Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive115

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

Noticeboard archives


Nobody watching the Arbitration enforcement subnoticeboard?[edit]

No administrator has replied to my comment posted two days ago at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement, and I have noted a similar complain about the lack of administrator involvement from the user who posted a question few days before me. So please don't hesitate and read that subnoticeboard. Thanks, -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 02:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, now at least I know it's not only me :-) See above, same issue at the BLP and the COI noticeboards. But go to AN/I and see how quickly someone says I need to "calm down" when I'm 100% calm :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Calm down, Sandy, please ;o) ➔ REDVEЯS likes kittens... and you 09:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)



Hopefully, I've come to the right place. I often try to help out at the Help Desk and a few days ago came across this: Wikipedia:Help desk#User:Arsensalsa. I tried to help but it's all gone a bit wrong.

Apparently, what happened was User:Arsensalsa moved their user page to a main namespace article Arsen Salsa. Another help desk helper tried to move it back, but made an error and moved it to User:Arsen Salsa instead (making a double redirect). In response to their help desk question, I tried to fix the problem, but was not aware of the double redirect issue until after it all went wrong. I found I could not move User:Arsen Salsa to User:Arsensalsa because there was already something there.

Since then, the main namespace article has been deleted, leaving User:Arsensalsa redirecting to the user page of a non-existent user, User:Arsen Salsa. It would be great if you could fix this mess, moving the content & history of User:Arsen Salsa back to the real user User:Arsensalsa and deleting the User:Arsen Salsa page altogether.

Apologies for any inconvenience. Astronaut (talk) 13:59, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Unclear copyright[edit]


I am a new sysop, trying to cope with copyright issues. I've been following the contributions of User:Marina T.. Many of this user's image uploads seem problematic. At one blatant copyvio case i speedied one image, but others look like a gray area.

I asked a question about it on the Copyright FAQ page, but got not response yet.

Any help will be appreciated. If there's a better place to ask this, please point me there and accept my apologies. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 16:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Streamlining "Did You Know?"[edit]

I’ve noticed lately that DYK updates are a little slow coming at times, and some of the DYK regulars are rather vocal about seeing it updated often. The process in place right now is a pretty lousy one. The process could be improved and updates always made on time by borrowing Raul’s process for Today's Featured Article. I bring this proposal here since administrators are the ones tasked with seeing this updated every six hours.

Instead of constantly updating {{Did You Know}}, we should create individual pages for each set of hooks to be put on the mainpage, like so:

and so on. The pages will update each day at the 0th, 6th, 12th, and 18th hour UTC. The actual update will happen without direct admin intervention automagically. We’ll replace the {{Did you know}} code on the main page with {{Wikipedia:Did you know/{{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTDAY}}, {{CURRENTYEAR}}/{{#expr: {{CURRENTHOUR}} – ({{CURRENTHOUR}} mod 6)}}}}. Of course, to keep the would-be Main Page vandals at bay, the titles for the pages would need to be protected in advance, either at Protected Titles or by IARbot. We'd also have to create a page with updating instructions.

There are some immediate benefits to this approach:

  • It allows admins to work ahead on DYK. In one sitting, an admin could queue up the hooks for a couple day’s worth of DYKs. In the meantime, other admins can add new sets of hooks for later on.
  • Any editor who spots an improvement to the already created hook pages can post an {{editprotected}} request directly to that talkpage, often before it even goes to the mainpage.
  • It would be easy to make a warning template using the #ifexist parser function to say "Hey you! Admins! The next set of DKY hooks is not made yet. The next update is at 18:00 UTC. Chop chop!" We can make it big and red and threatening, and include it at the top of WP:AN and WP:ANI. No bots needed. The template would only show if the next page to be included had not been created yet.
  • I keep a lookout for typos and other errors on Today's Featured Article at User:HiDrNick/TFA blurbs. It would be easy to create a similar page for the upcoming DKYs, both so that admins see at a glance how far ahead the updating is done, and to keep as many eyes on the upcoming hooks as possible.

Thoughts? ➪HiDrNick! 06:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

That strikes me, for one, as a supremely fine idea. Joe 06:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Isn't this something that is best discussed at Wikipedia talk:Did you know? --Edward Morgan Blake (talk) 08:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
It sounds like a good idea, anyway: For instance, a day or two ago, we were working on 6-day old tags still (which we're not supposed to do) - but the second update of the day came about 5 hours late. [I'd have fixed it myself, but I was at University]. Adam Cuerden talk 08:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I've added a note over there directing interested parties to here. I checked out Template talk:Did you know before posting here, and it looked like clearly the wrong place to post. I didn't realize that there was a WT:DYK. ➪HiDrNick! 09:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't like this idea. It effectively shuts out non-admins from most of the updating process. I've just started working in this area and I've found it's something I enjoy, if it's going to be left entirely up to admins, with me having to post an "editprotected" request every time I want to experiment with even a minor tweak, then there is no longer any incentive for me to participate.

Also, in regards to the "big warning template" to post on AN/I, I'm certainly in favour of that, but then if we are going to have regular warnings on AN/I, I think the problem is largely solved in any case, because my guess is that there are generally plenty of non-admin interested parties hanging around who would be more than happy to post a "big warning template" whenever the update is 15 minutes overdue :) Gatoclass (talk) 09:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I like the idea of automating the process to ensure regularity of updating and easing the process of making Main Page changes. When DYK is delayed, it reduces the number of opportunities for new articles to make it to the main page, which is frustrating for those waiting to get on. (Also, as a new admin with a few DYKs under my belt, I'd be happy to lend a hand but at present am a little nervous about stuffing up!) However, I take Gatoclass's point about involving non-admins in selection. Why not, as now, allow non-admins to add suggestions to the update until it has been completed and is ready for the main page, and only then give it full protection? Excluding non-admins from selecting suggestions from the list of candidates and adding them to the update will in fact increase the load on admins rather than reduce it. BencherliteTalk 09:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
One thing that might be more useful is to have some way of automating the crediting. Distributing 10-30 templates throughout the project - talk pages, article pages, etc - and having to manually prepare the contents of each template is annoying. Surely it could be at least partially automated. Adam Cuerden talk 10:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
That's a good idea too. Crazy that something like that isn't automated IMO. Gatoclass (talk) 10:19, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
[Edit conflict]: Excluding non-admins from selecting suggestions from the list of candidates and adding them to the update will in fact increase the load on admins rather than reduce it. - Bencherlite
I think you are correct on the last point. I almost singlehandedly did two updates yesterday because no-one else seemed to be around, if I hadn't done so someone else - probably an admin - would have had to do the job instead.
As to "why not allow non-admins to add suggestions until it has been completed, and then protect" - might I suggest that the page be protected automatically at a certain point in the process? Let's say, the page is protected one hour before it is due to be posted. If it's not finished at that stage, an individual or bot can post the "big red warning" at ANI.
Having an auto-protect feature would not only obviate the need for manual protection, it would also let all users know exactly how long before the page was to be protected, so they could keep working to improve the update up to that point.
If there's to be an auto-protect though, might I suggest that the auto-protect also generates an auto-warning on AN/I for some admin to go and validate that the page is actually in a fit state to be posted and that it hasn't been vandalized. In that case you could dispense with the "big red warning" altogether because there would be a reminder on AN/I to check the update every six hours anyway. Gatoclass (talk) 10:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Just to take the idea a little further, you could have some sort of admin validation process to stop the update posting if no-one had checked the contents. In other words, it goes like this: an hour before the update is due, the update is auto-protected and a message generated on AN/I for someone to go and check it's okay. The admin checking that it's okay then has some sort of admin-only button he can use to inform the software the update has been checked and is good to post. If no admin hits the button by the time the update is due, the software does not post the update but instead sends another message to AN/I saying it's still waiting for confirmation. Gatoclass (talk) 10:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

  • I know this might be a dumb idea, but is there a way to have certain users given Admin powers, but restricted to DYK duties only? That way, we won't have the lags in updating and whatnot because we can have a healthy pool of admins to update as needed. (talk) 11:25, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I hate to be the knee-jerk opposition to change here, but non-admins do so much of the next update template that I'm not sure if this is a very good idea. Also, in my experience, the DYK regulars don't complain much about the next update being late. I think the regulars are used to it. Newcomers to the project often complain, but it's worth bearing in mind that "6 hours" and "5-days-old" are just arbitrary goals to keep the pressure on. Ninety percent of the time it's not a problem to have a 6-day-old hook and a template that's updated every 8 hours. Why would it be? The purpose is not rules for the sake of rules. The purpose is to get recognition and incentive for people who start good new articles instead of stubby ones. Unless the project is overlooking lots of good hooks (and this very rarely happens) then I don't think we should rejigger the mechanism. --JayHenry (talk) 15:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
It seems like a good idea in principle to me, but it needs to be unprotected. What if we got rid of the automation, but did have the pages for each update? Whoever is updating simply looks at the page history and can evaluate the edits of anyone they didn't recognize to make sure they were constructive (and make sure it was updated at all--the possibility of that mistake seems as likely as intentional vandalism). As it is, the next update template is unprotected, and is often filled by non-admins (like Gatoclass) which greatly helps the admins (and gives them valuable experience too, if they're interested in an RFA). I do like the idea of being able to plan the updates in advance, though. That seems like it might go smoother. Rigadoun (talk) 15:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
No. Technically, it is impossible. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 20:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

