Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive114

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Watch this please[edit]

Wikipedia:Help desk#a glich in wikipedia. Someone watch this, please no blocking. Thanks, I have to go. Prodego talk 21:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007[edit]

Voting for the 2007 Arbitration Committee Elections has officially begun. Visit the Voting page for more information. Thank you. - Mtmelendez (Talk) 00:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Asgardian-Tenebrae[edit]

This arbitration case has closed and the final decision is available at the link above. User:Asgardian is subject to an editing restriction for one year. He is limited to one revert per page per week (excepting obvious vandalism), and is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page. This notice is given by a Clerk on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad 01:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia closed[edit]

The above arbitration case has closed, and the final decision may be found here. Any uninvolved administrator may, on their own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working on Balkans-related articles if that editor fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, the expected standards of behavior, or the normal editorial process. Discretionary sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the administrators' noticeboard, or the Committee. For the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (t) 02:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Some advice on talkpage deletion, please[edit]

Resolved
- and courtesy blanked. —Random832 14:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Serious CAT:PER backlog[edit]

Resolved

Can someone please deal with the major backlog at WP:PER? There are a dozen edits requested since last Thursday. Od Mishehu 09:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Working through them... Neil  09:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I've got some as well. Many of the remaining requests need further discussion or are too vague for me to want to attempt immediately. --ais523 09:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
... and now cleared. Neil  12:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Old WP:PUI stuff[edit]

Anyone know anything about Italian copyright law? If so, Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/2007 October 2 could do with your input. Is the Trading with the Enemy Act at all relevant? Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee remedy on Community Bans[edit]

Regarding the recent Arbitration Committee remedy, I have started a discussion of community bans at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Community Bans. Please discuss there. Mahalo. --Ali'i 17:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Sneaky vandalism since 2006[edit]

I have blocked all of the above accounts (that weren't already blocked) and deleted several variations of a clearly bogus autobiography for this person. Uncle G 18:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

"Private" Checkuser use[edit]


Question on tag for image.[edit]

I am about to upload an image of a billboard for Pinoy Big Brother: Celebrity Edition 2. I took it using my cellphone camera. But I don't know which tag I will use: "free image" or "fair use"? BTW, I haven't uploaded the image yet. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 05:09, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Are you retaining ownership of the image, or releasing it into the public domain? If you wish to donate your work, you could use {{PD-self}} or one of the {{GFDL}} license templates such as {{GFDL-self}} or {{GFDL-user}}. If your picture is copyrighted and uploaded as a fair use image, please note that it may be tagged as {{Replaceable fair use}} and later replaced with a free photo. --Kralizec! (talk) 20:43, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
If it's a billboard, that means it would have to be fair use, since it'd be copyrighted by whoever makes the billboard. —Random832 20:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Problems with Pigman[edit]

I believe that Admin:Pigman is abusing his authority. He recently filed both Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/South Philly and Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Evrik against me. The "checkuser showed the South Philly and Evrik accounts unrelated," but had some concerns. After that Pigman filed the Sock charges over a user blocked

To my knowledge I have never interacted with Pigman before but in reality this is retaliation, and an abuse of process. Recently Pigman said, "After his recent appearance in a few RfAs, I decided to look into what User:Evrik has been up to lately." [1] Well, what he is referring to is my "oppose" vote in Kathryn NicDhàna's RfA. Pigman and Kathryn NicDhàna have worked together closely in the past. This is clearly retaliation for that vote. My simple vote was responded to by pigman with this screed. Also, the claim of meatpuppetry was made a user who also supported Kathryn's RfA.

Is there some sort of statute of limitations? Most of the activity listed by Pigman at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/South Philly happened 8 months or longer ago. None of this was brought up at the time by any of the involved parties. I'm concerned though because Pigman claims to have gone through twenty months of my edit history and done a side by side comparison with the alleged sock. Well, I don't know what to say, perhaps "OMG, did you really waste hours of your life doing that research?" So far though most of the evidence is supposition and circumstantial.

How many bites at the apple does he get? What really concerns me is this comment, "While this is circumstantial evidence, it is extremely strong evidence. To be blunt, as an admin I believe the evidence is strong enough for me to block you without bringing it here. I'm bringing it here in the interest of transparency and your long history on Wikipedia."[2] These claims were filed by Pigman, and he intimates that could act as both judge and jury of he so chose.

Pigman started all of this more than a month after the alleged sock was blocked. No one else complained. I was not involved at all. I believe that what he charges is without merit. I'm disturbed that Pigman feels so strongly about this. I want Pigman to stay away from me and stop filing these baseless charges. He may be willing to spend hours of his life obsessing over my edit history, but I don't want to have to waste my or anyone's elses time having to defend myself.

Thanks. --evrik (talk) 04:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Left him a note so we could hear his response. It does a bit overboard to jump on all of this and I'll admit, it looks biased. Frankly, I hate all this 'secret sockpuppet searches', behind the scenes, look into people's edit summaries stuff when no one has actually complained about it stuff but I'll wait to see if someone had actually complained before saying more. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
"Also, the claim of meatpuppetry was made a user who also supported Kathryn's RfA." - I appear to be being discussed at WP:AN without having been informed of same :) How and ever, I was the checkuser who made the determination in this case. This case was interesting in that I required a second checkuser opinion before making the call of meatpuppetry above and, unfortunately, due to privacy concerns, I cannot release further information on the matter. However, I will discuss the details with the corroborating checkuser so they may also make a statement. Thanks - Alison 06:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Oh No! Not secret evidence again! KoshVorlon ".. We are ALL Kosh..." 15:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
You misspelled s3kr1t :) But no, the problem is if I reveal further information as to a likely connection, I risk revealing personal info on Evrik and I don't want to do that - Alison 17:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
The secrecy concerns is not "S00per S3kr1t 3vid3nce", it's revealing personally identifying information, such as IP Address (Track to an ISP, etcetera). That is a big time no no, and if a Checkuser did reveal that publically without due cause (and I can't think of anything off hand that would be due cause), they'd likely have their CU rights taken away. SirFozzie 17:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Pigman responds: There was no secret information that I used in coming to my conclusions. Checkuser info was not shared with me. I looked only at what is in the editing record and histories available to any editor on Wikipedia. I'd also like to state emphatically that this was not a retaliatory response to Evrik's opinion in Kathryn NicDhàna's RfA. Please note that Evrik was the sole oppose opinion in that RfA and I answered his objection thoroughly there.[3] However, I recalled quite well the kerfuffle over the WikiProject Awards at the time and the suspicion then that Evrik and South Philly might have been the same person. South Philly certainly seemed to act as a "bad hand" in these matters. I didn't participate but I did observe the events at that time.
While Evrik seems to indicate my following up on his appearance at a few RfAs is sinister, I don't think it's unusual to sometimes check out accounts which are voicing opinions in RfAs, particularly when it's possible they seem to be considering an RfA run themselves. Evrik and South Philly had caught my attention with their rather striking and unified behaviour in the WP Awards scuffle. I did not follow up on it at the time because I wasn't that interested. The exceptionally draining and consuming Starwood Arbitration (which I had initiated) had just closed with disappointing results from my perspective. I was at an ebb of my confidence in Wikipedia processes to enforce policy.
When I saw that South Philly had been indef blocked for sockpuppetry, it reminded me of my previous suspicions. The technique of comparing edit histories was one I observed User:Blnguyen using which resulted in the blocking of a group of accounts engaged in massive sockpuppetry. Yes, it's not exactly an easy way but it can yield significant results. In this case, the result was unmistakable. My findings can be found at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Evrik (2nd).
It isn't unusual to file a Checkuser as well as a sockpuppet report. The most significant data for Checkuser was probably out of the cache/buffer.
As to Evrik's statement "... he intimates that could act as both judge and jury of he so chose", my understanding of admin responsibilities is that, when unmistakable violations of policy have occurred, I should act decisively. Wikipedia is not a court of law. If anything, I may be acting too cautiously in this matter. My decisions are, of course, subject to review and revision by other admins, just like almost everything on Wikipedia is subject to revision by other editors. Evrik would undoubtedly have appealed my decision if I had blocked him directly from my findings, so I thought it best to bring it to a public arena to get more input. And, as I said, Evrik has a long history on Wikipedia and I took that into consideration when I decided to post the case to the Sockpuppet forum. I also knew he would bring in the retaliatory angle on my actions so I preferred to have a more transparent process to look at my findings.
I view the evasion of an indef block to be a serious matter which is why I took the time to gather this evidence. I have experience with the damage such evasions can cause to the encyclopedia and to other editors.
I'd be happy to answer any questions about this matter. Pigman 21:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I am nobody's sock, nor am I their meatpuppet. South Philly 00:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I've taken the liberty of blocking User:South philly as this user is almost certainly evading the block on User:South Philly. I assume this is a correct response? Or should I let someone else do it? Pigman 01:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
It would be better if an uninvolved admin did it. Given this, the conclusion is obvious. Let me adjust the log. GRBerry 01:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC) (For the avoidance of doubt, I haven't reviewed the main pile of evidence. GRBerry}
Thanks GRBerry. I'm a little thick sometimes and I failed to consider how it would look in this situation. Duh! Pigman 04:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Edit war on Johnny Sutton[edit]

