Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive117

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User:Rosencomet[edit]

Rosencomet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is here primarily to promote his off-wiki interests, mainly the Starwood Festival (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and himself, Jeff Rosenbaum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). This takes the form of WP:COI editing, promoting his festival in articles on people who appear there, creating articles on people who speak there, always with links to the festival, and so on.

Per this diff [1] he is trying to excuse his COI edits by claiming that he lets others edit from his account. This, as far as I'm aware, is an absolute no-no. ArbCom seems unwilling to extend his admonition from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Starwood to a topic ban, which several editors think is necessary to rein in his self-promotion, requiring an RfC first. This will be complicated if he goes and gets another account - although it's usually not hard to spot him, he does appear to engage in large-scale solicitation.

I do not know what to do for the best here. Guy (Help!) 18:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Just warn him again about the policy, then block if he continues. Bearian (talk) 19:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
You can also possibly request protection. Bearian (talk) 19:12, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
What about restricting him to talk-page edits only (no article space edits) on topics where there is a potential COI? This was suggested as a possible remedy in the ArbCom case, and I think it can be a good compromise in some COI cases. I don't know the specifics of this one, though. MastCell Talk 19:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Pigman and Kathryn mentioned 2 RFCs but they must have meant article RFCs, as I find no prior User conduct requests for comment. Normally what should happen is that Pigman and Kathryn lay out their case, Rosencomet makes a defense, and uninvolved editors step in to comment. Ideally this will show Rosencomet how to change his behavior to fit community norms, or it will demonstrate to the community (and to Arbcom) that he edits outside of community norms and is unable or unwilling to change. Thatcher131 19:20, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
The RfCs were not formulated as user conduct RfCs on Rosencomet, but both RfCs wound up addressing his behaviour. The first was a conduct RfC brought against Mattisse by the Ekajati sock drawer, but the outside view centered on Rosencomet's behaviour: "2. All the articles in question have links to Starwood Festival and its website. Many of these links fall outside of WP:NPOV Undue Weight, overstating the importance of a performer apperance at the starwood festival. As such these links can be considered a case of WP:SPAM. The links have all been added by User:Rosencomet who is connect to the event so WP:VAIN also applies." (RfC outside view, point #2)
The second RfC was about the links, but again, as Rosencomet is the one placing them, it again addressed his COI and spamming: Talk:Starwood Festival#Request for Comment: Inserting references to Starwood Festival in articles. I also think yesterday's statement by Rosencomet, "several different folks have edited using this account;"[2] indicates a clear violation of the sock policy on Role accounts: "Role accounts, accounts which are used by multiple people, are only officially sanctioned on Wikipedia in exceptional cases. The one currently permitted role account on en: is Schwartz PR, the account for a public relations firm working with the Foundation. If you run one account with multiple users, it is likely to be blocked." - Kathryn NicDhàna 20:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Do you see my point? At least the first RFC can not be held up as a good faith attempt be the community to address concerns about his editing, not with Hanuman Das and Matisse both sockpuppeting like mad. You've raised several issues at WP:AE and I think a new user conduct RFC is the best way to proceed. You can try going straight to Arbcom if you want, or persuade some admins to lay down some restrictions without Arbcom, although the rate of success of non-Arbcom editing restrictions is mixed at best. The role editing is a different kettle of fish though and is directly addressable. Thatcher131 20:47, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
My take: sounds to me like the account has been and is being used for role account purposes, which is prohibited for several reasons including licensing. Cease and desist the role use, or the account must be blocked. Keegantalk 04:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
I already did that, as soon as someone called it to my attention. I've had nothing to do with the rest of his history. --Orange Mike | Talk 04:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Rosencomet made an unblock request and said he won't let others use his account. Thatcher unblocked him. - Kathryn NicDhàna 02:31, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, Thatcher has closed and archived the Arb enforcement discussion.[3] At this point I have to concur with Bearian. Treat Rosencomet like any user with a COI, and if he doesn't follow policies, he gets blocked. Edits to the articles he writes have spurred a re-emergence of a handful of abusive sockpuppets, but they're getting spotted and blocked pretty easily. Pigman and I posted about it over on the COI board, but there's a lot of articles involved in this; we really need more eyes on all those walled-garden articles. - Kathryn NicDhàna 03:18, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

After being warned about his COI issues many times in the past (during the RfCs, Mediations and Arbitration), and three times in the past few days[4] [5] [6] about his COI on the articles for people he hires for the Starwood festival (and whose tapes he then sells on the rosencomet.com website), Rosencomet has today gone back to work on his COI articles, adding yet more mentions of Starwood and himself (as well as reverting other editors' removal of Starwood mentions): [7] [8] [9]. I think he has been warned sufficiently and has still crossed the line. But since he's screaming about me on his talk page, I'd prefer another admin handle the block. (Or a final warning, if anyone really believes that at this point yet another warning will make a difference.) - Kathryn NicDhàna 23:54, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

LBU[edit]