This wouldn't have to exclude non-admins from the process at all; in fact, the idea is to take away a lot of the load already borne here by admins. All editors would still prepare sets of hooks to go on the mainpage, they would just post completed sets to a new (unprotected) holding page where they could be reviewed by other editors until an admin comes along, verifies that the content is appropriate for the mainpage and has not been vandalized, and posts them to the end of the existing queue. Since an admin could post a few sets of these at a time, DYK would be updated like clockwork with less admin work and little change in the actual selection process used now. Basically, instead of working on the set of hooks to be posted in a few hours, you might be working on a set of hooks that would be posted in 54 hours or so. ➪HiDrNick! 18:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's fine, but it doesn't address the problem of the updates being chronically late, which is the subject of this thread. I think I'd be satisfied at this stage with auto-alerts to AN/I every six hours. If the update turns out to be not ready, then the clock can be reset from the time when the next update is posted. Gatoclass (talk) 20:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  • This doesn't strike me as a particularly good idea. DYK, unlike the other sections of the main page, has a requirement that an article needs to be created recently. That doesn't really allow to effectively use a subpage model, as the pages can only be worked on for a few days before the deadline. Additionally, having more pages requires having more pages in one's watchlist, which then allows for errors and mistakes to be harder to find. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 20:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I and a few others are working on a few ideas to get the whole process streamlined and a bot or two involved to help with the checking of articles and such. WT:DYK is a much better place for this whole conversation. spryde | talk 21:25, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Okay, how about something like this:
Create a set of 28 pages, 4 for each day of the week like
Template:Did you know/Monday/0
Template:Did you know/Monday/6
Template:Did you know/Monday/12
Template:Did you know/Monday/18
Replace the current {{Did you know}} on the main page with {{Did you know/{{CURRENTDAYNAME}}/{{#expr:{{CURRENTHOUR}}-({{CURRENTHOUR}} mod 6)}}}}
Which for Tuesday at 00:40, returns Template:Did you know/Tuesday/0. This means that the pages would only be protected when they are on the main page (through the cascading protection) and would otherwise be open to add new hooks.
To prevent people from disrupting them immediately before they get on the main page, another cascade protected page, Wikipedia:Did you know/Next hooks could be created with {{Did you know/{{#ifexpr:{{CURRENTHOUR}}>18|{{#time:l|+ 1 day}}/0|{{CURRENTDAYNAME}}/{{#expr:{{CURRENTHOUR}}-({{CURRENTHOUR}} mod 6)+6}}}}}}. The #time: function is so that it will transclude the next day's "0" hour hook if it is after 18:00. For Tuesday at 00:40, it returns Template:Did you know/Tuesday/6.
This set-up allows any user (or the templates can all be semi-protected) to make the updates and gives a six hour window before they are on the main page where they are full protected for admin review. It allows updates to be made well in advance, without creating 4 new templates every day, the old ones are simply overwritten. Except for the initial set-up and fixing any possible issues with the next update, this would not require admins at all and as the pages cycle, there is no reason to constantly create new pages and DYK people can have all 28 on their watchlist. Mr.Z-man 21:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I've created an example of what the system could look like in my userspace. See all the pages here. I created example pages for today and tomorrow (UTC), using the current hooks and the archive. Mr.Z-man 03:05, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
In principle I'm not against giving a system like this a try, but again I come back to the fact that this thread was started out of concerns regarding the chronic lateness of the updates, not the best way to organize their creation. I don't see how this proposal is going to have much impact on the former.
In regards to the proposal itself, it seems unnecessarily complex to me. If you think an update queue is a good idea, what's wrong with just allowing the next two or three updates to be listed on the same page as the current next update page? It might be worthwhile at least trying that to see if queueing is of any benefit before we start thinking of more elaborate queueing schemes. Gatoclass (talk) 10:26, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, from what I understand, the problem is that you need an admin to move the update from the update page to the protected template. With what I proposed, you really don't need an admin at all. Instead of the non-admins putting the update on a next update page and then going to ANI when no admin moves them, they put them on a page that will be transcluded onto the main page automatically at the correct time and you remove the extra step of moving them to the protected template. The only reason to go to ANI then would be if something needs to be corrected on the page that's currently on the main page or the next one. I really fail to see how automatically complaining to ANI is going to do anything more than annoy and fill up the page with DYK update requests. Mr.Z-man 15:49, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
As with Gatoclass, in principle I'm not against giving this system a try. (We should note, of course, that it's quite the opposite of streamlining.) For one thing, I don't think "Having the update done well in advance" is a goal we necessarily want to pursue. We already get complaints, sometimes pretty savage and disheartening, every time a hook doesn't get properly screened. If we reduce the amount of time on the suggestions page, we reduce the amount of screening. Having some flexibility is good. For example, there's not a lot of people around from 4-12 UCT on a Saturday. Americans are going to sleep, the Brits are just waking up, the Australians are out partying and sometimes the template doesn't get updated. With this system of locking templates, if a non-admin doesn't do it, then you have a sort of race against the clock scenario to find an admin who's willing to update the template and walk him through it before a blank DYK page goes up. Will there be an easy way to tell what hours are ready and what aren't? Other than adding 28 pages to the watchlist? I guess I still have a lot of unresolved concerns about why we're making this change. (And actually, I don't understand why we're having the discussion here instead of with the people who actually update DYK). --JayHenry (talk) 15:46, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, the current method requires an admin to do the update within a very short timeframe. The system I proposed only requires an admin if no one has prepared an update within 6 hours of it getting on the main page (and the timing for autoprotection of the next update could be adjusted as well if 6 hours is too long). Unless you get an adminbot to do the updates, there's no technical way to ensure that updates are done in a timely manner using only 1 template. The TFA, "On this day," and the POTD all use a date based template system. ITN doesn't because it is updated on an irregular basis. Mr.Z-man 16:00, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Wait a second, do I understand correctly that people have been starting ANI threads when the update is 1 or 2 hours late? If so, we can add a notice on various places explaining that this is not necessary and should not be done. Rigid six-hour updating, in my opinion at least, is not one of DYK's purposes. The purpose is to encourage the creation of good new articles (instead of forgotten stubs) through a system of recognition and eyeballs to an interesting element of the new article. Right now we're not back-logged at all, and so if the weekend updates are a little slower it actually gives hooks a little more time to be reviewed at the suggestions page. --JayHenry (talk) 17:17, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Regardless, I think there is some justification for creating multiple updates ahead of time. I could have done two or three myself in the last few hours, but I didn't because there is no place to put them. I guess I could have queued them on the "Next Update" page itself, but since I don't know the mechanics of updating, I'm not sure if that's practical.
As for people complaining about DYK being only a couple of hours late, I agree that an hour or two isn't much of a problem but only today it was more than six hours late again. A few days ago IIRC it was more than ten hours late. Gatoclass (talk) 17:56, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Coped from Wikipedia talk:Did you know:

I really think it'd speed up updating if we could come up with some way to use a bot and templates to clear the credits section, flagging up anything it can't deal with somewhere where it can be done by hand.

Here's how my ideal bot would work:

An admin reviews the prepared next update, then pushes a button. This button will only work if an admin presses it. The bot copies the prepared section to the front page template and the archive. It then goes through the credits sections, and handles all of them that are properly templated, then sets up the page ready for the nextt update, keeping only crediting work it was unable to deal with. The admin does any remaining notifications by hand, checks the next update is good, and is done. Should no admin press the button within an hour of the time it should have been, a message appears at the top of WP:ANI. How close we can get to my ideal, I do not know. But that's how I would work it in an ideal world.

In an even more ideal world, the bot could also be given a list of trusted non- admins eligible to press the button. Adam Cuerden talk 19:54, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Im going to write that bot, and Ive got some ideas that will make it even more user and non-admin friendly, along with being on time. :P Ill work on a method, and hash out the details on the DKY talk page and with DYK regulars. βcommand 17:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the current system is very good. The problem isn't filling the next update. The problem is moving that template to the main page. If you do too much ahead of time, this will take away time for hook improvment and rewriting and getting non-compliant articles to standard.