Dear sirs,

The help page on dispute resolution says step 2 is here.

I have posted a concern on the Johnny Sutton talk page. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AJohnny_Sutton&diff=175531104&oldid=174895041

The problem I see is that despite a group of editors doing a large amount of reverting, they with one exception have not made their concerns clear on what they object to and they have continued to remove even attempted compromise versions of the page. The page is shortly to need updating as the appeal hearing in the Ramos and Compean case started today and news reports will come up very quickly.

The page needs help, what is currently present is very inaccurate and missing a large amount of information despite there being a very strong and unanswered analysis on the talk page by Mr. Billy Hathorn.

Please assist, thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fixthepedia (talkcontribs) 18:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The above is a single purpose account and probable sock. There have been a stream of brand new account making identical edits which violate WP:BLP. Please see more here. IrishGuy talk 18:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Dear sir, I have not made "identical" edits. I tried to work on the page as per the analysis by Mr Billy Hathorn and the items listed by Mr Jons63. I cannot do any more for the page if I cannot get you to say what you find to be a problem and discuss it. Please tell me what you are claiming violates the policy so that it can be fixed because it just looks stupid to constantly try to fix a page and have someone pushing it back claiming the edit violated a policy but not saying why or how to correct it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fixthepedia (talkcontribs) 18:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Point of fact, WP:DR says to bring concerns here if it is urgent. I'm not seeing the urgency. Natalie 21:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Sock creators[edit]

Probably a dumb question but what do we do about folks who create an account and immediately create a bunch of other accounts as well. Examples are here and here. There is nothing more than a few test edits from one of the accounts above (the rest have no contribs at all) but I've seen people blocked - at least short-term - for nothing more than creating a bunch of accounts like this. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if there's been one standard reaction. If I recall correctly this is really up to individual discretion and interpretation - it could be someone creating a bunch of vandalism sleeper accounts, someone confused by the interface, a classroom project that's creating an account for everyone else, etc. Natalie 22:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I didn't get a feeling of obvious bad-faith but creating more than one - or maybe two - seems a bit over-the-top to me. —Wknight94 (talk) 22:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Ask them what they're doing? John Reaves 22:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I haven't. I figured if no one here cared, I'd leave them alone entirely. —Wknight94 (talk) 22:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
It seems to me that they're probably kids registering all the names they like "just in case". I did that as a kid, although not on Wikipedia as it did not exist, and I can only assume that kids still do this. The accounts don't need to be blocked, but I don't think blocking all but the first account would be out of line if you explain it to them. Natalie 22:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. Some contributors also create sockpuppets for a specific purpose, such as an account for use on public computers. As long as they are legitimate, I'd suggest not blocking them. 哦, 是吗?(review O) 22:34, 03 December 2007 (GMT)

I need some admin review[edit]

Over on the erotica page there was an edit war. An anon user started editing in some text under

151.201.155.166 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
151.197.111.178 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

When told to register, they did so as:

Student erotica (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

In the end, Student Erotica got blocked as being my sock. Not so. There was nothing proven, just alegations. I got blocked. I gave up editing Wikipedia a while a go because I wasn't enjoying it. I don't necessarily plan to continue ever again, but this block annoys me, and it is being used against another user, who I happen to have worked with alot.

I am sorry for being a contentious editor, please unblock me. Before you say anyhting, i am not trying to avoid my blocking by using this account, but I wanted to be heard. Cordially, South Philly 00:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

This diff was added by User:South philly, an admitted (since 2006) doppleganger account of the signing user. I've blocked the doppleganger. The unblock request templates on the main account's talk page both had far less commentary than this. I do suggest further review by uninvolved admins, but doubt that an unblock will be forthcoming. If an unblock occurs, the doppleganger should also be unblocked. GRBerry 01:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Gadgets extension[edit]

mw:Extension:Gadgets has been installed on the English Wikipedia in bugzilla:12190 per this discussion. This extension allows administrators to edit MediaWiki:Gadgets-definition to add javascript tools that users may easily enable via Special:Preferences. I recommend you look at mw:Extension:Gadgets#Usage for more information on how to use this new extension's capabilities. FunPika 00:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I've updated the popups tool page to reflect this, since popups is the only gadget available. SWATJester Son of the Defender 03:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I've started Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Gadgets in an attempt to identify more scripts that might make useful gadgets. --ais523 17:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

French Wikipedia administrator's help needed[edit]

I'm not sure where the best place to post this is. I have an account on the French Wikipedia that uses my real name. I no longer wish to have that name displayed there, and I would like the user page to be deleted. I haven't made any significant edits on the French Wikipedia. I'm having trouble making heads or tails of the French Wikipedia's deletion process, so I was hoping someone here might be an admin on both the English and French Wikipedias and might give me some advice on my talk page regarding how I should proceed. Thanks, er, merci, for any help! — Amcaja (talk) 02:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Anyone on this list with an "(en)" next to their name should be able to help :) ( arky ) 02:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm not an administrator there, but what you want is the equivalent of speedy deletion -- Wikipédia:Demande de suppression immédiate. Yours is a case six as a user requesting deletion of their own pages. Shell babelfish 02:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Ah, thanks for the help, everyone. — Amcaja (talk) 04:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Orkut forum and meatpuppetry[edit]