Resolved
Article at AFD, agreement that if the article exists, it should be listed on the dab page --B (talk) 21:29, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Anyone who remembers user:Jason Gastrich will remember the efforts made by alumni of Louisiana Baptist University to have a redirect at LBU. A dab page has now been created, with three valid uses plus our favourite fundamental baptist diploma mill - and let's be clear, there has never been any proposed content for this page that did not contain said diploma mill. I googled this and found fewer than 800 hits for LBU -> Louisiana Baptist University, all of which were either advertisement copy, astroturfing or user-edited. I don't see any evidence that this is a widely-used initialism. I have removed it, but confidently expect Ra2007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) to dispute it. I'm noting it here because it's possible I'm being more cynical than is warranted, though I don't think so, and becasue there will be a lot of admins who remember the Gastroturfing of Louisiana Baptist "University" and its alumni. Guy (Help!) 23:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

How about LBDM? Carcharoth (talk) 23:42, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Er, but their icon/logo says "LBU" and their domain is lbu.edu.[10] This seems pretty open and shut. -- Kendrick7talk 23:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Heh! Carcharoth means Louisiana Baptist Diploma Mill, which has the merit of accuracy :-) The issue os not whether they call themselves LBU, which they do, but whether anybody else cares enough to do so, which it appears they don't, the obsessive efforts of alumni notwithstanding. Guy (Help!) 23:48, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I still like Our favourite fundamental baptist diploma mill. Daniel 23:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
It's their domain name regardless. If I got an e-mail from someputz@lbu.edu, I'd want to know who I was talking to, and I'd want wikipedia to be able tell me when I type lbu and hit "go." -- Kendrick7talk 23:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia isn't whois. The initialism doesn't appear to be used by anyone outside the "alumni". — Coren (talk) 00:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
What was the initial reason for not creating a redirect? Even if it isn't commonly used, it seems like a reasonable one to have. I guess it could be paid advertising, but if you type LBU into Google, the first hit is the school [11]. "Louisiana Baptist University" gets 59,500 g-hits. LBU and "Louisiana Baptist" gets 877, or 1.4%. By contrast, "Virginia Tech" gets 7.5 million g-hits. "Virginia Tech University", an INCORRECT name for our school that is neither an "unofficial" nor "informal" name for the school - purely an incorrect one used by people who are uninformed - gets 216K g-hits, or 2.8%. So while 800 g-hits is pretty small, proportionately, it's pretty close and "Virginia Tech University" was kept at WP:RFD nearly unanimously. --B (talk) 04:34, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
I think the more appropriate comparison is not 1.4% versus 2.8%, but 800 ghits versus 216,000. Raymond Arritt (talk) 04:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
What is the justification for keeping it off the dab page listing? It seems harmless enough there, we have plenty of dab page entries with fewer ghits, and the part about how it's a low-repute diploma mill smacks of IDONTLIKEIT. Keeping it there seems like a much better solution than a redirect. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:02, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Good lord this is petty - it does no harm whatsoever to have "Louisiana Baptist University" on the LBU dab page. It doesn't matter if "no one else calls them LBU" (untrue - the IANA do, at least, considering they granted them www.lbu.edu - see .edu), nor does it matter if it's a diploma mill, it's a disambiguation page. We have an article on a topic with the initials L-B-U, so it should be on the relevant dab page. This smacks of personal distaste for a topic swaying people into cutting off their noses to spite their faces. I've put the link back there. Neıl 11:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
The "disambiguation" page contained four items, two of which appear to be astroturfing (the diploma mill and [{Liberty Union Party]], 769 and 10 Googlehits respectively), and was proposed by Ra2007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). Guess what someone found in this user's user space? User:Ra2007/JCSM. So: looks like Gastroturfing, precisely as I said above. Guy (Help!) 14:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
As hilarious as that is, why is "Jason Gastrich wants it" a reason not to have it there? Either delete the article or list it on the dab page - one of the two. Even if it is a self-identified abbreviation, it is still an abbreviation for the school and if the article exists ought to be listed. Other than pettiness, as Neil pointed out, I'm not sure what the reason for not having it is. If the article is free advertising for a non-notable "school", delete the article. But if the "school" is notable enough for an article, it belongs on the dab page. --B (talk) 14:50, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Guy, what does that have to do with anything? Comment on the content, not the contributor, please. Agree that there's no real reason for Liberty Union Party to be there (if dabbed anywhere, you would image it should be at LUP), but I still don't see a good reason to keep Louisiana Baptist University off there other than "Guy doesn't like it". How is it astroturfing to have a functional and correct disambiguation page? Neıl 14:50, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Like I said, it's the subject of perennial POV-pushing and astroturfing, the user also created a page on Gastrich's vanity ministry, no iteration of that page has ever existed that was not used to promote the diploma mill, and Wikipedia is not supposed to be the place toi promote your diploma mill. There are fewer than 800 Google hits for LBU + "Louisiana Baptist University", and all opf them seem to be the result of alumni trying to boost the place. Well, congratulations to them, now we'll be blazing the trail on their behalf. Wikipedia rewards persistent vanity spammers, great result for the project. Guy (Help!) 16:03, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
This is insane. If the article is spam for a diploma mill, delete it. It doesn't make sense to have the article, but not the dab link. --B (talk) 16:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
If this article is supposed to be "promoting" the school, it's doing an awfully poor job of it by including extensive discussion of the school's non-accredited status. Looks more like a good snarking to me. Raymond Arritt (talk) 16:17, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree. As long as the article exists, there's no reason the dab page shouldn't point to it. Whether the article deserves to exist is an entirely different question. —Angr If you've written a quality article... 17:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Checkuser requested, by the way ... if you know of any non-stale socks that could be used for the check, feel free to add them. --B (talk) 15:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Given that they own lbu.edu it seems like an unfortunately reasonable dab to me. Of course, we should still block all LBU related crapspammers on sight. Any even suspected Gastrich sock or similar spammer should be blocked. Period. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:19, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, lets fight the right battle here. The LBU article in its present form will not be useful for advertising. We need to keep it that way unless their standards suddenly rise unexpectedly. David D. (Talk) 16:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Yup, I'm a'clicking that good ol' "watch" tab now... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raymond arritt (talkcontribs) 16:37, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the article appears to heavily dependent upon WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH on the one side, self-claims on the other. I'm concerned that many editing the content there are behaving more like promoters or consumer activists or investigative reporters than encyclopedia editors. If the institution deserves note here, secondary sources are the key. If the institution needs to be "exposed", it needs to be exposed by the published authors like Steve Levicoff (who is a good reference there), not wikipedia editors. The battle over the initials is silly. The focus is way out of whack in this "LBU" dab squabble. The initials aren't a problem at all. The problem is WP:SYNTH is ignored throughout the article, and there is way, way too much promotional-type self claims taken straight from original sources without independent references for verification. (And please folks. Snarky digs against the topic or editors set a bad example, and don't help to achieve article NPOV in any way shape or form.)Professor marginalia (talk) 17:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Correction: even Levicoff is apparently a self-published source. The article says way too much considering its very skimpy WP:RS. Professor marginalia (talk) 18:04, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