If you really want a bot, then we need to extend the deadline by 1 day to 6 days. On the early part of day 6, admin could move the next update page to the bot transfer page. There would then be 2 updates for the bot to move. Admin would still have to add to the bot page every 6 hours but with 2 updates there, there would be more leeway. Even after 12 hours, the admin could catch up and move 2 updates to the empty bot page. Chergles (talk) 19:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I think this problem will be solved in a few years. WP is growing. As there are more admins, a few of them will do DYK work. Look at some of the articles from 2004. Some of them were short stubs but are FA now. Chergles (talk) 19:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The Prisoner[edit]

Just come here for advice, really. An anon IP User: (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) edits nothing but this article, and all he ever does is remove an external link to "The Prisoner Appreciation Society", which is slightly more than the usual fanclub, as it has produced some credible analysis over the years. I am aware that there was a split in this organisation some years ago and wonder if this is somebody disgruntled. The diffs are [1], [2], [3] and [4]. I left him a notice asking for consensus here, but no reply. Now, if I ask for page protection, it is likely to be refused, because the vandalism hasn't reached the level where it would normally be applied; similarly, if I report to WP:AIV, it would not be regarded as critical enough. However, this guy will be back. Do I wait until he does it again and then report? I have tried to WP:AGF but he doesn't seem keen on talking. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 01:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

  • The Prisoner Appreciation Society has been around for long enough to build up some credible history. As such it is in my view a significant club, at least sufficient to justify a link in The Prisoner. Last time I was at Portmeirion I seem to recall that they were running the Prisoner shop at No. 6. Guy (Help!) 15:41, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
And paradoxically, the IP address resolves to Ipswich, the erstwhile, if not current, PO BOx for this organisation. Curiouser & curiouser. Be seeing you. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 16:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
IP addresses are funny things - i'd rather die than live in Ipswich! I have left comments for you on the IP address talk page as to why those edits were being made (as for some reason I could not edit yesterday). Feel free to copy them here if you wish. Just to summarise, it was agreed that the link should not be added to the article, the comments you make above are incorrect, as is Guy's response. Cheers :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rickd2007 (talkcontribs) 18:25, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

<----outdent Replied on IP talk page. Probably to nobody's satisfaction. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 23:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Somebody is messing with the webpage's format[edit]


Can somebody take a look at this page Juan Manuel López (boxer)‎ and fix whatever the hell is happening there? to be precise I'm getting a image of someone's "package" over the article, superimposed if you will and the addition of such a image is not present in the article's history so I guess a hacker is messing with the page. (talk) 16:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

There was vandalism to a template that is probably included in the article. I can't check which, as I'm at work - but I believe it might be a template associated with an olympic medal, maybe? There is a thread at WP:ANI that discusses this issue, and - if it isn't corrected by now - it will be fixed soon. I've taken the liberty of copying your report to that page, so they have additional data to fix the problem. Thanks, ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 17:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
SadPhony (talk · contribs) made a vandalous edit to Template:MedalSport that was the culprit. It was reverted by User:Edokter about 20 minutes later, the template was protected by User:Ryulong, and User:David D. blocked the vandal for a month. Andrwsc (talk) 22:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Winter Soldier 2[edit]

The above Request for Arbitration has now closed and the final decision is available at the above link. Both User:TDC and User:Xenophrenic are prohibited from editing pages related to the Winter Soldier Investigation. Should they violate this restriction, they may be blocked for the duration specified here.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee,
Anthøny 20:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:RFCU and WP:SSP results[edit]

Can an admin please take a look at Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Richprentice (see SSP case) and decide what to do with the identified socks? --EoL talk 22:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Think that's sorted. Blocked all the sock accounts indef and the main account for 72 hours - probably best to leave the IPs alone, blocks there would be fairly pointless. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 22:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

user edit summary, "Undone by Bot"[edit]

Resolved: Blocked by Scien. — xDanielx T/C\R 10:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Bot2112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam), claims "Undone by Bot" or "Undone by Wiki Bot", and appears to be IP (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
based on the recent edits on GM LS engine. Seems the contributions consist of reverting nonsense. thoughts?--Hu12 (talk) 23:25, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked based on a username violation...WP:USERNAME: "your username may be blocked if it looks like a bot username, especially names that end in 'bot'; such account names are reserved for approved bots". — Scientizzle 23:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Xeraxes reactivated[edit]

This inactive duplicate account ("sockpuppet") has been reactivated in December 2007 apparently in order to force unsound POV attitudinizing at Alexander the Great; the user history tells the story. act or not, as you see fit: I need not be contacted on this matter, as I am not involved. --Wetman (talk) 02:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see any evidence this is a disruptive WP:SPA. The article is not a recreation, I suggest you assume good faith and that this is a user that comes back after a year. Or am I missing something? -- lucasbfr talk 15:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Technical glitch that can't be reverted[edit]


I don't know if this is the place to report this kind of thing, but I can't see how to remove a certain piece of vandalism. See [5]. For some reason, the word "orgy" does not appear on the edit screen and I can't remove it. Any help here would be great. Ripberger (talk) 07:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Template vandalism. Somebody else fixed it. --Kaypoh (talk) 07:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Ah! I never would have checked the template. Thanks! Ripberger (talk) 07:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
:) --Kaypoh (talk) 07:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Selective Deletion Request: White House Phone Number[edit]

An internal White House phone number was posted in this revision of Dana Perino. This single revision should be deleted per Wikipedia:Selective deletion as it contains sensitive information. As I am not an admin, I pass this on to all of you.--CastAStone//(talk) 15:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this is warranted, the number is listed pretty much everywhere. -- lucasbfr talk 15:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Block review of User:WJH1992[edit]

WJH1992 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Hi, I would like a block reviewed. I have indef blocked User:WJH1992 for small but ongoing disruption. This user is not a vandal, but is completely uncommunicative (doesn't even use edit summaries, blanks talk page, ...), doesn't seem to listen to any advice and/or warnings, and is in general a waste of time to a number of editors. He makes many, many very small edits, all of which have to be checked because at least half of them have to be reverted, because he doesn't follow the MoS, replaces images with image missing templates, replaces correct links with links to redirects, and so on. Individually, none of these edits is worth a fuss, but when it is about over a 1,000 edits in some five months (minus more than a month he has been blocked in total so far). I'll give one example: on LDV Pilot, he has in two months time been reverted eight times by four different editors for making the exact same edit[6]. While I feel that indef for small infractions may be harsh, I see no other solution for the moment. I suggested to help him (as a kind of mentor), and pointed him to Adopt-a-User as another possibility (since I had already blocked him, so perhaps he didn't trust me or so).[7] Fram (talk) 09:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

  • I don't know, but an indefinite block sounds a little harsh. You said in a couple of your warnings that he had been making some good edits, as well, and those and the block length don't mix well, in my opinion. I think it would be better if the block is reduced to a lower time, and have someone talk to WJH (someone uninvolved, of course), see if this can be sorted out properly. Although it seems as though the patience of those who deal with him is running out, I really don't think an indefinite block is necessary at this stage. Spebi 09:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
    • If anyone uninvolved is willing to mentor WJH1992, and if WJH1992 is willing to be mentored, I have no objection to a reduction of the block or an unblocking. It's a pity to block someone who is not a clear-cut vandal, but continuing in the same way was not really an option either. Fram (talk) 10:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Indefinite sounds good, which is not "infinite", but "until the user starts to play nice with others". The user clearly acknowledged the warning and knew he was going to be blocked. If the user requests unblock and shows any promise of better behavior, unblock, but there seems little reason to believe in any specific block time. Kusma (talk) 11:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
    • With or without someone willing to mentor him, the onus is on him to promise good behavior if he's unblocked. I've looked through his entire history of edits to his own talk page, and only see two responses to warnings (he managed to get blocked not long after each, anyway). I agree this was a good time to show him the door. Someguy1221 (talk) 11:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Consider the LDV Pilot edits. The thing is that (according to the established view of English grammar at any rate) WJH1992 is right and is improving the article with those edits. All of those editors that have been reverting xem are wrong.

    Xe is applying (one view of) a rule of English grammar known as the sequence of tenses. It's a pity that we don't have an article that would explain it. (The nearest that we have is User:Schoen/Sequence of tenses.) But you and they can read about it in a large number of books on English grammar. You have blocked an editor in part for editing with the aim of correcting the grammar of articles. Further, we have several editors who are reverting attempted grammar corrections, calling them "vandalism". Those are entirely the wrong things to be happening.

