to convince them that they should concentrate on expanding relevant galleries at Wikimedia Commons, perhaps? Image overload is disruptive; which image is better should be discussed on talk page, and when consensus (majority...) is reached a few reverts should end the issue.-- 17:00, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Make sure that the overly photographed article such as Tucson has a template which points at the Commons material, so contributors can easily find the appropriate place in Commons. (SEWilco 19:01, 6 October 2007 (UTC))
Suggestion to ask user to extend the commons section and start discussion on the talk page if he wants to replace a picture of existing article with his own. Article Tuscon seems picture overloaded to me. My opinion on that, new pictures should go to the commons and link from there as gallery. Neozoon 22:00, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

## New vandal block template

Template:Vandalanduser is a template I created a few weeks ago. It's purpose is to provide a block summary that states that the block is both for vandalism and an inappropriate username, rather than just one reason or the other. Tell me what you think of it. It could be used for accounts with bad usernames that have already accumulated a few vandal edits.--Avant Guard 17:49, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

No offense, but I don't think that's really a useful template. If you have a vandalism only account who also happens to have a bad username, I wouldn't even bother with a template and would just indefinitely block them. Do we really need to create a template for every possible combination of the circumstances for blocking? Cowman109Talk 18:30, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
{{indefblocked}} usually does just fine. – iridescent (talk to me!) 18:33, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
It seems a bit redundant when compared to the preexisting template {{UsernameHardBlocked}}. Plus, this template is already part of the drop-down-box on Special:Blockip. - auburnpilot talk 18:36, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
I like it. I think it is good for the reason for the block to be on the user's talk page; it makes it easier for those coming along later. I don't like indefblocked because it gives no reason. I like the Vandalanduser one because I've come across this very issue several times and I think both reasons should be on the talk page. Rlevse 18:52, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
And also, the "usernamehardblocked" template is if i'm not mistaken meant to be used for accounts blatantly inappropriate names (e.g. "I will destroy Wikipedia") that haven't necessarily been given the chance to edit.--Avant Guard 19:06, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Usually, such usernames are caught before they have a chance to edit; however, whether or not they've made any edits is irrelevant. We don't treat someone with a blatantly offensive username different just because they have or haven't made edits. EVula // talk // // 21:40, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
If it's a vandalism-only account, just use {{Vandalblock}}. If they've got a bad username, too, it doesn't matter; first and foremost, they're a vandalism-only account. EVula // talk // // 19:22, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

## Question regarding User:Cyborg Ninja

Resolved

Cyborg Ninja is not pursuing this matter. LessHeard vanU 23:16, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Could someone set this user straight? He appears to be trying to harass people who voted to delete List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people at the most recent AfD, for example here and on my own talk page. Both me and Melsaran have removed the notices, but he has only given kinda weird responses to my query, not to mention threatened Melsaran that there would be consequences for removing his notice on the talk page. David Fuchs (talk) 22:32, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

The first link should be this one. I will check it out, but would prefer more eyes on it. LessHeard vanU 22:49, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

## Desysopping proposal

After some of the discussion on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia:Requests for adminship, I've decided to try my hand at creating another desysopping proposal. Please read it over (a read of the RFC might help too) and discuss it on the talk page. Mr.Z-man 01:14, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

## POV anons, how to deal with

I've run across various POV anons (most likely the same individual). The IPs in question are:

Two obvious examples of POV edits are this and this. This user almost exclusively edits in relation to categories, and seems to add the category "God" to Judeo-Christian specific articles, and removes the category "Jesus" from non-Christian articles. But not all of the edits have been this obviously POV. This has occurring since Sept. 29th. Two of the IPs have been blocked for these sorts of edits. Obviously, part of me just wants to block the user on sight for continuing this mess (just look at this history of Homosexual readings of Jesus and John). But I know it would be better to try to communicate with them and get them to stop by understanding wikipedia policies. So I guess I am writing so that others can be aware of this problematic editor so more eyes can be on the look out, but I'm also writing to see what would be the best steps to take in handling this situation. I just wrote a message to the user (see User talk:81.136.30.91), but seeing as how the address is dynamic (and possibly shared), it is unlikely that they will get the message. So any comments or advice would be great. Thanks for your consideration. -Andrew c [talk] 22:30, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

More reasons every on wiki should have an account.Rlevse 11:33, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, Maxim has blocked 212.158.244.124 for 3 months. I guess now I (and anyone else) can block any of the other accounts on sight for block evasion. An issue that remaines is of course because this is an anon user with dynamic IPs, long blocks can affect other users.-Andrew c [talk] 14:18, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

## Privacy violations

Is there a specific wikipedia guideline on users who violate privacy by posting private info, such as offline ID of wiki users? I've having trouble finding it. I think I've seen it before, but for some reason I am having trouble finding it right now. Also, other than the general rule of thumb of talk/warn first then block, what policies are in place for handling these cases? Thanks. Rlevse 13:02, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

You might want to look at Wikipedia:Privacy and Wikipedia:Request for oversight.  – EdokterTalk 13:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I knew I had seen it. I guess my memory isn't what it used to be-;) Rlevse 13:10, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

## user pages listed in C:CSD

This is a bit of a complex problem... can someone help me clear this up?