So is anyone going to nominate it for AFD? There seems to be broad support for deleting it, based on what people have said in the discussion here and at the dab, and that would get it off the dab list. —Random832 20:50, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

AWB waiting list[edit]

There are some people waiting for an admin to add them to the AWB check page.

See Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage#Requests for registration.

Please address the requests and add the page to your watchlist.

The Transhumanist 19:21, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

There are currently two users and a bot waiting for approval. How is this an important backlog that urgently needs clearing, let alone necessitating a notice here? —Kurykh 19:53, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
The instructions on the registration page state "If the list contains entries that are over 24 hours old, please mention this (nicely) at WP:AN" --Stephen 00:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
That is not an instruction for random users to check the page and report the backlog here. The instruction is meant only for a user who is awaiting access is is getting impatient. No admins should ever feel pressured to clear this backlog. If it piles up too large, it may be better to try to contact an AWB mod on their talk page or on IRC. --After Midnight 0001 16:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
The perhaps the instructions could be modified to read, "If the list contains entries that are over 24 hours old, please mention this (nicely) at WP:AN. Just don't expect people to be nice in return". Sheesh. Jeffpw (talk) 17:07, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi I've been waiting to be approved on the AWB waiting list for some time now, so this is a polite request that a nice admin person could approve this request. Thank you in advance. Jdrewitt (talk) 21:50, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Overuse of logos[edit]

Please have a look at Compact Disc and tell me wehter the use of logos there is allowed in their context, or that it is just plain overuse of logos. Over the past few months, I have removed them twice, but a Jnavas (talk · contribs) keeps putting them back in, sustaining that fair use criteria are met. I (and others) don't think so; they serve merely as a gallery, but John refuses to acknoledge the fact. See Talk:Compact Disc for the discussion. I want some objective views from other admins. EdokterTalk 21:21, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, overuse of those logos. Secret account 21:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. There really isn't a good reason to place an image of every single variation on the logos; and given that they are trademarks as well this makes fair use even more tenuous. Besides, they make the article look like crap. — Coren (talk) 21:40, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
This isn't actually an issue for admins, but I'm not really sure what every slight variation on the logos gives us. They all seem pretty bland variants of the original logo. Secretlondon (talk) 21:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
It may well turn into an admin issue if Jnavas keeps reverting their removal. It may help if others tell him why the logos are not suitable. EdokterTalk 22:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
From a purely editorial standpoint, they add nothing to the article and make for awkward formatting. Looking at the issue through the prism of WP:NFCC, their usage fails criteria #3 & #8. If you want to remove them permanently, WP:IFD may be a better fit. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 21:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
I think that we need only the main "Compact Disc Digital Audio" logo. That logo is extremely common, and its inclusion provides information that a textual description could not easily do. The rest are all unnecessary and excessive since they are non-free content. *** Crotalus *** 19:22, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Could you help me please?[edit]

Resolved: WinHunter (talk) 04:49, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello. Jerry, newbiee admin here. I speedy deleted Moon Tower as patent nonsense. The article was also nominated as Afd, but not properly, not indexed, not templated correctly. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moon Tower. I closed the AfD as speedy delete, but I don't know how to do it right. Should it just be deleted as a malformed and unnecessary AfD, or should it be templated and indexed? Thanks, JERRY talk contribs 03:01, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