Ezhava again. This follows from my question about handling Vvmundakkal (result: looks like content dispute). Frankly, I find someone saying they are planning on contacting a federal minister way beyond a content dispute and a WP:LEGAL issue. Still, basically a user (now a number of users) are trying to insert some language into Ezhava that is not only unsourced but all an complete misrepresentation of the sources, and keep recreating the unsourced (twice AFDs to redirects) List of Notable Ezhavas. First, it was Vvmundakkal, then User:123.236.218.13 and then User:125.99.225.216, who informed me that the "issue is being discussed there among 1000s of members in the forum....I have edited as per the request from forum moderator."[4]. I have asked everyone to stop simply reinserting the test but I don't know what to do other than semi-protect all the articles and try to force discussion. The article was fully protected for a month but none of the edit warriors wanted to comment on it (even went to their talk pages to warn them that I knew they weren't even trying to discuss), so I fear that removing the protection will just be more of the same. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:18, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, there's also a content fork being created at Thiyya, using an old badly sourced version. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:20, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
That now redirects to Ezhava and is protected at that. Can anyone think of an appropriate dispute resolution process here? Or should we just topic-ban the POV pushers? Guy (Help!) 11:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
It seems like what I feared. [5] According to User:Vivin, "Basically one user has been posting on all Ezhava-related forums there, asking for help against 'vandalism' by Nair editors." I put a section on talk page if the more moderate ones want to actual talk (maybe we'll get a few new users that way) but any larger ideas? That entire article seems to just get like that with certain users just coming in screaming about Nair vandalism and then leaving in a huff; maybe this will simply require a stronger hand. Anyone else willing to help out, so it doesn't always look like a single admin against the tide all the time? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Its true that the article need more attention since edits of Ricky81682 and User:Vivin biased. A simple example List of Nairs alive while List of Notable Ezhavas are deleted.Is this Wiki the forum to hurt sentiments of millions of ezhavas or just right place to give in formation to the whole worldTn pillai 05:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I'll repeat this again. List of Notable Ezhavas is a recreation of a list that was decided for redirect at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Ezhavas and at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Ezhava Tharavads. I chose to redirect by JzG chose to delete (it was just a edit war anyways). As I pointed out to everyone, go to deletion review or find me a single source. The one sourced name on the page was already inserted into the article [6]. List of Nairs has been discussed extensively. At this point, my patience is gone with this article. This is the 3rd biased accusation I've received from a group of people who don't discuss, revert without explanation, don't provide any sources (or completely make them up) and scream about bias at the drop of a hat. Suggest full protection and indefinite blocks on the whole lot. There doesn't seem to be an ounce of interest in creating a neutral article. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
"There will 100s of people who might be joining to target biased edits." Perfect. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
See here, and herefor all the List of Nairs discussions. Tn pillai 05:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I had been working on the Ezhava page for a while and I was waging a one-man battle against editors who accused me of being a "Nair vandal", having "Nair bias" and a bunch of other things. Ricky came over and protected the page and he has been doing great work on the article since. Ever since he unprotected the page, a particular user and some anonymous ip's (probably socks) have been reverting the page to the poorly written, and poorly sourced, POV version. The problems that Ricky is facing are the exact same problems that I faced when editing the article. They revert without explanation, refuse to discuss their changes, and accuse you of bias. When Vvmundakkal said that there were discussions being conducted on Orkut, I went ahead and conducted an Orkut search (you will need an account to see the search results) for the terms "Ezhava wikipedia". I found numerous posts by a particular author on numerous Ezhava groups asking for assistance in fighting (Nair) Vandalism. I received a message on my talk page from an anonymous IP's saying that if I didn't stop editing Ezhava pages, they would be "forced" to include information about Nair women being "prostitutes" (blatantly untrue, and this is because I am a Nair and they automatically assume I am biased against them). This is a spillover from the Ezhava issues and this same editor in particular has been very keen on harping on this particular point at the Nair talk page. I think this represents a rather serious issue. Obviously these people are not interesting in discussion changes and making the article better. They are simply pushing POV. --vi5in[talk] 05:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
One correction. Per the bias allegation on this article, I did not protect this article. User:Nishkid64 protected it a while back. My first edit there was to remove an editprotect request and asked that people work on discussing how to word it (man, can I take that back?). I'll readily admit that I have been the only admin involved in the whole thing but this is seriously out of control. I think I've seen everything though. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
A lot of referenced information has been removed from ezhava article. A lot of unreferenced information is still there in that article too. There were so many content dispute with User_talk:Vivin by many editors and he seems to be having biased editing in ezhava article(Editor himeslf accepted that he is nair editor! and ezha-nair fight has a long history). Most of the content were properly referenced with discussion going on talk page of the article. Many article in wiki is written without much or no references. for example Nambiar (Nair Subcaste), Menon, Kurup . Nambiar (Nair Subcaste) has large list of family names and list of people , none could be varified, even the content are unverifiable. Still the article is there in wikipedia. I have brought this to attention ofRicky81682 and he has put Refimprove template there. Same thing can be done to Ezhava article too. There are some content which is accused of not having proper references. Just wait and allow the editors to bring some references. Simply removing content is not the proper way handling the dispute.Vvmundakkal 10:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

(undent) I will simply respond by noting Vvmundakkal has complained about this exact same thing to WP:ANI on October 19th which got the article protected. Since then, there has been no edits from him to the talk page until after the protection was removed and just an unexplained reversion of a month's work and then just started edit warring, including the Orkut forum and threats to talk to Federal Ministers. Frankly, I suggest a long block (he's been blocked a week once before for disruptive behavior) to make it clear that this is highly inappropriate. I should blame myself for not blocking these characters a long time ago but at this stage, it would be better if an uninvolved admin got involved. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I would suggest that as a response to his comment, that we remove all the unsourced text from Ezhava which would leave a very bare bones article (I was giving everyone a month or so before attacking the article but that got me nowhere). My only concern is that it has been clearly shown that many of the books cited have been completely fabrication of their text. I also see that WP:POINT AFDs are starting from him as well. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, i have requested for protection since there large scale vandalism from many users. I wanted other contributors to get involved. I though they will come back and contribute. I am working for Consulting co Mumbai and may not be involving when i have too much work. Could you please tell me any reason for blocking me? i have never threatened you of any legal problem. But there was some issues being discussed in some forum talking about taking wiki issue to higher levels. i have informed about that. Thats just FYI. not for threatening you. why i do threaten you?Vvmundakkal 11:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Ricky. These editors have no interest in creating a factual and neutral article. Any edit that doesn't agree with their POV is called "vandalism". Yes, I did say I am a Nair, but that is not an "admission" of anything, and it has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion. I have always given proper reasons for my edits to the article. The version that they keep reverting to is frankly, quite terrible. It has terrible spelling, atrocious grammar, peacock terms, OR, and POV. --vi5in[talk] 18:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I just want to ask Vvmundakkal a single question: is everyone who edits against you a vandal? Because I just want to make sure I understand because you've labeled that accusation against every single edit without a moment of thought. Also, telling me that "we have planned to contact Mr Vayalar Ravi GOI Federal minster,(in order to reach a amicable solution)" is obviously an attempt at intimidation to get the edits you want (which is the point behind WP:LEGAL, not so much specific legal threats). Last, since you were the first to mention the Orkut forums, I would highly suggest that you make a note there that this type of "editing" is not appreciated nor appropriate and honestly counterproductive . -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
No comments abt all this but i wud just like to mention that there is need for betterment of the article..on many occasions and even now it appears more like a website for the ezhavas and their present idealogies rather than a detailed encyclopediac article. I had, for instance, added info, quite rare actually, giving information on the subcastes of Ezhavas long back. It was dutifully reverted by the usual editors of the article giving reasons like "ezhavas dont believe in subcastes" or "we dont follow them today" etc...thts wht i mean by saying that its more like a website for the caste rather than an informative article that offers maximum information..though ofcourse its much better now ... Manu —Preceding comment was added at 08:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

DYK +8[edit]

Resolved: Carabinieri to the rescue!

8 hours past the last update. I am nudging any admin interesting in performing the update. :) spryde | talk 12:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

SUGGESTIONS[edit]

I've archived this thread, having read it through for at least the the third time; it's already been discussed in thepast, including twice being on the Signpost: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2007-07-23/In the news, Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2007-08-13/In the news. There is no action we can take right now based on what happened then, we now have a COI guideline, the problem was in any case more one of WP:NPOV and the rather unwise whitewashing of articles from an easily traced and identified IP address. The article on the hapless staffer has been deleted, which was a principal part of the request.