Several user pages are being listed in C:CSD, for speedy deletion. This is presumably because one of their templates was listed for speedy deletion, and the pages need to be touched to remove them from the C:CSD category. I'd do this, except when I edit the user pages, I hit the spam filter, because they all transclude User:Scepia/The Game loser, a userbox template with an apparently now-forbidden link. So basically, with my limited technical knowledge, I cannot remove these userpages from C:CSD. Solutions? --W.marsh 16:37, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I substituted The Game for the spam site link. So hopefully it should work now. - jc37 16:40, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks... I had a feeling there was a simple solution I just wasn't seeing. --W.marsh 16:42, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

## Harassment

I am being wikistalked by User:Parsifal, this user has repeatedly tried to get me into serious trouble. I discovered this after a dispute at this article Dir en grey when an admin protected the page, and viewed their userpage to see why. This user has fabricated serious accusations about me, and I have become very annoyed. I have repeatedly requested an explanation from them, but they deny any involement. I request assistance from an admin, to investigate User:Parsifal and please stop this nonsense. 219.90.180.76 14:10, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Looks to me the other way around, ex: [39]. It looks like you're really User:Jun_kaneko, [40]. If you have evidence, please present it. I'd also like to hear Nat's input, so I've asked him. Rlevse 14:32, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I never denied that, and mentioned many times I was Jun Kaneko (sometimes even adding - Jun Kaneko to my IP) I unregistered my account before, as stated I would. My contributions to the article Visual Kei provided reliable sources and after many disputes, finally put an end to all the nonsense. Direct quote from Parsifal "I would like you to know that your suggestions have made the article much better. And the history section added a lot of value. Thank you for your contributions. --Parsifal Hello 07:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)" The article was left in peace for awhile until certain users started vandalising the article, to the point they wanted the non-English sources removed. I had enough and decided to remove the information and sources I added, and let everyone else write what ever they want, out of spite. After further investigation, it seems it was the user Cyrus XIII who reported me for Dir en grey, and the Free-Will articles, and his reports were debunked. I will also add, that my contribution to the Free-Will was also met with disputes from the same certain users, but finally resolved when an admin who speaks Japanese vouched for my sources. So I apoligise to Parsifal for thinking they have been wikistalking me, but that users information has been misleading on Nats page. A look into the history logs and talk pages will prove this to be true. 219.90.180.76 15:42, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I provide reliable sources with my information, which users Cyrus XIII, and Notjake13 vandalise, and in turn cause disputes. 219.90.180.76 15:44, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Regarding this issue, I do believe the anonymous user who registered the complaint is User:Jun_Kaneko. The common accusations of "nonsense" and "fabrications" are eerily reminiscent of said user. The only harassment here is on User:Parsifal, User:Cyrus XIII and myself. The anonymous users who contribute to conflicts on the articles and talk pages for Visual Kei, Skin (Japanese band) and Dir en grey, as well as User:Jun Kaneko all have the same editing style and have IP addresses logged from southern Australia. --Jacob Talk 15:14, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, I have to be in agreement with Notjake13, if anything this anon. is the one who is harassing other editors. I issued full protection on the article Dir en grey because I felt that it was a content dispute and I still stand by that. However the anon. has been quite disruptive and his behaviour towards other editors is quite uncivil. Well thats my 2¢. nattang 16:03, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Those two users "Cyrus XIII" and "Notjake13" receive much disagreement from many editors on those articles, myself being hot-headed enough to stand up to their nonsense and find hard facts and reliable sources for those articles (which receive the consensus of most other editors) is not uncivil, its fighting the bully tactics of these users. After a long fight the articles Visual Kei, and Free-Will (which was resolved with an admin who speaks Japanese) were finally released of their bully tactics, the article Skin has the consensus of almost every other editor for the contributions I made, but still remains in limbo. I welcome you to read those talk pages, and investigate for yourself. 219.90.180.76 02:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

The only major disagreement I personally have received on such issues have been from you and other anonymous editors. There have been minor disputes with User:Denaar in the past, but nothing as complicated as the controversies you have brought about. So far, you have taken this issue across a numerous User Talk and Article Talk pages making the conflict difficult to follow. You have contradicted yourself on occasion, lied on several more, and personally attacked fellow editors even more so. I recommend you steer clear of spreading your lamentations to yet another talk page and center your focus on one issue on one page at a time. --Jacob Talk 03:45, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Additionally, please stop insisting that any editor in disagreement with you is a friend of any other user against whom you have personal grievances. --Jacob Talk 03:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Dynamic IP edit-warring and incivility. The only reason this is a problem is that Jun kaneko (talk · contribs) has been using dynamic IP addresses to edit-war and harrass users (myself included). If not for that, this would be easily and quickly resolved with AN/3RR and other routine procedures. I don't know how Wikipedia handles the dynamic IP situation, I hope there is a solution.

He has been blocked for 3RR and civility violations, with extension for block-evasion using IP addresses. When he realized that his user name account could be blocked, since then, he has edited as an IP, with multiple addresses, as listed in this RFPP (and probably more than those). The RFPP link also includes links to prior 3RR and AN/I reports regarding the same user.