The same user tagged another article, Flatout toys that needs to be speedied, but I don't know how to disposition the malformed AfD's. JERRY talk contribs 03:21, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
I've put the closure templates, I would leave it there. Snowolf How can I help? 03:39, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Another admin speedied Flatout toys, so I closed out Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flatout toys similarly to as you did the one above. Thanks. JERRY talk contribs 03:46, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
I see I missed the bottom tag. Thanks for catching that, snowolf. JERRY talk contribs 04:08, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
I would have thought that they could be deleted as there was no discussion, but that's fine. Should they be transcluded onto today's AfD log? WODUP 03:48, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
That's what I was asking when I said should it be indexed. I believe Snowolf's reply I would leave it there was a "no". nevermind he probably meant don't delete itJERRY talk contribs 03:59, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I transcluded them onto today's AfD log. Cheers, WODUP 04:12, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

The moon towers were a lighting system in Austin, Texas. I've redirected the redlink to Moonlight tower. -- Kendrick7talk 22:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Harassing[edit]

Resolved

User:Betacommand is harassing me, but reverting edits that have nothing to do with him. [12] most likely due to this and this debate. he is clearly trolling Ctjf83 talk 03:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I see neither harassment nor trolling in the diffs you provided. It looks to me like Betacommand is trying to show you which policies apply to your situation. If you have better diffs, feel free to share them, but as it is I would suggest that you read the policies he has pointed out to you. - Kathryn NicDhàna 04:16, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
it is relating to the first link...another user and i were rvting each other for the simpsons project about the inclusion of a quote. beta comes in, not having anything to do with the simpsons project, and this edit not having anything to do with pics, and just rvts me, so the other user wouldn't get a 3RR Ctjf83 talk 04:19, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
I saw a rude threating uncivil comment when a user reverted, without explanation, against the consensus of at least 2 other editors. I happen to have some simpson and other keywords on an IRC Recent changes feed. (I catch a lot of stuff with that filter) it was a standard edit. If I wanted to harass you, you would know it. this is in no way harassment, βcommand 04:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
whatever you say, u could have discussed it with us, but your sill mad from our argument earlier...but oh well, this is another one of my useless tyrants Ctjf83 talk 04:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
I see no harassment, only you having trouble getting up to speed on an important but labyrinthine policy. You have also been sniping at Betacommand for a while on multiple places for a while now, and it stops here. BC's hard work on images and their surrounding issues is not a license for you to continually make querulous complaints in an attempt to paint him as the village scapegoat. east.718 at 04:32, December 21, 2007
Ctjf83, do I read you correctly, and are you calling Betacommand a "useless tyrant"? - Kathryn NicDhàna 04:40, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

no you didnt not...it is my bad vocabulary...i meant tirade...but i'll rephrase it..."one of my useless bitch fests" Ctjf83 talk 04:44, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

but just put the {{resolved}} template, i'll be the adult and ignore him Ctjf83 talk 04:46, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Ignore someone helping you to understand policy and improving the encyclopedia? Thank God you're doing the mature thing. Once again, Betacommand makes the encyclopedia more free, and someone hates him for it. J Milburn (talk) 15:02, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
We know, Betacommand can do no wrong. Carry on. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 15:12, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
I hardly think him deleting pics improves anything Ctjf83 talk 19:46, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Betacommand doesn't delete images, as he's not an admin. Acalamari 20:11, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

from the articles i mean Ctjf83 talk 20:51, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Betacommand has contributed more than any other editor to applying image related policies, so remember that he knows a lot about it now, and is unlikely to be wrong or doing it for the fun of trolling anyone. He often removes images from articles, and is almost always right in doing so as far as I can see. Even faced with people reporting him here every other week he remains calm, and doesn't give up, + his bot does an excellent job and despite what some users may think has a very low error rate from what I've seen. I honestly don't think he is targeting you in particular, he just happened to notice the topic and tried to help out, by enforcing the policy that consensus decided upon. Note that there is also a strong consensus to forcefully apply policy if needed. Jackaranga (talk) 22:50, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Good article nominations[edit]

Just letting you guys know that there is a backlog of 229 articles over there. Davnel03 09:38, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Anybody can review GAs. This doesn't really need urgent administrative action. east.718 at 10:01, December 21, 2007
This is a good place to announce a backlog. Many editors watch this board, not just administrators. You might also try the village pump. - Jehochman Talk 10:03, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
I suggest the village pump next time for this. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 10:11, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
WP:GAC has been backlogged since time began, a periodical announcement of this isn't really necessary... Anthøny 18:46, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

IfD discussion due for closure[edit]

Resolved: IfD has been closed. 18:42, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Can someone close Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 December 15#Image:DW Fear Her.jpg? This IfD has some quite heavy discussion, so I appriciate a specialist having a look at is. EdokterTalk 14:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

 Done, by Uncle G (talk · contribs). Anthøny 18:42, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Cut and paste move[edit]

I noticed that the discussion page for the third AfD for a, now deleted, article had been placed over the first Afd Discussion - See [13]. As I think it's important to be able to keep and view all such discussions for future reference I reverted the page bck to the original discussion ([14]), created a new, approproately titled page and copy-pasted in the information from the new discussion (See the new page here). As the original page was going to stay in place and their was no talk page I didn't really consider this to be a typical - and so discouraged - copy-paste move. Now however I think I may have acted hastely and incorrectly, would it be possible for someone to clear up the mess and fix it so that an appropriate page history is viewable at both locations. Sorry for the trouble. [[Guest9999 (talk) 16:02, 21 December 2007 (UTC)]]