What remains is to ensure that we take reasonable care whenever real-world identities are involved. As far as I can tell it was not Wikipedia that named the individual; the irony of Giano being lauded for publishing private email while Durova is simultaneously castigated for an apparently quite unintentional piece of whistleblowing is not lost on me here. Guy (Help!) 23:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:POINTy or otherwise strange action[edit]

I am not sure what these three edits were supposed to mean. I noticed them because after a previous encounter with the said editor I thought it necessary to wathclist the then red Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Dorftrottel as an editor seemed "admin material" enough, so to speak (This was rather exceptional. I do not normally watchlist non-existing RfA's.) Anyway, I am now watchlisting Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Dorftrottel 2 to be safe. Not sure on what to do with the joke RfA as this is yet a new type of a joke. --Irpen 01:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Userfy. GRBerry 01:33, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I have done this. Chick Bowen 02:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Why? What's the harm? A real real RfA would be much more of a disruption. How isn't this legitimate (setting aside for a moment that I created, withdrew and closed in one single edit)? Do I really have to open a real RfA? What for? It would fail anyway, I just wanted the page.
One reason not mentioned there is that recently someone told someone else that he'd watchlisted the page. Since I intend to never seriously run at RfA, I thought I could at least create the page, include serious criticism, oppose myself, withdraw and close. No harm done, or is there? I dorftrotteltalk I 02:37, December 4, 2007
Nevermind, the friendly guy who had watchlisted the page incidentally is the one who first posted here. Btw: previous encounter with the said editor is not the full truth. At our last encounter (the only one I remember), where he was grotesquely uncivil without ever getting so much as a warning, he alluded to me (or so I think, he never answered my according question to him) as "the admin material editor" when he told Mikka he'd watchlisted my non-existent RfA page and suggested that Mikka do the same. So, Irpen, maybe you can tell us now what you meant with that? There must have been at least two encounters, the earlier of which I honestly can't remember. I dorftrotteltalk I 02:41, December 4, 2007
I reiterate my question to Irpen. I don't do it at his user talk for obvious reasons. I ask him to unwatchlist any RfA pages with my name in them or to give a proper explanation what he meant with "admin material editor". What was that about? I am not willing to just let this go, not in the face of him posting sanctimoniously here as if he hadn't been unnecessarily and unprovokedly uncivil to me. I dorftrotteltalk I 02:49, December 4, 2007
We've had joke RfAs before. The general rule use to be more or less what the US courts seem to use in deciding if something constitutes legitimate parody of another work, that is, is something funny? However, at this point the project doesn't tolerate much humor (certainly much less so than it did 1.5 years ago or so). There are a handful of joke RfAs, but they are generally kept in user space. See for example the indefinitely open Bishzilla RfA (formerly in Wikipedia space). I don't see much of a problem leaving them in Wikipedia space but I suspect that many straight-laced editors will object, so it is probably best to leave them in userspace. In any event, Irpen your behavior looks close to Wikistalking. I suggest you leave Dorftrottel alone. JoshuaZ 03:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I suggest we consider this resolved. The RfA wasn't really valid, but it's not a big deal and it's dealt with now. As for Irpen, I agree with Joshua that he should best avoid escalating this conflict. Is there anything else that needs to be addressed? It doesn't appear so. Chick Bowen 03:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
It's December 4, dorftrottel; save the jokes for April 1. --bainer (talk) 03:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
It wasn't really intended to be a joke. Or disruptive, for that matter. Btw, I just db-userreq'ed it. Who has their RfA page in their userspace? As for Irpen: I'm trying not to escalate this, but I have no idea what he meant with that "admin material" remark, and I would really like to know. Also, I would much appreciate his confirmation that he unwatchlisted the pages. Not talking wikistalking, but it's kind of annoying, and it's a first to me. I dorftrotteltalk I 03:50, December 4, 2007

What stalking? I thought my original post is clear on what prompted me to the page. I did not get to the link by clicking on his contributions and have no intentions to do so.

I am most adamant opponent of stalking and would have no objections to even eliminating the "user contributions" button or having it coupled with a feature that a user is always notified by email of who and when clicked on his/her contributions. Vandals, copyvio uploaders and their likes would then still have been checked but real abusive stalking would have stopped like magic.

I have no beef left with Dorftrottel. We actually have no common interest to even interact. I also appreciate a good joke and the Bishzilla RfA seems like one. But this one did not seem amusing enough to warrant being kept in the Wikipedia space. Besides, neither was Bishzilla's RfA.

As for my explanation in the thread starter about having his RfA page watchlisted, it was made exclusively to explain how come I saw it and to avoid precisely the stalking accusations that were nevertheless brought up. If anyone needs background on my one time experience with the user this thread from ANI archives would provide some insights. I did not seek retribution (for what?) as there is no issue that I see unsettled. Neither I stalked the editor. I saw the created page out of place and brought it up here for attention. The rest in my original post is merely an explanation on how I found it. --Irpen 07:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

You guys don't really have to reach for your guns. I don't think there's trouble down at the OK Corral. Anyway, Dorftrottel can keep his RFA in his user space, if he wants. I'm not sure it's a parody, and the distinction between parody, satire, and mistaken wishful thinking is unclear enough that Irpen could be concerned and the rest of us aware. Geogre 11:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
That's not the problem. The page was userfied, then speedied on my request. All done. The other problem remains as I described above. Irpen talking about "stalking accusations" is really nothing but a bad joke. I did not make any such accusations. I merely asked him to please finally disclose what he meant with that "admin material" remark, and also to unwatchlist the non-existant RfA pages. He appears unwilling to disclose, and I'm frankly disappointed that no admin is willing to really help resolve that situation. Whatever he says above, Irpen surely acts like he despises me for some reason, and I would like to know that reason. In other words: I assume there is a reason for him to pre-watchlist my RfA page and recommend that others do so as well, talking about me as "that admin material editor". I assume there was indeed a reason beyond mere incivility on his part to revert my innocuous question what that was all about from his user talk with the edit summary reading "rm obnoxious rant". And finally, I do assume there is a good reason why he instantly posted here, alerted by his questionable watchlisting of my non-existant RfA page, instead of contacting me first. I do assume good faith on his part. But I really require some sort of intellectually honest explanation for Irpen's behaviour towards me in order to sustain the assumption of good faith on his part. What can I say? Any admin, please assist in resolving this for good. He still has my non-existant RfA page bookmarked, I want to know why, and I want it to stop. I dorftrotteltalk I 11:47, December 4, 2007
Incidentally, it's good that Irpen linked to this thread from ANI archives, demonstrating e.g. how I instantly notified him of that thread[7] while he did nothing of the sort when he started this thread here. After El_C had directed me to WP:DR, I posted there (to no avail, since it's only for content disputes) and immediately notifed Irpen again. He removed my good-faithed notifications here (please take a look at the edit summary, if you will). I was really friendly all along, yet his unexplained behaviour was and continues to be less than civil, to say the least. I would like to know why, and I would like it to stop. I dorftrotteltalk I 11:58, December 4, 2007

Please. Let's not get into what we think of each other. Let's focus on the issues at hand, and this seems resolved. --Irpen 12:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

It isn't until you give an honest reply and unwatchlist my non-existant RfA page. I have diffs on my side and have been open and polite about everything. Time for you to do likewise. Please reply to all the points raised by me directly above. E.g., why didn't you contact me first beofre posting here? Why, after you decided to post here, didn't you notify me? What did you mean with "admin material editor"? Why did you remove my polite posts and notifications as "obnoxious rant/stuff"? Do you still have my non-existant RfA pages watchlisted or not? I dorftrotteltalk I 12:48, December 4, 2007
Dude, what's wrong with being called 'admin material'? Isn't that a compliment? --Masamage 19:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
"Dude", please read before posting. Irpen meant that remark in some way that made it clear he had picked up the word somewhere and did most obviously not agree with it. He watchlisted my page so he would be notified in order to oppose me. He even suggested to another user (an admin) that they watchlist my page as well. I'm not paranoid, and please don't call me that, I'm just annoyed by Irpen's utterly uncivil behaviour. I dorftrotteltalk I 23:20, December 4, 2007
From context, it looks like he watchlisted your non-existent RFA so he could vote for you immediately if someone nominated you. Why are you getting offended over that? You seem a bit paranoid. I can't see how it could possibly not be a compliment (even if you don't want to be an admin, hearing that someone thinks you could be is still a complement)—Random832 20:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Please read before posting. Irpen meant that remark in some way that made it clear he had picked up the word somewhere and did most obviously not agree with it. He watchlisted my page so he would be notified in order to oppose me. He even suggested to another user (an admin) that they watchlist my page as well. I'm not paranoid, and please don't call me that, I'm just annoyed by Irpen's utterly uncivil behaviour. I dorftrotteltalk I 23:20, December 4, 2007
For those admins who are incapable of understanding this: What Irpen effectively did, besides his unprovoked uncivility, is that he canvassed against me before I ever ran for adminship. He did so with the malicious intention to distress me, and he refuses to unwatchlist any non-existant RfA page with my username in it and give me some explanation as to why he pre-canvassed against a potential future RfA of mine like that. I dorftrotteltalk I 23:38, December 4, 2007