    Kierant, Pyrope, and Fram, consider this a rebuke: Good faith attempts to correct the grammar of articles are not vandalism, and it is wrong of you to be treating them as such in your edit summaries and by your use of the vandalism rollback tools. This is not the first time that I've seen genuine attempts to make the encyclopaedia better rebuffed as "vandalism". Doing so is wrong. Uncle G (talk) 12:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

    • I don't think I ever called him a vandal, I explicitly started this post with "this user is not a vandal". The admin rollback tool is also allowed to use when reverting "large amounts of mistaken edits". Many of his edits were mistaken, some were apparently debatable. I don't see how the "is" version violates e.g. this. The "is" relates to a fact, a definition, while the "was" relates to an event. Mount Everest is a mountain that was first climbed by Hillary. Gondwana was a continent that was first described by someone (it doesn't exist anymore). Mona Lisa is a painting that was created by Da Vinci. Fram (talk) 14:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
    • G, you boldly stated that WJH was right and we were wrong. I do notice though, that both the examples I found when looking for "sequence of tenses", and the edits you so far have made on User:Schoen/Sequence of tenses, only indicate (logically) that "The Mini was a car that is produced in..." is inccrrect, but not that "The Mini is a car that was produced in..." is also incorrect. Fram (talk) 15:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
      • I did qualify that several times. As you can tell from xyr username alone, without even reading the potted autobiography that xe wrote, the user is still of school age. There are various lies-to-children that are told at various levels in schools about the sequence of tenses, notwithstanding the various schools of thought amongst grammarians and linguists. What this editor was doing with the grammatical changes fits a somewhat oversimplified idea of the sequence of tenses, namely that the main and subordinate verbs must agree in tense. (Several sources call it agreement of tenses rather than sequence of tenses. There was a whole discussion by scholars in the early 20th century in a journal called The Classical World as to what this grammatical feature should properly even be named, arguing about whether it is a sequence, a harmony, or an agreement. Such discussion in part hinged on arguments about the implications of each name.) The editor was aiming to correct the grammar, to be in line with what xe apparently thought to be correct grammar. As I wrote, it was an attempt to correct the grammar, made in good faith.

        By the way: Go and look at some of the things cited in the further reading section of the article and some of the many other sources on this subject. Not everyone agrees with the Columbia Guide. Some sources propound an "attracted sequence" rule and then give long tables of exceptions that don't fit it. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 17:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

        • Well, those qualifications did not seem to be in place in sentences like "All of those editors that have been reverting xem are wrong." I wonder what tense they teach the children to use for "The Mini is a car brand that was owned by a British company and is now owned by a German company"... And you didn't qualify it as "according to what they are teached at school", but "according to the established view of English grammar"... (Oh, and he is a he, no need to use those ugly constructions[8])Fram (talk) 20:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
          • They were in the sentence before, in parentheses. Since the invention of the paragraph, sentences no longer need stand lonely and forlorn. They can have other sentences to help them. ☺ And if you want to try to pry apart the established view and the view that is taught to most people, you have a hard task ahead of you. It's not simple, and it has little to do with the point that I actually made, which is that it is wrong to treat good faith attempts to correct the grammar of articles as vandalism. Uncle G (talk) 02:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I've yet to indef block anyone, rather only to place 3 months at most. Not that I'm telling you to do it, but I would unblock and re-block for 1 month. Bearian (talk) 13:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
    • And in what way would this one month block achieve what previous week and two week blocks have not? Fram (talk) 14:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
      • it would avoid the appearance of an indefinite block based on such a minor thing as quarrels of grammar. This is the sort of thing that should not be escalated, lest we appear ridiculous. DGG (talk) 18:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
        • ...and removal of perfectly licensed images, and the impossibility to have any discussion with the user, and not following the MoS (understandable when adding content, but not when you change from the correct MoS to some other version), and changing two perfect links into one bigger one that then redirects to the first of the two earlier links[9], and adding unreferenced speculation[10], and so on and so on... Focusing on one tiny aspect of this block while ignoring the overall picture could also make us appear ridiculous. But again, if anyone so critical of the block is willing to mentor, and if he is willing to be mentored, then I not only agree to a block reduction but have no problem with an immediate lifting of the block. Fram (talk) 20:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
          • Again, there's quite a large lack of assumption of good faith on your part. Changing "Brighton, East Sussex" into "Brighton, East Sussex" can easily be seen as a good faith edit. New editors seeing the vast number of U.S., Canadian, and Australian articles that use the so-called "comma convention" can well be excused inducing from those data that that style is intended to apply to all placenames in all countries. Indeed making this convention universal is a perennial proposal. Uncle G (talk) 02:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
            • Where did I assume bad faith? I am pointing out some examples of edits of WJH1992 that are not helpful and need to be reverted. I am not saying that they are vandalism or that he is deliberately making Wikipedia worse. Please read my previous comment again. The problem, as explained numerous times now, is that all his edits (and dhe makes many, many edits, without any edit summaries) have to be checked, to see if they are plainly wrong, misguided, not helpful, or (in some cases) actual improvements. I have no problem with aan editor needing guidance, advice, help, ... but this editor is not responding to anything, not even offers to mentor him or suggestions to go to adopt-a-user. He is a well-intended waste of our time. Instead of nitpicking and misreading comments, have you actually a proposal on what to do with this case? Fram (talk) 05:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I strongly sympathize with Fram here. One of the frustrating parts is that he immediately deletes criticism from his talk page rather than responds to it; you have to look at the history of his talk page, and click on every link to see just how much criticism he has received, much of it quite constructive, if only it had been reacted to. If there isn't a dedicated mentor volunteer, I will, unfortunately, have to support the indefinite block. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 18:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

This is a problem that has started to get more visibility: good-faith editors who make dubious contributions and consistently refuse to respond to all attempts to discuss those edits. This is the second one I've heard of in the last 25-30 days, & I personally have encountered one other case in the last 6 months. I hate to propose a new policy, but if this isn't covered explicitly by an existing one, then we need to either add it to one -- or create one. -- llywrch (talk) 19:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Removal of sexual abuse claims at American Boychoir School[edit]

The American Boychoir School has been the target of several claims regarding sexual abuse of students. The school's Wikipedia article reflects these claims with a variety of reliable and verifiable independent sources. There have been several attempt to remove this information over the past several weeks, all of which have been reverted. A recent edit by User:Dj Downing of the article removed all details of sexual abuse claims, noting in the edit summary that "lawsuit settled, plaintiff agrees not to post this type of information on internet. Management of The American Boychoir feels this is continuing to damage reputation of schoo[l]". Above and beyond the fact that there is no information provided to support the existence of a settlement and the fact that neither I nor Wikipedia are parties to this lawsuit, the claimed terms of the settlement do not negate the fact that reliable and verifiable independent sources support an extensive array of allegations regarding abuse that may have affected the plaintiffs involved in this alleged settlement as well as others who did not take part. As such, I reverted the content deletion and explained my actions (as I had previously) on the user's talk page, noting that even under the terms of the settlement described in the edit summary, the settlement would not wipe out the past or negate the fact that these allegations had been made in the past and that removal of sourced material from Wikipedia articles is not an acceptable practice. A Google News search finds no evidence of a settlement that would meet the description in the edit summary, though this article discusses a settlement with one individual and addresses continuing efforts at litigation by other parties. What should our stand be in this situation and how should we address potential concerns that the organization's reputation might be negatively impacted by claims made against it that are properly supported within an article. Alansohn (talk) 18:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored. I say ignore them, just make sure our sourcing is sound. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
suggest bringing to the BLP noticeboard WP:BLPNDGG (talk) 18:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  • O noes! They got sued IN A COURT OF LAW IN TRENTON, NEW JERSEY! The article looks acceptable at face value, sources are sound and as long as we pay careful attention to any comments from the school (particularly in respect of using "X stated Y" or "the court found Z" rather than necessarily stating Y and Z as fact), then I see no problem. If whitewashing continues we can protect the page. Guy (Help!) 19:01, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
You know one of these days one of the randomly inserted unsourced claims is going to be true and we are going to get hammered for ignoreing a cry for help.Geni 23:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm sure it happens all the time. Unsourced claims are just that: unsourced. That's not a judgment on their truth. Verifiability, not truth, as they say, and often much to the chagrin of people who know damn well it is the truth. Sad but probably for the best. Guy (Help!) 23:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
A cursory reading of the article seems show that the abuse section is referenced. The section does not overwhelm the article by length. It is possible that some plaintiffs (former students) signed settlement agreements. As part of the settlement, they may be prohibited from editing about the school. However, others who did not sign the agreement (such as you or me) can edit. As WPedians, we should edit responsibly. This subject should be approached with care, keeping in mind the feelings of all involved, making sure that the references are of the highest possible quality, etc. Disclaimer: I have no relation with this school. In fact, I've never heard of it before. Archtransit (talk) 00:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Hard block of a free dialup ISP for low-income users[edit]


Jimmy Wales recently forwarded an e-mail from a Wikipedia contributor to us in OTRS (ticket #2007112610017678, if any other OTRS agents want to take a look) writing in dismay that this ISP, which is his only means of home Internet access, has been hard-blocked indefinitely. It seems this ISP provides free dial-up access to many low-income individuals in Washington State; however, the ISP's entire CIDR block was hard-blocked indefinitely by Jpgordon on November 6th as an "open proxy," preventing all edits from the ISP even from logged-in users, under the justification that an abusive user could theoretically call into one of the ISP's access numbers via long-distance and use it in proxy-like fashion.