The history is split and merged appropriately, now. Although I notice there doesn't seem to be a Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Differences between book and film versions of Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (2nd nomination)? If not, the 3rd could possibly be moved to that location (which anybody can do, now that the history is arranged correctly). – Luna Santin (talk) 19:48, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the help, the second nomination was as part of a group under a different title: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harry Potter film/book differences (2nd nomination). [[Guest9999 (talk) 01:45, 22 December 2007 (UTC)]]

Expungement?[edit]

Is there, or does anyone imagine there will ever be, a method in which one may go about expunging previous blocks from their record? I have a 3RR block on my record, something which I am seriously not proud of. I will admit at time I didn't realize I had gone over 3RR and honestly thought I was reverting in good faith. Be that as it may, might there be some mechanism for minor violations like these to be removed from one's record? It can potentially derail a future RfA. Bstone (talk) 18:42, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Logistically, no: the only method one can scrub a block log is by being renamed (or usurped). Fundamentally, I disagree: transparency is important on any community, and removing a block log entry because "it makes you look bad" really isn't an acceptable reason for dodging that transparency requirement. Furthermore, if you are requesting adminship from the community, you will get it on the basis of how trustworthy you are, and whether or not you will use your tools; a block log entry, even if its effect is negative, must come into that process, unfortunately, whether you like it or not. Anthøny 18:45, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
And don't try to hide it. - Rjd0060 (talk) 18:54, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
What's that supposed to mean? Bstone (talk) 18:57, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Don't try to hide the fact that you've been blocked (ie: by a usurption), as that really will "derail" a future RfA. Essentially, I am just saying I agree what Anthony said above. - Rjd0060 (talk) 19:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Heck, I was indefblocked as a vandal at some point, and I seem to do fine. There might be a few people who would blindly rush to conclusions based on a single 12-hour block from several months ago (whenever you plan your RfA), but I'd like to think the far more important consideration is what you learned from that event, and how you've applied that lesson to your behavior around the wiki since then. We shouldn't expect people to be perfect. – Luna Santin (talk) 19:41, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Expungement of block logs has happened only once, and I hope the circumstances surrounding that time never occur again. east.718 at 20:09, December 21, 2007
I'm aware of at least one case where a user requested renaming, after a serious dustup, and in the renaming process severed any and all available link to his previous block log. Whether any link to prior blocks exists after renaming, or whether you get a clean slate, is apparently up to the bureaucrat who handles the request, but in at least some cases it appears to essentially expunge a block log. MastCell Talk 23:56, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

You musn't worry, Bstone. When you go up for RfA, people won't oppose for one 3RR block. They look at when you were blocked, why you were blocked, and more than that, what you have done since. Now, if you were a persistent edit warrior, there'd be a problem. However, it doesn't appear that way. Expungement is only for cases where we must oversight the block. Maser (Talk!) 20:27, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I wouldn't worry about a single 3RR block very much. Far more worrisome was your taunting of another editor on your user page, and your repeated complaints of "vandalism" when I removed it. Friday (talk) 20:38, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Wow, Friday, talk about a completely inappropriate time and place to bring up accusations. I really don't know what to say or how to respond. Bstone (talk) 20:46, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
You're specifically asking about this in the context of passing an RFA. I gotta be honest here, if you ran, I would oppose based on that incident. Friday (talk) 20:49, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
No, I was asking if it was possible to have previous blocks expunged. I merely mentioned how it might work in an RfA. Friday, I really don't wish to converse with you as it only ends up in dispute and personal debate. While I have no way in forcing you to do this perhaps you can at least respect my wishes. Thank you. Bstone (talk) 20:51, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Sorry to but in, but you did ask about expunged blocks because of a future RfA (at least that is how you worded your original comment). Friday may have been blunt, but I agree with him on that issue he has pointed out. Talk about beans. I am sure you'd like to know how to improve your chances of a successful RfA, no? - Rjd0060 (talk) 20:54, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Hey, nobody's perfect. I heard a rumour admins make mistakes occasionally, but I can't believe that. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 21:50, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
You aer korrect - Admeens are inkaparable of makn misteaks. I shud no! LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:03, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
I think we're chewing up and spitting out any admins who are capable of making mistakes, so soon we'll be left with only infallible admins, right? MastCell Talk 23:52, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Alternatively you could wait 4-5 years or so for it to fade of the face of the encyclopedia. This editor was banned in 2003, but it seems old logs disappear after a while and they need to be placed back in the logs. I'm guessing that would be your only shot at it actually being removed from the log history. — Save_Us_229 23:38, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

No, that won't work. They simply weren't logged before December 2004 in the way we imagine now. Blocks from November 2003 to December 2004 can be found at Wikipedia:Block log and blocks before that needed someone with direct access to the servers. Anyway all logs are available for download along with the Wikipedia database, so someone could back them up. Graham87 05:45, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

You're making too much of this. Many of our best editors and admins have been blocked for 3RR at some point. If you had multiple such blocks it might cause for concern, but you don't, so it isn't. Raymond Arritt (talk) 00:00, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