When I first encountered him, he was using his user account. I didn't know it at the time, but I was told later that he had been edit-warring as an IP before I had any communications with him. For a while, on Visual kei, I tried to help him bring his sources into the article according to policies. He seemed to be learning, and I encouraged him to add good information. But then he resumed edit-warring, repeatedly removing sourced information from articles, and I reluctantly placed a uw-3RR warning on his talk page.

Please take a look at his extreme response to the warning. After that, he was blocked, and since then has edited only as an IP, with various editors repeatedly reverting his tendentious edits.

Summary: I'm not trying to "get him in trouble" as he has stated. I have only one agenda: peaceful editing according to policy. I don't have anything against him as a person, however, his behavior has been disruptive and time-consuming to several editors and articles. I haven't even been editing that group of articles lately, just once in a while, and I only posted the RFPP request to try and help out the frustrated editors who were repeatedly reverting his vandalism. I don't want him to be indef blocked or banned, I just want him to edit with respect for other editors and Wikipedia policies. --Parsifal Hello 04:19, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I got the Free-Will and Visual Kei articles written the way they should be, with hard facts and reliable sources. I am happy with that. Cyrus XIII and Notjake13 can disagree all they want, they can't change the facts in those articles. I already explained why I removed all my content from the Visual Kei, which I knew would get me trouble (I knew it would remain in the article, and I was not about to remove the hard work I had done) It was a spiteful response to Parsifal vandalising the article after helping to fix it, and I stand behind my response to him. I only created an account because the Visual Kei article became semi-protected because of Cyrus XIII and Notjake13's continued vandalism. My account was deleted once the article was fixed. I have done what I wanted. 219.90.180.76 05:34, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

• I've blocked said IP as a block-evading sockpuppet. --Haemo 05:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your help. Hopefully he'll get the idea that his methods aren't working. For the archives, in case this information is needed in the future, here is a list of the IP addresses he has used in the last 72 hours or so:
And these are IP's he used on Sept 24-25 during his previous block-evasion:
Thanks again for your assistance with this. --Parsifal Hello 06:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

## User talk:Tweety21

Why is Tweety21 able to edit their Talk page, if the page is protected until October 10? Corvus cornix 21:44, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Despite the fact that the most recent protection is set to expire on Oct 10th, and there have been no unprotections in the log, it does not seem to be protected. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 21:47, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Ugh. I'm a backwards American. 10-7 is meaningless to me. Never mind. :) However, Tweety21 is still engaging in the same behavior which got the page protected in the first place. Corvus cornix 21:54, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

## Help with the Killian Wikis

I've been attempting to clean up the informational train wrecks that are the Killian documents authenticity issues and Killian documents wikis, which have had more than their fair share of anonymous IP's, sockpuppets, and editors of less than noble intentions messing with them. Both wikis are about a sensitive issue dear to the US right wing, and most of the editors "watching " over the Killian have demonstrated no interest in the wikis aside from promoting and protecting the loony – not to mention factless – right wing agenda associated with the documents in question. I've been fairly successful so far via uncovering the sockpuppets one by one (or two by two) and making use of 3RR, but there still some remaining problem editors intent on blocking any improvements by whatever means, and they appear to have some quiet, higher up support. I'm not exactly spinning a POV here – I'll gladly point out some, um, interesting discrepencies between the Wiki contents and any available ref or source doc related to it.

I'm not asking anyone to take sides – just to put both wikis and their talk pages on your watchlists and maybe pop in from time to time to see what's going on. I'll probably end up going to Arbcom at some point when I have a better handle on who's who and can firmly prove it, but maybe if some truly neutral admins who are good with complex topics, as well as sorting out the bad guys from the good pay attention....

A vague-ish request, perhaps, but this is a rather ephemeral world.... -BC aka Callmebc 23:37, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

He is not spinning a POV? This from the proud owner of http://aheckofa.com/FoolMeOnce/CBSBushMemos.html ?! Where is that ROFLcopter when I need it? htom 00:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Participants should be aware that User:Callmebc thinks these articles are part of some sort of war [41], has stated an intent to cover these articles with changes [42], and expects to break 3RR a lot more [43]. Meanwhile, he erroneously challenges one small issue (Talk:Killian documents authenticity issues#"Mother's Day") and pretends he expects us to resolve many entangled alterations. I have to admit he did produce one amazing work at User talk:Charles Matthews#SEWilco - Revising quotes and diffs to hide a lie (yes, he notified administrators above in #SEWilco revising quotes and diffs to hide a lie). (SEWilco 05:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC))

## Template:Film

Resolved

Hi there. I normally wouldn't request an urgent edit to a protected page, but since the change will affect categorization for a WikiProject moving to a task force (Filmmaking) and I really would like to start the whole process of doing all the needed legwork to accomplish the move with complete functionality while I'm still editing tonight, I was wondering if anyone could expedite my editprotect request so that I can get on with the rest... Many thanks! :) Girolamo Savonarola 04:22, 8 October 2007 (UTC)