Due to the potential for abuse, I can understand why a rangeblock may be justifiable as a preventative measure - however, given the large amount of good-faith users on this network as well, I echo this contributor's concerns that a hard-block may be too heavy-handed in this instance - many users of this ISP have no other means of home Internet access available. AFAIK, the range has not been a particularly disproportionate source of abuse in relation to any other ISP. The abuse potential is also much lower than an open proxy - the costs of long distance calls aren't particularly attractive when free Internet is available at the library or Panera Bread down the street, and unlike an open proxy, which can generally provide solid anonymity, a dial-up ISP is aware of the landline phone number of every user that connects, and is thus far more equipped to respond to abuse and identify the persons responsible.

For these reasons, I would like to propose reducing the block on this range to a soft block on anonymous users only, with account creation disabled, to allow legitimate good-faith users to request an account via the usual channels and edit while logged in while still filtering out most abusive users; it seems counter to the spirit of our project and the Foundation's goals to block all users of this ISP, many of whom are low-income individuals who cannot afford other forms of home Internet access, from editing Wikipedia completely. While I have requested agreement from the blocking admin to reduce the block to AO ACB, he insisted that a hard-block on this range was consistent with community consensus, so I have decided to request input from the community here: does the community agree that the entire ISP should be hard-blocked and prevent all users of this ISP from editing Wikipedia, or would it be wiser to reduce it to a soft block so good-faith contributors can request an account and log in to edit? --krimpet 00:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Strong Support for Krimpet's proposal. Wikipedia should exist for the benefit of all, regardless of income. DuncanHill (talk) 00:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I can certainly understand the logic behind a hard block, but I think reducing this down to a soft block is appropriate given the circumstances, expecially given the request from a good fair user. Maybe block account creation to be on the safe side. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
In this case only I would support this. Prodego talk 00:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
I too agree that account creation should be blocked, as I detailed above; that way good faith users can still request an account through e.g. unblock-en-l and then log into edit, while still leaving most abusive users out in the cold. --krimpet 00:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, sounds good. DS (talk) 00:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  • At the risk of soapboxing, this is the sort of scenario where it would be really useful to have individually assignable IPblock-exempt implemented. It would allow us to hardblock IPs whilst also enabling the accounts of good faithed users to continue editing from those IPs. WjBscribe 00:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
    • I think it's something we should certainly have as an option, even if it involves going to a steward to ask for it. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
      I would have thought checkusers would be the best usergroup to be given the ability to assign the permission, as they are best placed to monitor potential need and abuse. WjBscribe 00:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
      • I don't. Too messy, too hard on users who want accounts. Prodego talk 00:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. bibliomaniac15 00:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. for proposal.--Hu12 (talk) 00:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  • How does the ISP provide access to people? --bainer (talk) 01:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
I am just curious what ISP does this range belongs to? Because whois appears to point to blue frog mobile which does not look like an ISP to me? --WinHunter (talk) 01:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
The CIDR range is indeed, registered to "US Network Services" of Seattle, WA, presumably the upstream provider of NoCharge, who is the ISP in question. (Regarding Thebainer's question: dialup.) --krimpet 02:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  • The proposal sounds good, but are you sure that that is the right range? I was thinking this was going to be about the range. Mr.Z-man 02:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree with Krimpet's assessment. Dekimasuよ! 03:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  • There's a big difference between a pure open proxy, on one hand, and an ISP with inadequate subscriber differentiation capabilities, on the other. Keep in mind that, for years, it was almost impossible to block AOL users for the same reason. Yet we didn't block AOL as an open proxy. The same applies here. We shouldn't block legitimate ISPs simply because they aggregate IP addresses in a manner we find inconvenient. AOL was much larger, and yet Wikipedia survived the vandalism and abuse that came from there. We'll survive this, too. *** Crotalus *** 04:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Agreed, particularly with Crotalus horridus's AOL analogy. Low income people have particular reason to access a free online encyclopedia since economic hardship may curtail their access to other reference sources. DurovaCharge! 05:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  • This is not "inadequate subscriber differentiation capabilities" - they don't ask for any authentication, you dial in to the local number and you're on the net, period. No account needed. It's the dialin equivalent of an open IP proxy. I don't mind the idea of taking them to AO-no-account-create blocking, but let's not create a false impression of what they do. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Even if anonymous login is allowed, it's still fundamentally an ISP and not an open proxy. It's not out of bounds to tell a user not to connect to an open proxy and to instead go directly to the Wikipedia page. It's much more unreasonable to tell them they have to switch to a different ISP in order to edit — especially when this might involve substantial inconvenience and/or financial expenditure. *** Crotalus *** 07:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I've looked through the OTRS ticket and checked some of the background here and yes, I'd support a softblock of this range, with ACB enabled. There's likely too much collateral damage here - Alison 06:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

This is another example of why the "no open proxies" rule is stupid and should be abolished. Don't forget the millions of Chinese users you are banning from Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Er, no "no open proxies" makes good sense on a number of levels, but this block seems to have been used presumably by one person running Tor or some such; I suggest we ask Jpgordon for the background. Guy (Help!) 15:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I had planned to wait and see if Jpgordon would comment, but I see he's replied several times on his own talk page. If a checkuser comes forward and reports that there is or has been significant abuse on this ISP, I could revisit things -- especially if the abuse is recent and/or ongoing -- but until some more evidence is available, I'd also favor a softer block. If account creation remains disabled, users needing help can contact unblock-en-l. – Luna Santin (talk) 06:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

There does seem to be a strong consensus from the diverse cross-section of the community discussing things here that reducing the block to AO ACB is the best option. :) Per the feedback here, and that the blocking admin has agreed to accept community consensus on this issue, I've gone ahead and reduced the block to anonymous only, account creation disabled. --krimpet 07:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Sorry if I'm putting my feet in the dish, but I think there should be no double standard between {{TOR}} (and other anonymizers) and this IP. Why should users from this ISP be allowed to edit when people having to rely on TOR for anonymity reasons aren't? Yeah I know, it is nice to have people who can't afford to use an other ISP to access the Internet here, but I guess this IP was hardblocked by jpgordon after it was abused. (And really, the Foundation should really address "Should Open Proxies be hardblocked?" one day, we definitely are unable to reach a consensus on that) -- lucasbfr talk 15:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
The more I think about it, the more I am unable to make up my mind here (I assume they are able to restrict access to their network, and keep logs), so if the OTRS ticket is convincing, why not... -- lucasbfr talk 17:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
If we're looking for a difference, I'd say the potential for abuse seems smaller on an obscure dial-up connection we can pretty easily reblock in the event of problems. I do agree, though, I'm not entirely happy with what seems to be a double-standard. A better all-around solution would be great. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

BJAODN attribution by temporary undeletion[edit]

I run one of the off-site projects that hosts a fork of BJAODN- basically, a direct copy from Wikipedia before it was deleted.

The problem is, we need to attribute the edits on each page per the GFDL, but I don't have access to the page history.

I'd like to bring a proposal to the table: undelete and userfy one page of the original BJAODN at a time, to copy down the edit histories for attribution.