No big deal, as they say. I make mistakes all the time. :-) We need more sysop closing discussions at WP:AFD anyway. Bearian (talk) 01:29, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Another thing, which I am not sure if it was pointed out; if the account is renamed, the people who perform the moves can have the ability to block for one second to show a previous block history. So even if you want to hide from the block log, there is no way to do it now. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 05:56, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Actually, blocks can be completely expunged, but it requires a developer to manually delete the rows from the logging table (and you'd probably need some oversighting on your talk page to remove all the evidence), but you would need a really good reason for it to be done. Mr.Z-man 06:31, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Closing of discussion[edit]

Will someone come close this merge discussion? It's been about a month since it started, and since I was the one who started it, it would be best for someone else to close it. Thanks! ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:18, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I've closed the discussion as merge. There is a majority in support, and while statistics alone cannot be the indicator of consensus, they assisted in getting to it. The reason is that the supporters are arguing that the article has a section that deals with prostitution and that "Geesha" is an intentional mispronounciation of "Geisha," and while the two are separate topics, they were viewed to be related in the section that discusses prostitution. The opposers, on the other hand, were simply stating that the two are separate, but did not verify these claims. Difficult consensus. Maser (Talk!) 01:50, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Not so much an intentional mispronunciation, but rather an uninformed or "misheard" mispronunciation. That happens a lot with Japanese words being pronounced by non-Japanese. (^_^) ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:15, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Malfunctioning Bot (ImageBacklogBot)[edit]

Resolved: Bot triggered due to FU images being used in template space by accident. Will (talk) 01:54, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

The bot ImageBacklogBot has removed various Fair use images that, in my opinion, were used legitimately in articles. See here. I'll leave a notice on the bot's talk page, but the bot maintainer wants me to go through a convoluted registration process that I don't have time for to tell him about it, so I'm mentioning it here too. If those images are not speedily undeleted, I'll probably take it to DRV if I get around to it. 98.16.161.161 (talk) 01:47, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. See resolved note above. Will (talk) 01:54, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Articles erroneously listed in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion a glitch?[edit]

Resolved: Inadvertant transclusion of CSD category to pages that linked to a template. Protected and semi-protected pages required a null edit to force the server cache update.

JERRY talk contribs 04:08, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Jerry, newbiee admin here. Sometimes there are articles on the category candidates for speedy deletion project page that I just can not figure out why they are there, or how to get them off. The articles themselves are not, and have never been tagged. I checked all transcluded templates, etc... and I still don't know why they are there. I have purged the page, and <ctrl>F5'd my MSIE, but they stay stuck there. A current example is Big Syke. Anyone know why this happens? Is it just on my end? Thanks. JERRY talk contribs 03:55, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Template:Thug Life seems to be the issue here, but the problem is solved now. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 03:59, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
    • (blush)... it was one of the things I checked for, but somehow missed. Thanks... I would not have slept until I knew why it was there. JERRY talk contribs 04:01, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
      • Yes, was going to point out that template had a CSD tag for a while. It's one of the few non-protected templates on the page. Occasionally there are also .js pages, which typically happen because some string intended for an edit summary or tooltip contains {{delete}} or similar. Gimmetrow 04:04, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
        • The Thug Life-related pages are still showing up in CAT:CSD. I've refreshed a few times, no dice in getting rid of them. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:07, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
          • Cache-purge is your best option. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 04:09, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
            • Still a problem. I have server-purge-cache'd all of the transcluded items, the article, and Category:CSD. Thug Life-related articles remain listed. JERRY talk contribs 04:16, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
              • I see it still on my side...hmm...maybe just a DB lag, I don't know. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 04:19, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
                • Sometimes, it seems semi-protected and protected pages need a null edit to nudge the caching to update. Gimmetrow 04:24, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Fixed now. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:27, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

JoshuaZ and Daniel Brandt[edit]

At the recent DRV of Daniel Brandt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), it was decided that the deletion of the redirect was to be overturned, but the moving of the editting history of the article was placed at Talk:Public Information Research/merged material (which was itself a redirect last week) was not determined to be overturned or endorsed at the DRV discussion. This was the status quo until JoshuaZ (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) replaced all of the editing history of the article back in its original title and then restored all of the history of the title. JoshuaZ has restored the editing history of the article three separate times. JoshuaZ has argued that this is a necessity for keeping the GFDL requirements in place for the article, but as it stands it has been decided at DRV [insert number] that the content of Daniel Brandt be solely a redirect, which is what the closing admin (Xoloz) had done to the content of the page as it had been deleted.