Creating, opposing and withdrawing your own RfA is quite thought-provoking, if somewhat idiosyncratic (shades of the tree falling in the forest...). I think it makes a valid point about adminship and those who do and don't want it. I don't think anything further needed to have been done there, though that is a bit late now it has been userfied and user-db'd. As for watchlisting of possible future pages, that is a useful function. Asking someone to de-watchlist a page (any page) is a bit like asking them to stand on their head. They can say they have done it, but you can't see whether they have done it. So it's a bit pointless really. Whether watchlisting certain pages counts as "stalking" (and I'm not expressing an opinion on what happened here) is also interesting. I think what Geogre said was best "You guys don't really have to reach for your guns." If both of you walk away now, everything will probably be OK. Carcharoth (talk) 00:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I dorftrotteltalk I 01:25, December 5, 2007

Proposal for ANI clerks - discussion on talk page[edit]

Please contribute at Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard#Proposal for ANI clerks. Thanks. Carcharoth 17:46, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I've created a proposal Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Clerks. The proposal envisions an open process where any editor in good standing can participate. - Jehochman Talk 18:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Discuss exact proposal points here. Thanks, Davnel03 19:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
And to those who may be interested, there is a list where you can volunteer. - Jehochman Talk 23:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Excessive merge nominations[edit]

User:Ejfetters just nominated a large number of Star Trek articles for merging and/or deletion (another user counted 102). It's kind of hard to defend that many articles at once...--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 01:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, what is with the mass rush to get rid of character and episode articles lately? We're not paper, we're both a general and a specialized encyclopedia and these crusades are getting a bit out of hand.... Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 02:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I think it is users enforcing WP:FICTION -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
All these minor articles have no place in an encyclopedia, all fancruft, we should get rid of them all, there is no need for multiple articles on Star Trek, for example, all the information should be put into one article, keeping only the most important, if someone wants to know more they can just watch it, or look it up on the Star Trek wiki, I'm sure it exists. Also see WP:NOHARM. There is way too much about random fan boy stuff on wikipedia. The goal of this place is not to make a detailed explanation of every single detail of every fictional universe. Please re-read Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) is the reference~, consensus is that we just don't want all that here. Jackaranga (talk) 02:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Also what do you want administrators to do about this ? You posted this here, but did not say what you were expecting to get out of it, so it's unlikely anyone will be able to provide you with whatever it is you want. Jackaranga (talk) 02:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure - a hint to the editor in question to take it easy would have been nice. Noticing that WP:FICTION may be overused as a deletion excuse would also be nice.--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 05:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

deleted ArbCom voting page[edit]

Resolved: Page restored by Mercury himself. Chick Bowen 18:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Why was Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Vote/Mercury deleted? Who did it, and how is this being justified? I know the user left, but there are certainly many who have not been on in the last few hours and now they know nothing. I dorftrotteltalk I 05:48, December 3, 2007

It seems he is exercising his right to vanish. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 05:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Right to vanish does not apply to project-space pages. The page should be restored and protected. Blank is fine, but it should not be deleted. I will undelete it myself unless someone provides a very compelling reason not to. Chick Bowen 05:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I deleted it. Mercury used his "right to vanish and had the page deleted. From Meta:
John Reaves 06:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Chick, he's just upset. I don't see a compelling reason to restore it. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 06:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't this deletion for right to vanish falls under the Wikipedia namespace that attachs his name to it. This is like deleting a Request for adminship, it should be overturned. Courtesy blank if you like, but it should not be red-linked cause he didn't like the results of it. — Save_Us_229 06:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
The compelling reason to restore it is that, if we take these elections seriously, we ought to maintain a record of what happened in them. Similar things have happened before and we have not deleted the vote page, merely closed the voting and protected it. Chick Bowen 06:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Falls within spirit of the right to vanish, if not the rules. So best to leave it as it is. But John, as a candidate, you really shouldn't be editing the vote pages. Bring it to Talk, ask the election officers... Jd2718 06:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
As a compromise, I have created and protected a placeholder page. But I still think the history should be restored. I don't like the precedent here. Chick Bowen 06:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Probably because they didn't request that the pages be deleted. It's just a page full of signatures. Can't we let him leave in peace? I really don't see how my candidacy is a COI except maybe as a mere technicality. John Reaves 06:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Other people have withdrawn from elections before because of bad results, and those vote pages haven't been deleted. I see no reason to do the same here. But maybe wait until the elections are over and (hopefully) Mercury has returned. Then it can be undeleted for the record. At the very least, the Signpost will probably say something about this, if only reporting who withdrew. Having no page to point at will look silly. Carcharoth 06:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the restored page with the concise explanation of what happened is a good idea for the time being. For the record: I posted here under the assumption that he left because of the vote, not because of any other more pressing issues. I dorftrotteltalk I 06:29, December 3, 2007

I wouldn't necessarily oppose recreation, it just seems unnecessary. John Reaves 06:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the voting page was useful, insofar as it was something of a referendum on the sleuthing meta-issue. We shouldn't seek to rub Mercury's nose in it or anything, but at the same time-- 50+ straight opposes in less than 6 hours was a pretty substantial record of the amount of opposition to sleuthing. Perhaps scrubbing Mercury's name from the page and replacing it with "Candidate M" or something, so that he can vanish without people's comments vanishing along with him? --Alecmconroy 08:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
If Mercury wishes to leave to leave the project (Something I hope he'll reconsider, he is a good admin), I see nothing of much interest in the content of the page worth arguing over restoring it if he wants it deleted. It's nothing more than a vote page. -- lucasbfr talk 10:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
One way or another, it should be part of the record. Deleting the page here creates the appearance of impropriety; it suggests that we are trying to hide unpleasant recent history within the project. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 12:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
It was not just votes, I had commented too which was moved to the talk page, and other people had placed small comments next to their votes to indicate their reasons. And they weren't all exactly the same reasons. It does hide what people think, and no doubt Mercury will be back- well I hope so anyway. It is not 'his' page- we keep Requests for Adminship, RfCs and Arbcoms etc- dozens of people had commented/voted on that page.Merkinsmum 13:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I support not restoring the history until after the election. It takes courage to offer to serve the community in such a public way, and giving candidates some grace here is good for all of us. Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 17:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

(Entered after the resolution) To be fair, if Phil Sandifer and Danny are allowed to blank their vote pages, shouldn't Mercury? Or, to turn this the other way, shouldn't all vote pages be kept intact as a permanent record of the vote? -- Robster2001 02:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Blanking is fine. Mercury unblanked it himself. It's deleting the history that some of us are queasy about, but Mercury has eased all concerns about that through his actions here, which have been entirely proper. Chick Bowen 03:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I had it deleted for my right to vanish. I'm back per this. So I'm not vanished. Leave it be please and thank you for the concern. :) Regards, Mercury 04:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Good to have you back. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 17:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

User:H ?[edit]

I suppose this belongs more at WP:VPM but I figure I'll have more luck getting someone knowledgeable here... I totally missed that User:H left. Apparently someone making threats? It's quite sad. Could someone please tell/direct me to a (privacy sanitized) summary of what happened? —dgiestc 19:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure there are any more publically-known details than what're on his user page, but I guess I could be wrong. --Masamage 19:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Looking into it, it looks like personal information was given away and it was used against H. See, this is why you should try to remain at least partially anonymous, so you can avoid threats. Maser (Talk!) 22:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
He's returned under a different account. I won't say which for fear of being crushed by an elephant. Shalom (HelloPeace) 17:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:AFD[edit]

Over a 100 nom backlog. Bearian (talk) 02:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

The backlog at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion is being cleared, but the "purge" function does not work. Please, can someone clear the list of closed debates? Bearian (talk) 17:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I think I need some help from someone who can create a bot[edit]