My question is, would administrators be willing to do this? Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 12:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

  • The problem with the attribution of BJAODN is not with the page itself, it's with the edits that make up the page, so unless you have a way to correct this, I'm extremely reluctant to undelete it. Ryan Postlethwaite 12:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Nearly all the edits making up the page(s) were copy-and-paste from other articles. If the original articles are noted, it should be possible to find the edits that added the guff, although it isn't a job I would like to take on as it could take hours to track each one down. ➔ REDVEЯS likes kittens... and you 13:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
If Nwwaew will state that he is willing to search the records of the individual articles, then I think the admins should allow him this option. Od Mishehu 14:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
That's fair, and something which I am willing to do. Ryan Postlethwaite 14:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
As long as it's deleted after Nwwaew is finished, I don't see a problem. — Save_Us_229 16:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
My thinking would be to undelete only the page I was working with at a time, with full protection enabled on it, then delete once I'm done working with it. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me)(public computer) 00:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Admin adoptions?[edit]

Is there such a thing as a new admin being adopted by another admin? I know about WP:ADCO, but that's for "Administrator hopefuls" - what I'm looking for is an admin willing to answer my newbie-admin questions. Thoughts? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 17:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Have you tried Wikipedia:New admin school? It'll really help you learn the ropes. I guess I could also take you under my command if you want/need it? Ryan Postlethwaite 17:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Feel free to drop a line to me anytime you like and I'll do my best to answer :) - Alison 18:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
I think that you'll find that most admins are quite willing to help out with questions about adminship (including me ;) ). Personally, if I have a question or want review, I go on IRC (see WP:IRC) and ask in #wikipedia-en-admins for comments or input. Hope that helps, Nihiltres{t.l} 18:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Have you signed up for Wikipedia:IRC channels/wikipedia-en-admins>? That's a good place to contact experienced administrators. - Jehochman Talk 18:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Although that leaves you open to accusation of cabalism. If you ask your questions on-wiki, you avoid that kind of shit. Wait, that's not true; if you do it on-wiki, you get the shit upfront rather than pushing it in a wave in front of you. My advice would be to trust your judgement. You've been elected because a supermajority of others here do. Just refer your first indef block to AN, and listen to the first editor in good standing who complains about a deletion. And remember that you have protected the wrong version of whatever you protected, no matter who tells you you were wrong. Other than that, it really is no big deal. ➔ REDVEЯS likes kittens... and you 22:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Many thanks - I hadn't known about the IRC channel, so I'll check that out! And yes, I know I've protected/deleted the wrong article - I just want some guidance on how wrong I'm going to be :) Besides, there is no cabal! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 22:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Just ask whoever, they will help you out. Prodego talk 23:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
I believe that Redvers is referencing The Wrong Version. Strap on the muck boots, be willing to reverse yourself if you were wrong, and ask anyone for help. Keegantalk 05:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Restoration to different address?[edit]

Resolved: restored other subject to Frank Lowe (advertiser)Random832 00:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Versions of the article Frank Lowe up to June 22, 2007 were about an advertising executive. There was a consensus to keep in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frank Lowe, but then deleted in a prod later, which should have been invalid because prods shouldn't be used for articles previously discussed at AFD. Then, someone created the article currently at Frank Lowe, which is about a musician, which meets notability requirements and should be kept. (The log is more complicated than that because early versions of the adman's page were speedy'd per A7, and the first draft of the musician was copyvio, but both of those issues were apparently fixed.) So basically, I think the original article should be restored, but I'm not sure how to do that when there is a current article there about a different topic whose history should not be interfered with. As for where they should go, perhaps Frank Lowe should be a disambiguation page? The two people seem about equally referred to in top google searches. Rigadoun (talk) 17:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I have restored the advertising exec's article (the non-copyvio version; there was also a copyvio in that history, which remains deleted at Frank Lowe) to Frank Lowe (advertiser) - the musician remains at Frank Lowe at the moment. —Random832 00:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Please take note of User:KNM's uncivil/unethical behavior[edit]

Kindly allow me to bring to notice User:KNM's fanatic action on the page. The editor deleted a civil discussion that another user started without notifying the starter of the discussion or myself (who was also taking part in the civil discussion). I view this attempt of User:KNM as a fanatic and propagandist activity in which the editor is belittling other editors, probably because they do not comply with his/her POV. --Roadahead (talk) 18:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

You restored the discussion, registered with KNM your objection on his or her talk page, and nothing more needs to be done unless KNM persists. Why did you post this here? --Iamunknown 19:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
I noticed [[User::KNM]]'s contribution and duration of presence on Wikipedia. The editor is certainly aware of the Wikipedia policies. The fact that such an editor deleted a discussion (civil objection) and gave no notice of deletion to any of the participants shows prejudice/malicious-intent on part of the editor. Such activities (deletion without notice of objections or discussions) reflect that the editor is either not happy about the start of that discussion or has not learned from long presence on wikipedia. Both, shows wrong traits for being a constructive contributer to Wikipedia. If such traits are promoted or certain editors with such traits rise the ladders being unnoticed and become admins, they will further practice such acts severely undermining the content of Wikipedia. Hence, the report here. Thanks, --Roadahead (talk) 00:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Questionable Site with Excerpts of Wikipedia[edit]

I only found out about this because I was Googling "Fredil" in English. Ignore the parts that say Viagra, just scroll down to the yellow bar and hover your mouse over it. Fredil 19:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Nothing happens when I do that. What's your point? --Orange Mike | Talk 21:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
That's a little odd. It seems to be a copy of a Wikipedia talk page, with context that's completely irrelevant to the page, which is just a typical advertising linkfarm. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Does not work in IE (try Firefox). When hovered, it displays large chuncks of Wikipedia talk pages, just to throw off spiders. This site has come up before... long ago. EdokterTalk 21:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism of Nicholas II[edit]

The article Nicholas II had been vandalized prior to my involvement with it by User:Finneganw. He had been adding irrelevant images which only add to the page size (galleries on Gavrilo Princip,Archduke Franz Ferdinand,Kerensky,Boris Yeltsin etc). I've been kind enough to suggest that the Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and that such images which have little to do with the subject in concern only add to the article size. However, he seems to insisit that the galleries need to be in the article and continuously reverts my edits. A couple of days ago I have shown him how unreasonable it is to include such images in the article. However, I havent got a reply yet. Hence, regarding as the end of our discussion I reverted his edits. However, he seems to have reverted my edits once again and even pretends to be an administrator by threatening to block me despite the fact that he is not. I've even requested comments for the article and it has passed through all the appropriate procedure. It will be great if someone could resolve this issue.Thanks--


01:50, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I blocked for 24 hours to prevent further vandalism and edit-warring, and making points. This will allow calmer heads to settle down, and prevent any immediate messes. Bearian (talk) 02:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC) See User talk:Finneganw. Bearian (talk) 02:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Requested moves[edit]

Continuing in the same vein as the previous two threads, Wikipedia:Requested moves has been functioning with only a skeleton staff of administrators (User:Anthony Appleyard, User:GTBacchus, and me) for quite some time now. Two of our main admin closers (User:Stemonitis and User:Duja) are on extended wikibreaks. The result has been that the backlog tag has been up on RM continuously for over a month. Getting even one or two administrators to help out there would be great. GTBacchus and I have ourselves commented on several of the backlogged discussions, which makes it harder for us to close them. I'd like to have a bit more time I can spend doing real editing. Help would be much appreciated.... Dekimasuよ! 03:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I've cleared about half of them, and will pick off a few more later today. Neıl 10:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for that. It's been a big help. Dekimasuよ! 13:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Choosing to vanish[edit]