The issue stands that JoshuaZ has had more than his share in undeleting a very controversial page that has had a lot of deletions and undeletions. I am unsure as this can be construed as wheel warring, but I am fairly certain that several administrators in that delete log have been desysopped for their actions in conjunction with the deletion and undeletion of the article (Geni and Yanksox, in particular, were desysoped solely because of the wheel war at Daniel Brandt). I will notify JoshuaZ of this discussion so he may state his part.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, Talk:Public Information Research/merged material is now a simple text dump of the history, which is enough to satisfy the GFDL without making available any potentially libelous/contentious/whatever-adjective material. —Random832 04:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
For various reasons no it isn't.Geni 18:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I simply do not understand the purpose of restoring the history of the article. Keeping it as a redirect to Public Information Research is a rational decision, even if some disagree, and was the decision at Wikipedia:DRV#9_December_2007. However what is the purpose of restoring all the article history? That perpetuates the problematic material that was the subject of the June AfD and DRV that resulted in the merge in the first place. GFDL? Redirects don't need a complicated history for GFDL purposes. Joshua also cites Previous breaks many links to by people linking to difs of this article in the archive and makes it hard to find. Well, shit, every deletion breaks a link somewhere, let's never delete anything! If someone has a link to Daniel Brandt and we have chosen to delete it (for whatever reason) then the link should be broken. This latest restoration is completely unexplicable to me. Thatcher131 04:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Timeline
  • 19:58, 14 June 2007 JoshuaZ ( restored "Daniel Brandt" ‎ (2,667 revisions restored)
    • This overturned the AfD closure by A Man in Black without DRV; DRV later endorsed the closure.
  • 03:13, 10 December 2007 JoshuaZ restored "Daniel Brandt" ‎ (2,674 revisions restored: Out of policy deletion, against previous compromise and consensus,and violation of the GFDL. Restoring)
    • This restoration overturned Doc Glasgow's deletion of the redirect in violation of the BLP policy which mandates that BLP deletions must not be overturned without consensus. DRV reversed the deletion on Dec 14, keeping Daniel Brandt] as a redirect but said nothing about the history.
  • 7:45, 14 December 2007 JoshuaZ deleted "Daniel Brandt" in order to move the history back over the redirect, then he protected it.


There is no pressing need to maintain a history of potentially libelous information. The history should be deleted again and reverted to the status quo as of June. east.718 at 04:53, December 18, 2007
  • Joshua is simply mistaken about GFDL. As long as the history is clear, it doesn't matter where it is. See Wikipedia:Merge and delete for a full discussion. If there is indeed a GFDL problem the history could be moved to a subpage, or--I think this would be best--the list of usernames and dates could be copied to a subpage, and the history itself deleted. Chick Bowen 04:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict) I agree that there was no need to restore the history. Broken links aren't exactly a reason to do so, and GFDL concerns here are fairly minimal, particularly if the history contains content that some (including the subject) consider libelous. Dumping the history to a subpage (maybe removing edit summaries) might be the best idea to satisfy whatever GFDL concerns might be there, as Random832 seems to have done. --Coredesat 04:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
      • Yep, names and dates, that's all that's needed. Chick Bowen 04:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Try again. And this time really read the GFDL.Geni 18:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The status quo between June 2007 and the 1 December deletion by Doc was an undeleted history (per the log). The move of the history to another page took place only after Doc's 1 December deletion was questioned. We should keep that in mind when we talk about the status quo of the article. Another deletion would probably mean another DRV, not that that is a problem. I just wanted to note that there has never been a deletion discussion that resulted in the decision to delete the entire history. Something to ponder. NoSeptember 05:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

As NoSeptember says, there was no consensus to delete the history. And as I explained earlier, doing so breaks the spirit and possibly the letter of the GFDL. There's no content in the history that the subject considers libelous. All such content has been oversighted. The DRV closer specifically had no objection to this, and the DRV restored the status quo more or less- so the status quo is as we have had for sometime, the history is there. Unecessary deletion of histories that breaks literally hundreds of links simply damages are transparency and accomplishes nothing else. JoshuaZ (talk) 05:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The GFDL is not intended to and should not impinge on our editorial discretion. If there are editorial reasons to keep it, fine. But the GFDL issue is not a big deal. Chick Bowen 05:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
The GFDL is most certainly intended to infringe on your editorial discretion. You can no more use editorial discretion to ignore the requirements of the GFDL than you can to ignore copyright law. Fortunately, I don't think deleting past revisions is a violation of the letter of the GFDL, though it certainly seems to be a violation of its spirit. (It wasn't really designed to be used in the way Wikipedia does.) - makomk (talk) 15:01, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
It is a violation of the GFDL however since most people have never really read it and made a solid effort of understanding it I doubt many people would get all the reasons why.Geni 18:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I've re-deleted it, as per the reasons Doc, Alkivar, and Dmcdevit deleted it before. There is wide acceptance that the GFDL is already satisfied by the history on the talk subpage; GFDL compliance is not a reason to restore fragile BLP material. --krimpet 05:47, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Is this really happening? Do we have to have controversy over this again? Deleted histories are still kept in the database and are available by administrators willing to provide them. This s compliant with the GFDL. Oversight is a different issue. But I'm preaching to the choir; these are things we all know.

Why wikilawyer all of this? This question is for both sides.