I'm a new administrator and this is my first time dealing with this situation. An editor who does a lot of work with the taxonomy of various snakes and has a solid background with the relevant project came to me with this request: "I need to move everything in [[Category:True vipers by taxonomic synonyms]] to [[Category:Viperinae by taxonomic synonyms]] and everything in [[Category:True vipers by common name]] to [[Category:Viperinae by common name]]," and asked me to help him do it. I spent an hour or so doing the first task by hand and managed to complete the letter "A", with more than 300 to go; it's a huge task. I strongly suspect that because this is a repetitive task it could be automated, but I haven't the least idea of how to do that. (a) Do I need a "bot", or is there a tool/toolkit of which I'm not aware? (b) Is this the right place to find someone with that enviable skill-set of creating a "bot" or equivalent tool? If I've ignorantly come to the wrong place or asked the wrong question, I'd appreciate guidance. Thanks in advance for any help you all can provide. Accounting4Taste:talk 05:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I think WP:AWB can make a list of all articles in Category:True vipers by taxonomic synonyms and replace it with Category:Viperinae by common name. WODUP 05:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Heh, actually, you want WP:BOTREQ... :) SQLQuery me! 05:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Wow, fast, accurate and two different ways. Many thanks... I wasn't aware of WP:AWB because I'm the old-fashioned type that does things by hand. I think I will lead the user to that tool and put them together; if that doesn't work, I'll go for the WP:BOTREQ. Your assistance is greatly appreciated. Accounting4Taste:talk 06:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
If the first doesn't work, I'd suggest you just use WP:CFD which comes complete with a bot to do exactly this kind of thing. Splash - tk 13:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Clarification of copyright needed[edit]

Hi All, Sound_from_ultrasound is one of the pages on my watchlist due to its historically high rate of vandalism. Recently a new user User:Skinduptruk has added a large amount of good material (about 1500 words), in a single edit. He says it's a cut-down version of his graduate engineering thesis. Is this likely to be a problem? Regards AKAF (talk) 08:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, it needs formatting, but if it is his thesis then it's fine, I believe. He needs to provide a link or a reference to his thesis, however. Neil  09:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Fine from a copyright perspective (unless someone funding the work has claimed ownership as happens sometimes), and since it appears to be a factual work rather than a research work, it's probably ok from that perspective too. However, a graduate thesis is not a properly peer-reviewed work (they are unpublished) even though it has been assessed by a university somewhere. Which is to say, the claims it makes still need citing to properly reliable sources as appropriate. Splash - tk 13:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
The assessment by the university is similar to the process of peer review. Most graduate theses are read and critiqued by multiple people, and a degree isn't awarded until errors and problems are corrected, so I'm not sure that these would not count as reliable sources. But that's probably a discussion for the WP:RS talk page or similar. Natalie (talk) 13:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
It should be pointed out the section added did have 20 or so citations within it. Neil  14:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Duh, I scanned the page really quickly, and didn't see any little blue numbers, so thought the obvious. My bad. Splash - tk 17:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Problem at Card sharp (reopened)[edit]

Thoroughly-sourced changes at Card sharp (and Card shark redir) are being reverted by 2005 (talk · contribs) who labels his reversions "Rvv". Not a huge deal, but could probably use a talking to about what "vandalism" means and how reliable sourcing vs. personal PoV works. [8][9][10]SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 07:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, it looks like SJP (talk · contribs) already talked to 2005 (talk · contribs) about it.  Avec nat...Wikipédia Prends Des Forces.  08:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Similar but unrelated incident, and it hasn't stopped. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 21:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I left a level 3 warning on that user's talk page. Carlossuarez46 03:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Does not seem to have had an effect; User:2005 is now deleting my posts from the article's talk page, evidently simply because they are critical of his reductio ad Hitlerum and WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUNDing. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 08:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Blocked for 24 hours. Neil  10:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Hey, the friendly message I was leaving him now goes to waste! ;) -- lucasbfr talk 10:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Friendly messages were tried and, sadly, didn't work :( Neil  11:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I went over there and it's not that simple. The so-called "thoroughly sourced" changes are an argument made on a talk page to support an out-of-process redirect/deletion by User:SMcCandlish. This isn't about reliable sourcing or verifiability in article space, it' about User:2005 and SMcCandilish disagreeing in talk space about what to do about an article, and both of them engaging in simmering borderline incivility. 2005 deleted some hostile comments by SMcCandilish. After reviewing the matter I think 2005 is correct as to the substance and process of the proposed deletion, and SMcCandilish is taking a rather eccentric and confrontational approach to arguments in talk space. Nothing here is remotely appropriate for a block. Both editors ought to simmer down. Wikidemo (talk) 12:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you that the matter is not simple. User:2005 requested unblock on my (and Neil's) talk page using an IP. Since I have no reason to believe this is someone else posing as User:2005, I think this should be considered as a formal unblock request (and let's let the block evasion slip please, he only used the IP to post the unblock request) -- lucasbfr talk 12:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, having said what I did, it's reasonable to ask 2005 not to call people fascists, not to delete content from a talk page (even if he takes offense), and not to engage in contentious editing. I think the block was a premature and too harsh, but it was for a real problem. Sorry if this sounds like wishy-washiness but SMcCandilish is a solid, experienced Wikipedian who was operating in good faith, and nobody should have to put up with being called a fascist and having constructive talk contributions deleted for that. Wikidemo (talk) 13:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism on User talk:Christian07TARDIS[edit]

Resolved

Christian07TARDIS (talk · contribs) (blocked for being a sockpupet) - placed a note on his talk page (change here) which is not allowed after block. StuartDD contributions 13:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

He is allowed to write on his talk page. As part of Wikipedia:Appealing a block he is allowed to edit his talk page to ask for an explanation of his block. It is not vandalism as far as I can see. Woody (talk) 13:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Agree - It's clear that the only reason for that edit is to understand the reason for the block and/or appeal it - which a blocked user is allowed to do on his/her own talk page. Od Mishehu 16:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Block & Protect[edit]

Sorry but I've decided to leave Wikipedia because I don't have enough time to work on this website yet. Please block my user indefinitely from editing Wikipedia and protect my user and my talk page. I'll let an admin know if I decide to continue working on Wikipedia. But please accept my request and do so. D@rk talk 16:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I've protected your userpage and talk page, but I'm affraid we don't block accounts on request, also this would make it extremely difficult for you to return should you wish to (as you would find it hard to request an unblock). Best of luck in the future, and I hope you decide to return one day. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

82.112.146.44 (talk · contribs)[edit]

I'm not quite sure what this person is doing =S § Eloc § 18:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Nor do they, by the looks of it. I think they're trying to use the talk page as a means of communication with someone else but not getting any reply. I wouldn't worry about it. BLACKKITE 18:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Moo Duk Kwan[edit]

There has been some controversy at Talk:Moo Duk Kwan and over trademarks, can someone look into it please. It may need someone familiar with copyright/patent law. From a brief search here a registered trademark exists, the numbers given in talk match if you remove the comers. --Nate1481( t/c) 10:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Send the article to WP:AFD, as it looks NN to me. Bearian 14:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Not really helpful. --Nate1481( t/c) 17:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
p.s. We have a basic notability guide for the martial arts project here which this article meets. --Nate1481( t/c) 10:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
User is now making borderline legal threats (I've sent a warning, not blocking since the wording isn't 100% clear as a legal threat) —Random832 21:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Protecting policies[edit]

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Policy for discussion of policy policy