Hi everyone. I opted to join Wikipedia with my full name. Back when I joined identity theft wasn't so much of an issue and employers and the like weren't so internet savvy, so I just used my full name. Always have, always will. About 2006 I saw a respected Wikipedian change their name, amend all their sigs and move on, and thought about it to the point of contacting a crat, Essjay to sound out the process. Essjay talked me out of it. (Ironical, I know). I've mulled it over a lot since, and recently a couple of things have started to impact on me. Press coverage is greater than it was when I joined. Employers, potential employers and work colleagues are more internet savvy, identity theft is rife and my government lost a fair amount of my personal details. I've got kids at school, whose mates are internet savvy. It's becoming an issue that my name is linked to Nazi propaganda, is linked to a wide number of things. It is becoming a problem that up until recently I was the most visible person of my name on the net, and people could piece together a great deal about me. It's become a problem that people don't want to use my services. It's upsetting close family members. So I asked for a name change. And I went about clearing out references to my old name, as I have seen a number of people do. That's when people started to threaten blocks for disruption, although I am unclear as to how I am disrupting Wikipedia. I've pointed people at WP:CHU, the privacy policy on meta, prior convention and common courtesy, but people feel I need to stop. Simply put, I don't think I can. My private life is more important to me than Wikipedia, at the end of the day. I'm asking the community to allow me to change over about another 900 links to my old user name so that in time, I drop down the search engine. I'd like to think we still extend the courtesy enjoyed by other users. I like to think that do the right thing is still the goal around here. So since I've been told in no uncertain terms to come here and ask the communities input, that's what I'm doing. I'd like you to allow me to continue. I hope you will. Thanks for your time. Hiding T 23:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that's perfectly fine. bd2412 T 23:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I support your decision. I also invite you to contact me. DurovaCharge! 23:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I've seen your edits popping up on my watchlist. Once I'd worked out what you were doing, I was fine with it. Carcharoth (talk) 23:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I think generally speaking, after a name change, users shouldn't go changing every previous signature of there's to point to the new username - a redirect is sufficient. This case is obviously different, and a very legitimate reason for changing previous signatures to point to a new username. When Wikipedia first started, users were encouraged to use their real life names but this can in fact have real life implications and therefore, I fully support Steves request to carry on changing his sigs. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I support as well. I would note that the quote you were given from m:Right to vanish was selective. Further down that page (#2 under "Alternative measures"), it specifically calls out replacing signatures as acceptable in such cases. -- JLaTondre 23:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Fine by me. Though I wasn't entirely thrilled with you touching my RfA, you did support... :D. We shouldn't place unreasonable demands on those who choose to edit. And as we know, there is precedent. Prodego talk 00:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Don't have a problem with you changing the links. Though, maybe that is a good task for a bot, rather than the edits coming under your account and traceable back to you. --Aude (talk) 00:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
I suppose "Hiding" is a temporary account that will be replaced with another permanent account once those replacements are all done. Having done a lot of sockpuppet investigations myself, I would be glad to coach this editor in how to return without raising suspicions. DurovaCharge! 01:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
What, like "don't edit Mozart"? Not sure your "expertise" has that much credibility at he moment.--Docg 12:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
To pile on the previous comments, I too fully support your recent edits. You have every right to protect your privacy, and changing the links to your previous username following a username change is more than reasonable. AecisBrievenbus 01:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
No problem with that at all.--Sandahl 02:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm with ya, man. I'm sorry to hear how you were unfairly targeted by some. --Tenebrae (talk) 03:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Santa Claus: Think of the children regardless of our policies[edit]

Wikipedia:Admin coaching/Requests for Coaching - inactive?[edit]

This seems to be inactive, and seems to be quite backlogged. As someone who wouldn't mind being an administrator in the near future (6 months?) and have had a RFA recently failed, I was wondering if anyone would mind coaching me starting in a few days. I know that this place isn't exactly the best place to put such a request, but if anyone is interested in admin coaching, leave a note underneath, or if you wouldn't mind coaching me, leave a note on my talkpage. Cheers, (on a side note, theres about 60 requests on the inactive page) Davnel03 17:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Marginal notability BLP deletions[edit]

Hello, I'm crossposting this as suggested by User:Mercury. In the wake of the BLP marginal notability courtesy deletion of Angela Beesley, which is being discussed at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Angela Beesley, a discussion on this practice is underway at:

Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#Marginal notability deletions. Thanks. Lawrence Cohen 18:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Србија до Токија[edit]

I think someone should pay attention to the numerous attacks on Albanians this user has made on my talk page, calling them animals, terrorists and similar. He also called me strange, I guess that could be considered a personal attack, but I'm much more worried about the racist remarks.

All the best, --GOD OF JUSTICE 06:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for a week (for a start, next block will be much longer), warned of relevant Arbcom decisions. Fut.Perf. 07:28, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
The username is quite inflammatory; it means "Serbia to Tokyo", a 1990s militant slogan. As for the userboxes, well... (talk) 13:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Just to add to that, the username is written in Serbian Cyrillic which I think is not allowed in usernames on English Wikipedia. --GOD OF JUSTICE 21:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Not so. Wikipedia:Username#Non-Latin usernames is quite clear that they are permitted. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
What does it mean anyway? That the borders of Serbia should stretch as far as Tokyo? -- Kendrick7talk 21:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Probably. What I do know is that it was tagged on freshly razed buildings. [11] [12] (talk) 03:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
You don't know what it means, you just know it's inflammatory? Hmph. -- Kendrick7talk 00:41, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Suspicious uncivil edits to The Birthday Massacre[edit]

Resolved: Article semi-protected for five days. --Kralizec! (talk) 01:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I've noticed that The Birthday Massacre has been plagued for some time now with people making edits quibbling over what genre the band belongs to, often with no explanation, or with outright insults in the edit summary. Recently, I re-added a source that keeps getting deleted without explanation, and the editing user (a random IP) actually insulted me. Now, I'm not one to get all butthurt over someone calling me an idiot on the Internet. However, I notice that all of these abusive edits come from anonymous IPs. I became suspicious when one of those anonymous edits called the band a stupid "kiddie rock band" or something like that in the edit summary. You see, using the word "kiddie" as an insult over and over again was an old standby for a now-permablocked German user, User_talk:Diluvien. I hope someone will check this out; he has been, quite frankly, a massive nuisance on every page he's ever edited. You can recognize him by a pattern of basically just quibbling over whether or not a given band is goth or industrial, usually changing or deleting stuff without offering an explanation, or being outright abusive. Thx. --Halloween jack (talk) 00:15, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, block me, because i'm correcting wrong genres. -- (talk) 00:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
No one will block you for "correcting wrong genres." They may choose to block you for being abusive and uncivil, refusing to discuss your edits, and a long, long, long history of using sock puppets to disguise yourself and evade blocks.--Halloween jack (talk) 00:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
It certainly looks looks like we are quickly heading toward a WP:3RR issue on this article. --Kralizec! (talk) 01:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
If he is the user I'm almost certain he is (he hasn't denied it), then he's been permablocked and none of his edits are valid anyway.--Halloween jack (talk) 01:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Not much point in blocking the IPs unless they are actively engaging in vandalism. I went ahead and extended the semi-protection on this article to five days. Hopefully that will give our banned editor enough of a break to lose interest. :-) --Kralizec! (talk) 01:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Many of them are, and one actually just slung an insult at me on the article's talk page. As for losing don't know this guy. I don't know a lot about the process, but is there a way to block a range of IPs? All of this piecemeal reporting is necessarily slow, and he can make arbitrary edits faster than others can detect it and clean up the mess. --Halloween jack (talk) 04:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Overdue AfD[edit]


Sorry if this isn't the right place to post this, and sorry to be seen to be nagging ;-) but this AfD appears to have been open for eight days, rather than the customary four. Now, I know that it began during Chanukah, and the miracle was that one days'-worth of oil lasted for eight, but it's over now!! :D Thanks,Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 16:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

As you can see at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old, there's a bit of a backlog...just be patient, it'll get closed. — Scientizzle 16:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 Done Mercury 18:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 18:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Shortcuts not working?[edit]


Not sure if this is the right place to post, but it seems that several "WP" shortcuts aren't working? Maybe it's me, but WP:DPL, WP:FICT, and others shouldn't be redlinks...anybody know what's going on? Keeper | 76 22:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Appears that every link starting WP: has broken, as something is auto-substituting "Wikipedia:" for "WP:" in the search bar. No doubt someone trying to be helpful, but whoever it is, I can assure you it isn't!iridescent 22:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
(ec)They're expanding to Wikipedia:FICT and the like, even out of the search bar, and no redirect is set up at that location. The blue ones do have redirects set up. ➔ REDVEЯS likes kittens... and you 22:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
This should all be fixed soon. The [[WP:]] pseudospace is being phased out. Instead typing WP: will automatically expand to Wikipedia:. Try typing those shortcuts into the search box to confirm. WjBscribe 22:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Oh, glad it wasn't just me. Thought I was going nuts. -- Kendrick7talk 22:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I thought I was going nuts too! It's so annoying having to type Wikipedia:WikiProject EastEnders instead of WP:EE! Looking forward to it being fixed. anemoneprojectors 22:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
And now it is fixed! :) anemoneprojectors 22:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
THANKS for the quick replies, y'all. Works fine now! Keeper | 76 22:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Several aren't fixed yet. DuncanHill (talk) 22:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
They're coming. Some discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#WP:_vs_WIkipedia:. / edg 23:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


An ongoing recall discussion is location at User:Mercury/RFC. Mercury 04:01, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

James Arbuthnot[edit]

Resolved: Both sides have agreed to leave off editing the article SirFozzie (talk) 16:09, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Can someone uninvolved with the Arbuthnot Family and "The Troubles" sagas (there must be someone...) take a look at the recent changes to James Arbuthnot, with particular regards to the talk page. Because I was involved in the long-running minor flareups over the deletions of members of this family in the past, I don't really want to start dishing out blocks, protects etc in this latest installment of this long-running edit war.iridescent 18:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

this one is worth looking at for its utter trivialness. I wont say more. Consider this a spoiler warning. DGG (talk) 18:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree - not just this one but the whole Arbuthnot saga is one of the silliest things I've ever seen people get worked up over. This is possibly the least read page on Wikipedia.iridescent 19:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I tidied it up to make it marginally less attackish but, like Iridescent, it's not in anyone's interest for me to get too involved. The triviality of describing Arbuthnot's smile and voice notwithstanding, the history of animosity between the brother of James Arbuthnot (who is the main contributor to the article) and Vintagekits suggests this "promise" is more about perpetuating that personal dispute than improving the article. Despite pleas from a number of admins for both editors to leave this to those with less of an axe to grind, Vk has gone ahead with his edits. I'd also suggest anyone looking into this consider that both editors are under probation: the article falls under the provisions at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Remedies. Rockpocket 21:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Now that I had a look, I guess there is no longer any Admins who are uninvolved. If I understand this article correctly, Arbuthnot is just another Conservative back-bencher of no especial interest (as in achievements, eccentricities, or scandals) except for his voice. Does his get any play in British popular culture or media? From the few cites provided, I'd assume the opposite. -- llywrch (talk) 20:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
AFAIK, while he's obviously important enough to warrant his own article, his voice is of no particular significance (if he were a media spokesman, for example, it might be relevant). The main issue here is that — thanks to the long running feuds that Kittybrewster, the subject's brother, has been involved in, virtually everyone who'd usually edit a page like this is uninvolved.iridescent 18:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I fully agree with the comments on the pettiness of this, and with Iridescent's characterisation of it as a "long running feud". As I suggested on Kittybewster's talk page, the best solution would be an immediate article ban for both these editors, and/or probation per Arbcom Remedies 3.2. It's time for this low-rating soap opera to get the chop. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
So someone that makes referenced edits is treated the same as a edit warring, POV, OR, OWNer!!! Silly boring personality IS his main personality trait - this issue is raised in the his profile in the "Almanac of British Politics", his profile in "the Guardian" and in the article in "the Independant" and then we come on to the Rod Liddle article in "the Guardian" which specifically dealing with his boring personality as does the Simon Hoggart book "Playing to the Gallery" - so if all of these sources deal with this issue it should be raised in his wiki article - end of! Keep yer drama fer yer mama! --Vintagekits (talk) 00:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Vintagekits has now reverted to personal abuse [13], something for which he has been blocked in the past. What was the point of the huge long arbcom if only two months after its closure the protagonists are back in the same old cycle of COI editing, goading, and abuse of anyone who intervenes? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Give it a bloody rest would ya BHG - there is no personal abuse there - as I have said about you twice today you are trying to make mountains of molehills - like I said - keep yer drama fer yer mama, cos I am not interested!--Vintagekits (talk) 00:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I've had enough of this. Vk's latest threat demonstrates his edits to this article are simply antagonistic in purpose. I have given him notice that any continuation of this will result him being banned from editing the article per the probation he is under. He can squeal about bias all he likes, as there are a number of admins who have all said the same thing. Hopefully that will be the end of it, but if he wishes to continue with his little tiff with Kb by taking petty digs at his brother, then back to ArbCom we can go. Rockpocket 02:14, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
"latest threat" - god you really need to cop yourself on - step back, give yourself a good shock and get some perspective - you are acting like a wind up merchant - the was no issue until you stirred and continued to stir the pot.
I have no reason to stay off the article, I only agreed not to because Fozzie asked me to - I agreed out of respect for Fozzie - not because you said not to - when the likes of you starts trying to tell me what to do in that manner then I am not likely to take kindly to it - the issue was resolved days ago - I hadn't edited the article for 2 days, in my opinion you just wanted to create drama, if you had kept your gob shut then there wouldnt have been an issue or a problem.--Vintagekits (talk) 13:46, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
This is a clear deliberate attempt by Vintagekits to continue his feud with Kittybrewster regardless of the recent ArbCom's decisions. Was the latter a toothless tiger? David Lauder (talk) 13:12, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
  • It would appear the problem is over [14]. It would be a good idea if Kittybrewster was urged to follow VK's example and stope editing and cease acting as the custodian of the article on his own brother. Giano (talk) 13:21, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
That is surely not the principal issue here. Is Wikipedia like a Soviet birthday party where everyone gets a present? Admins have a duty to establish who is clearly at fault and address the matters at hand. Not to find everyone guilty when it plainly is not the case. There has been a deliberate disruptive editing here in someone elses area of interest and that is a breach of the ArbCom on The Troubles. David Lauder (talk) 13:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree - now what exactly have I done on the article that you take issue with? And finally do you have any opinion on Kitty's COI, OWN and edit warring on the article?--Vintagekits (talk) 13:46, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I think it would be best if all sides stepped back to their corners. VK has agreed to stay off the article in question, I have asked Kittybrewster if he would do the same due to possibilities of COI issues, and all will be well. All sides have been doing well for themselves since the ArbCom finished. Let's not backslide into that morass again, ok? SirFozzie (talk) 14:10, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Now both sides have agreed to leave off editing the aritcle, allowing a neutral article to be written, and the encyclopedia benefits. Thank you to both sides, I think we're all set here... SirFozzie (talk) 16:09, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Tweety21 (talk · contribs), a banned sockpuppeteer, is back at it. She has made a number of false claims such as that the Wikimedia Foundation shortened her ban to two months. She continues to set up abusive sockpuppet accounts, threaten legal action, falsely claim that we are releasing her private information, make personal attacks, etc. She's in ahem regular contact with the Foundation Office and has numerous OTRS tickets. A little over two months ago, she promised to leave Wikipedia permanently and had some information blanked as a result. This also turned out to be somewhat inaccurate as she resumed editing earlier this month. Best thing to do is to revert, block, and ignore. Vishal Patel at wikimedia has been handling the brunt of the office actions regarding this and several admins have been blocking the new accounts that she sets up. --Yamla (talk) 01:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

So it appears, she wasted a very rare chance to use her right to vanish after she was banned, it seems like she just wants to create drama. - Caribbean~H.Q. 01:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
It wasn't the first time, either. She's had information blanked before and immediately set up new sockpuppet accounts to continue editing. --Yamla (talk) 01:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Note that I sprotected her user talk page yesterday when I noticed the blanking, dunno if that was the right choice though... -- lucasbfr talk 12:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I have responded to her (numerous) OTRS requests on this. I think we can assume that she won't be happy in the near future. The office is also involved. Guy (Help!) 17:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Page moves by User:Redl@nds597198[edit]

Resolved: Seemed to be an isolated problem (with that article), and it has all been straightened out, and the user notified. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:34, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Redl@nds597198 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Is it just me, or do these rapid page moves strike anybody as a bit odd? I know it happened days ago, but I just noticed. Now there is a problem with at least one of these moves and I've explained that to the user here. Maybe an unauthorized bot moving the pages? Anyhow, is it really appropriate to make all of those moves, causing the problems like the one explained in the diff above? - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:30, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I can see someone moving pages at that rate manually (with a decent tabbed browser). -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 05:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, that is fine. However, that wasn't my main point. The user has caused several archive pages for those to become redlinked, and didn't bother to clean it up. - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:41, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I realize that, I'm just not in the right mood to comment on the main issue right now ;D -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 05:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Can one Wikipedian take all those pics?[edit]

All of the pics in Hyundai Genesis Coupe allegedly were taken by the same uploader and licensed under GNU. But it appears that all 4 pics seem to be taken at several different locations. I find it highly impossible that someone can go to 3 different car shows and infiltrate a possibly active harbor for these pics. Can someone double check if the pics are kosher or not? (talk) 08:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention 3 different cameras. (talk) 08:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Maybe you should ask the user who created the images first? Neıl 15:55, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Two of the pictures were deleted by Woody and SQL as copyvios, but I didn't see a note on that fellow's talk page. Was he the uploader? It could be possible he's simply a professional photographer and has multiple cameras. Lawrence Cohen 17:10, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Input on fair use guideline amendment sought[edit]

Please see Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content#Proposed_amendment_to_the_guideline. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 16:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Anonimu[edit]

This arbitration case has closed and the final decision is available at the link above. Anonimu is banned from editing Wikipedia by the Arbitration Committee for a period of one year, to run concurrently with the existing indefinite community ban. This notice is given by a Clerk on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:23, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Virtualology and Stanley L. Klos -- boon to our historical articles or just a bain of spam?[edit]

This cluster of editors, articles and websites involves multiple issues and the material added to Wikipedia may (or may not) be useful. Various aspects have been discussed ad hoc at different times but never all in one place. I'm consolidating links to various discussions and editors here in one place for review and consideration as a whole.

That's up from about 250 a week or so ago. Only a small percentage of the links are added as a side-effect of adding content to the topics; and of those a large percentage are low-quality information expressing divergent views from more well-known resources. Tedickey (talk) 18:46, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Related editors (but not necessarily sockpuppets)