This appears to me to have gained a rough consensus, but as proposer I may be seeing what I want to see. Are we ata point where we can try, for a while, protecting the main policies which lead to blocking and sanctions? I'm thinking here about WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, WP:CIVIL, WP:SOCK, WP:NPA, WP:HARASS, WP:BP, WP:BLP and WP:BAN. There are others in Category:Wikipedia_official_policy, I wonder if some of those should be marked as guidelines, or whether they should also be included. Guy (Help!) 21:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I for one don't think it's a good idea to implement this without a clearer idea of what we're implementing. There are many unanswered questions about how this should be done. First - should we protect all policies or only ones where there is not active editing? Second - what does that protection mean? Does it mean that admins should reject suggested changes until they've been thoroughly discussed and have gained consensus? Should the implementation of changes be up to admin discretion? This isn't like the "stable revisions" feature that might be coming because it leaves no room for a "current version", just the stable version -- so are we trying to simulate "stable revisions"? If so, how can ordinary editors work on the drafts, and does this entail moving the meaningful edits out of peoples' watch lists? I would say, write the overall idea up as a {{proposal}} and move from there. Mangojuicetalk 21:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
It means policies marked {{policy}}, and yes it absolutely does mean no changes without consensus on Talk, all edits via {{editprotected}}. Guy (Help!) 23:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Okay, then, I definitely don't support it. There's really not much wrong with the way things work now - yes, anyone can edit policy pages but off-the-wall changes get reverted fast. And anyone can do those reverts, whereas under the new system admins will be required for every change: I'm sure this would triple the workload at CAT:PER. Besides, I don't think the policy pages are so great that we should be crystallizing all of them, and I really don't like how discouraging this would be to non-admin users who want to get involved in policy writing. Mangojuicetalk 03:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I would support this. If we're protecting frequently used templates, we shouldn't be leaving the core policies open. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 23:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I would oppose this, as it tends to make adminship more of a "big deal", which we are often told it shouldn't be. It increases the seperation between ordinary editors and admins, and will increase the disgruntlement of those who are less than happy with the behaviour of certain admins. Policy shouldn't be up to admins, but if only admins can edit policies, then in effect policies will no longer be written by the community, but only by a select few.DuncanHill (talk) 00:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I guess I understand you concern, but I think it will rather help facilitate productive discussion and determining consensus in little, better traceable steps. I for one think it's a great idea, and I'm not an admin. I dorftrotteltalk I 00:07, December 5, 2007
Codifying this will help prevent any abuse of it from anyone. (Unlike, for example, WP:AGF, which codifying only made more capable of being abused.) Why not write out the general principles on a Wikipedia page, for future reference (village pump archives are only kept for a short while, and digging out a link might be tedious)? In the WP:VPP thread, people seemed to agree with their own version of the proposal – better that they agree on a centralized one, especially if/when this system is used.
I don't think it's developed enough at this point: who reviews? Can any editor decline a request? Suppose two admins disagree on whether to implement a change, or a change is implemented unilaterally, or only two hours is given for discussion, and some one disagrees strongly after three. How soon after a developing page is marked as policy does it become protected, if at all? Will all policies be protected?
Another suggestion: use a different template from {{editprotected}}, for example {{editpolicy}} (not yet created), to separate mostly technical and article-related requests from standard policy-updating procedure. GracenotesT § 00:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I already see discussion is starting up here, kind of fracturing the discussion, but I'll restrain myself and save my comments for the village pump. But to answer Guy's original question, I read the thread on VPP, and while you certainly have a (Father forgive me for I am about to sin) majority, I'm not sure you have a consensus to just do it. Many of the more recent comments seem to be against it, at least in its original form. I would say you have widespread interest (or even a rough consensus) to pursue something further, perhaps as a trial. Would it be wise to consider this AN thread a notice for interested people to wander over to the VPP thread, rather than fracture it further? --barneca (talk) 00:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I feel that this is a really, really, really bad idea. It seems like protection for it's own sake. ➪HiDrNick! 03:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

This would kill the process as stated on Wikipedia:Consensus, which requires open editing. Right now, policy/guideline/essay maintenance is a hell as it stands. Consensus is fundamental to how wikipedia works, and I'll go down fighting defending it! ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 03:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Kim. Our whole freakin' encyclopedia is built around the idea that anyone can edit, and we're talking about putting something in that would potentially dissuade people from editing our very policy pages? Madness. - Philippe | Talk 04:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
But then we have the absurdity of ArbCom linking to the version of the policy on 3 October 2006 in order to discuss whether it was violated. Guy (Help!) 12:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
But then, certain finer points of policy do actually change over time. And also, that "absurdity" doesn't have much effect on anyone except for arbcom and the few people involved in the case. This proposal will affect a lot more of the community. Mangojuicetalk 15:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

This is a profoundly bad idea that fails totally to connect with how consensus editing and development works. Insisting that you must have an admin's permission to update policies either by way of correction or bold proposal is wrong and creates a police-guard around the policies in question. Anyone can edit this encyclopedia, and its policies exist and mutate only because of that fact. If the motiviation to this is vandalism, then you know where to get off, and if it's bad changes to those policies well, just revert then discuss. There is no effect to either vandalism or a non-consensus change since neither carry any actual weight at all. Splash - tk 13:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I find the arguments against protecting the policies here more compelling than those for. Any vandalism will be quickly reverted: minor modifications will come under "Consensus can change." I see nothing absurd about the ArbCom linking to a particular revision of a policy, as long as that's the revision that was in effect during the offense.--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 15:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

It isn't a question of vandalism. It's more that every so often you get someone out at the barn wall with a ladder and a can of paint and nobody notices. Other times people do notice and there is a huge fight back and forth about which version is 'the policy'. This kind of thing has brought us such 'policy' gems as 'you may be blocked for removing warnings from your talk page - even completely bogus warnings' and 'you may be banned for linking to Michael Moore's website if Moore says something bad about a Wikipedian'. Currently we have this philosophy that 'real' policy reflects standard practice, but we find that people have different ideas of what standard practice IS. Requiring consensus before policy updates are made would allow us to actually decide as a community when policy should change.... rather than individuals making it up on their own and then insisting that their changes are 'consensus' because they are on the policy page. --CBD 16:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
People having different ideas is fine, though. Certainly, sometimes people get all carried away, but even when they do it doesn't actually change the policy - the words on the page don't mean anything if noone is going to stick by them. Policy is as policy does, not as policy is temporarily written. If some new editor sees a badly drafted version of a policy page, we just leave them a note explaining what happened. The upside of badly drafted policies existing for short periods is that we get the chance to demonstrate the more clearly that they are indeed considered bad. And note that this proposal is not to require consensus before policy updates, since that is an underlying pre-requisite anyway, the proposal is merely to construct an enforcement of the status quo in preference to changes in consensus. It's far too easy to stifle a talk page debate if the ability to execute the changes being proposed is not there in the first place. Which is precisely the idea of the proposal. But life's tough on a wiki somtimes. Splash - tk 16:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  • On just a handful of pages, this is a very good idea, because some of our policies are eroded by constant rewording (or attempts to reword) by people who disagree with them. As the ArbCom noted, it sometimes becomes difficult to ascertain if someone has "violated policy" because it takes some time to figure out what the policy exactly was at the time the alleged violation took place. >Radiant< 23:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Userwho[edit]

I don't have much experience with usernames, so I'm hoping someone can help out. What to do with User:Userwho, considering User:Who is already in use by an admin? --Kbdank71 (talk) 18:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

They're not that similar - I mean, you could possibly confuse Userwho with User:Who, but in any given context you know whether the prefix is likely to be used or not. —Random832 19:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Takezo Kensei.jpg[edit]

Resolved

The original file and description was overwriten. Can anyone check it and restore the old version please. Thank you. --GeorgHH (talk) 20:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I have moved the overwritten version to Image:Adam Monroe2.jpg. —Random832 20:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Billy Hathorn[edit]

Billy Hathorn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

There are two issues with this user. First, he is a prolific creator of non-to-barely notable obituaries. As in, articles combined from obituary notices in the papers, originally just copied and pasted but now copyedited a bit to avoid WP:CSD#G12. Look at his deleted contributions. I have never seen a non-vandal with so many deleted articles to their name.

Second problem: he is citing "Billy Hathorn, "The Republican Party in Louisiana, 1920-1980," Master's thesis (1980), Northwestern State University at Natchitoches" in articles. This tells us, I think, where the vast swathes of marginally notable people are coming from.

There is a request for comment: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Billy Hathorn. He ignored it. There are many, many AfD and CSD notices on his talk page. He ignores them. There are earnest attempts to engage him. He ignores them. His only participation in discusison seems to be to defend his articles at AfD, and he doesn't always do that.

I hate to see all this effort go to waste. I've suggested he start a Louisiana Wikia, there is not one yet, but no response. What can we do? Guy (Help!) 21:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Looking at his contributions, I would suggest Texas or East Texas as his location (I was born and raised there). I guess the problem is they are notable to him the local area but not on a National/International scale. I don't want to seem like I am butting in but mind if I try to talk to him? spryde | talk 21:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Please do. Guy (Help!) 21:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I've seen several prolific, content-oriented editors before that were just plain stubborn about following all our rules. I've come to the conclusion that we're best off grinning and bearing their idiosyncracies, working around them as necessary. It's like "dealing with the creative talent" on Madison Avenue.
From what I've seen, you guys are doing a good, patient job. I have a couple of comments:
  1. I suggest you userfy any deleted articles. Then they're around if someone does start a Louisiana Wikia
  2. I think we can get overly aggressive on notability of local historical figures. I submit that one of our best uses is serving as an online source for the less famous, local historical figures. I wish someone like this was doing this sort of work for the area I grew up in.
  3. We're biased toward stuff we can find reliable sources for on the Internet but paper meets WP:RS just as well. I think we can assume that any paid elected politician from earlier years has a media trail in a library even if we can't find it online. I suggest giving this guy's articles the benefit of the doubt whenever possible.
That's my 2 cents worth. Thanks for your and the other RfC participants' efforts working with this person. --A. B. (talk) 05:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Coveritus[edit]

I just ran across this edit. Is there any process for verifying the death of a User and/or protecting or archiving their pages? Corvus cornixtalk 23:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Given most users are anonymous, no. It could quite possibly be a (rather lame attempt at a) joke. Since the user in question has only 30 or so edits, I wouldn't worry about it. >Radiant< 23:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Confirmed deaths of established editors are preserved at Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians and it is customary to indefintely block the account and protect the user/user talk pages from editing. In this circumstance, I wouldn't do any of it. It was made by an IP address saying that he died. We get quite a few of those, most are either sick joke or unconfirmed. There is nothing that actually confirms this users death. — Save_Us_229 03:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Voretus is apparently a friend of his. We might be able to find out from him/her. Corvus cornixtalk 17:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Can't sleep, clown will eat me[edit]

Has clearly shown abuse of power by locking RD Reynolds completely, and not following proper procedure. Also, keeps removing info before we have a chance to source it. ---SilentRAGE! 14:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

There appears to be a content dispute going on, he protected the page under the basis of "BLP issues" wich is plausible seeing that the entirety of the material removed is unsourced, I suggest that the users interested in the addition of said material find some references to avoid further conflict, if the refences are found and are reliable drop me a line and I will unprotect the page to allow for sourced inclusion, please note that I may be inactive later today so if the references are found before tommorow please contact another admin if its inclusion is considered that urgent, otherwise I will be available to attend this case from tomorrow onwards. - Caribbean~H.Q. 14:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
(ec'd)Looking at the history of the article [11] you kept on adding an unsourced fact. Would not the better method have been to find a reference before adding this "fact" rather than engaging in a revert war? Protection seems sensible to me in light of this. Pedro :  Chat  14:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
I think that protecting the article was the right thing to do - but that Can't sleep, clown will eat me shouldn't have been the admin to do it. This is because it seems like this was a dispute that he/she was involved in. Od Mishehu 14:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't see a problem. CSCWEM is not an involved editor on that article, as far as I can tell; he's simply enforcing WP:BLP. We don't need to jump through hoops in order to prevent repeated reinsertion of unsourced material into a biography,and frankly those who were edit-warring over it should count themselves lucky not to be blocked. I don't think edit-warring to insert unsourced material in a biography is in the least tiny bit appropriate. Guy (Help!) 21:42, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
/me reads first sentence. Troll. Move along. (and by the way, removing BLP violations is not a content dispute ) Will (talk) 14:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Anythying involving that many reverts is a content dispute regardless of its nature. - Caribbean~H.Q. 14:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
No. Removing BLP violations isn't a content dispute. If it was, it wouldn't be a 3RR exception. (The same applies to copyvios, vandalism, and banned user contributions) Will (talk) 14:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
As I said BLP violations within this text are plausible, however this is not a obvious BLP violation and the admin involved should have tried to resolve this before doing several reverts. - Caribbean~H.Q. —Preceding comment was added at 15:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
"Not obvious"? I think the text "{{fact|date=October 2007}}" about ten times is pretty much obvious. From BLP, "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles.", emphasis policy's. Will (talk) 15:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Ok I must admit that the fact templates weren't particulary noticed by me, but you are just giving to much emphazize on this, the issue here is concerning edit warring which is not apropiate of a admin, and any kind of edit warring is a content dispute that is logic whenever a editor may have policy on his behalf or not, why because there is actually some material being disputed we are wasting our time discussing the proper definition of this kind of revert war here anyways, I doubt that this will help the case in any way. - Caribbean~H.Q. 15:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
It isn't an edit war when an admin, or anybody is trying to enforce policy. Corvus cornixtalk 17:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

SilentRage, the best advice I can give you is to not revert war and find sources. So what if the material isn't on the current revision of the article? Once you find sources, revert and add the references. I would prefer if the article wasn't protected by CSCWEM though. CSCWEM was actively revert warring on the article and he should not have been the administrator to add the protection if it was nessecary. — Save_Us_229 14:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I concur with Can't sleep, clown will eat me's actions in this matter, the aggressive removal of material that violates WP:BLP is allowed and is not subject to WP:3RR. Can't sleep's protection of the page to prevent continued addition of unsourced material to a BLP article was the right move according to WP:BLP#Semi-protection and protection. There’s no abuse of power here, just an administrator doing his job. Dreadstar 15:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
It wasn't a revert war, it was an attempt at enforcing policy. Corvus cornixtalk 17:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Investigation of alleged RD Reynolds revert warring[edit]

Here are diffs showing unsourced biographical material being added: [12] [13] [14] Don't be fooled by the {{fact}} tags. Those don't make it kosher

Here's a spot of nasty vandalism: [15]

Accounts that have been blocked thus far by User:Can't sleep, clown will eat me

We know that a certain banned user has a fixation on wrestling articles and likes to mint sock puppets. I am not sure if these are socks belonging to him, or if they are others behaving the same way. After these accounts were blocked, SilentRage (talk · contribs) twice tried to add policy violating material [16] [17] and was reverted by User:Can't sleep, clown will eat me. I think page protection is appropriate and that CSCWEM has done nothing wrong. I do not see CSCWEM editing the article, except to enforce WP:BLP policy or revert vandalism; he does not seem to be involved in a content dispute at all. - Jehochman Talk 15:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually we have at least two known puppeters that enjoy adding nonsense to the wrestling pages, however this appears to be quite common even by users that aren't proven as puppets of either. - Caribbean~H.Q. 15:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. This creates a confusing situation. Perhaps we should request a checkuser on the above parties and the two known puppetmasters. - Jehochman Talk 15:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
It's almost certain that Pebblesmaster (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) and Barney Rubbleton (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) are sockpuppets of each other [18] . A CheckUser to see which sockpuppeteer this is might be in order. — Save_Us_229 16:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Would you like to file the request? You may copy a portion of the material above as your evidence. Add the third account as well. By going through with WP:RFCU, the Checkuser may discover additional, unknown accounts operated by the same party, thus helping prevent future disruption and confusion. - Jehochman Talk 16:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Well I'm skeptical about whether a checkuser would accept it, but it's worth a try. Although it's fairly obvious that the sockpuppeteer is User:ECW500. What is the name of the other puppeteer on wrestling articles that was mentioned above? — Save_Us_229 16:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
User:JB196 spryde | talk 16:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Aye. - Caribbean~H.Q. 16:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
I've worked with JB196 several times now and his modus operandi is usually removing large amounts of text (falsey) citing WP:BLP and adding a reference tag at the top. This user appears to be doing the opposite by adding the material.
Also I'm considering the contributions of User:ECW500 which include edits to WrestleCrap and RD Reynolds (same location as the suspect users' edits) and the article Fruity Pebbles (i.e.