We can policy wonk this until the cows come home, the foundation runs out of cash, the internet es'plodes, or our motherboards burn themselves out with the kilobytes of typing. If you want to provide the Brandt history to users interested, make yourself available. Let us not get into this for the nth time. Sleeping dogs should lie, this discussion does not serve the principles of our project in a positive manner. Keegantalk 06:02, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The entire history has been deleted? WTF? That certainly did not have community consensus. -- Ned Scott 11:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:BLP#Disputed_deletions, deletions of biographies citing BLP concerns do not need consensus but undeletions do. Perhaps you would care to explain how concerns about BLP (including unfairness to the subject, undue weight regarding single negative incidents, possible libel, etc) are served by keeping the history. Would you be in favor of retaining the history of any deleted biography, or just this one? Thatcher131 11:44, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
"BLP concerns" do not extend to deleting the entire history of an article because Daniel Brandt doesn't like people talking about him. Merge was the result of the last AfD, and most everyone involved were under the impression that the article history was never in danger of total deletion. Problematic revisions can be removed, as cited by the deleting admin. -- Ned Scott 11:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 December 18#Daniel Brandt. -- Ned Scott 11:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Now at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Daniel Brandt 3. It's going to need it eventually anyway, so I figured it made sense to go ahead and set up the subpage. —Random832 16:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Can someone explain how deleting the history violates the GFDL? My impression was that only the history section itself (names, date, and edit summaries) was required, not the revisions themselves; this is, as far as I know, routinely done for moving images to Commons. —Random832 13:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it does, but you may also have to include
(The line above starting "I don't think it does..." wasn't by me). If this goes much further I can foresee arbitration looming, and you don't need a crystal ball to see how that would go. Please let this die. --Tony Sidaway 16:42, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
The reason is that when the GFDL was put together no one really thought about what the phrases used really meant. In this case the killer is "Preserve the section Entitled "History", Preserve its Title," A couple of other elements of the GFDL means that the history section has to stay under the name of history. There are other issues but those are the simple ones.Geni 18:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but you can probably handle that by simply labeling the top "History of X" or "blah blah blah (History)". In any event, the matter is now at DRV. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Nope. Remeber in order to get your head around how the GFDL you have to view each article as in effect a collection of books. Kinda messy.Geni 23:12, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Just another reminder, the GFDL was not the concern for the new DRV. What we have here is something that failed to get a consensus to delete, so it was merged, and then black-door deleted during the redirect fiasco. That's gaming the system, and it's unacceptable. -- Ned Scott 01:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Can someone pretend that I have no clue regarding Wikipedia, Brandt, etc., and explain what the biggie is here? There's much sound and fury, but there's little substance. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 01:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Assuming you understand our concept of AfD, and community consensus, and BLP issues: The community holds several discussions regarding if something should be kept or removed. The last big discussion on it, someone decided to "kinda keep it". The argument to delete it did not gain sufficient support. Another admin thought we should delete the redirect that resulted from the merge, but moved the page history to another page so that it would be kept (the page history is what the actual article is, the title is just a title). The community saw this and thought it was wrong, and took it to DRV, where it was shown that it was indeed wrong. We expected to see things back how they were, but other users felt they could take advantage of the situation. During all this, the page history that we were all told was not going to be deleted got deleted anyways. Even though the argument to delete it, when presented to the open community, failed. No one really noticed this right away, because we were already talking about restoring it to how it was with the old title anyways, so it's not like it mattered, because the DRV overturned the deletion. But other users, who disagree with these outcomes, are manipulating the situation so that the article gets deleted anyways. I don't care what article it is, that level of manipulation is simply not acceptable, not by anyone. -- Ned Scott 04:46, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
"Pretend that I have no clue" doesn't mean "be condescending" (see first sentence above). Anyway, it seems to me that there's a bit of an interpretation issue regarding the DRV, GFDL, BLP, etc., which is rather common. Rather than Ryulong making big chest-beating sounds about it, a simple discussion would likely have sufficed. (Interesting how much trouble Brandt has caused and continues to cause even indirectly.) In any case, I dislike the removal of page histories -- it reminds me too much of 1984.
BTW, if you want to see manipulation in full bloom (and the Nrandt article ain't it) hang around the image deletion pages.
Finally, as Tony said above -- let this die. Move along, time for a new horse to flog. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 10:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, my intention was not to be condescending, but to simply present the situation in a hypothetical "if one didn't know" kind of way. -- Ned Scott 09:21, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Banned users question[edit]

Guess I misplaced this question. Your input is appreciated. - Rjd0060 (talk) 19:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I am copying the question here:

If a user is banned, or indefinitely blocked (and there is absolutely no chance the user will become unblocked), are their subpages (talk page archives, sandbox, etc..) going to be deleted? - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Usually yes. If the user is indef-blocked for vandalism or sock puppetry or other blatant violations of policy, his userpages are deleted as part of Wikipedia:Deny recognition and Wikipedia:Revert, block, ignore. See also Category:Temporary Wikipedian userpages. There are cases in which the userpage can be kept. Shalom (HelloPeace) 20:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
The status quo is that when a user if normally indef-blocked, all pages in the account's userspace are deleted. If the user is a blocked sock, a page is preserved with the appropriate notice of sockpuppetry. If a user is banned, the user page and talk pages are normally preserved with the appropriate templates (the talk page is preserved for reference). Of course, in some cases, the m:Right To Vanish is invoked. This isn't instruction creep, just merely an observation of current practice. —Kurykh 20:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
There are some pages from indef banned user Kirbytime if anyone would like to delete these. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt57 (talkcontribs) 20:32, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. DrKiernan (talk) 08:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Would a list of pages out there be something a bot could do? I'd imagine a bot could easily "check indefinitely blocked user pages, see if other pages exists, list the user name." -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't really think having a bot do it would be a good idea. The reason is, we have to make extra sure that the user is not returning. That would mean a rejected unblock request, if the user wasn't officially "banned". - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:51, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
I just meant a list being created; would it be a bot or just a generic program, something, what's the term? From there, admins could decide. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:58, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Sorry. After re-reading your comment, I understand what you mean. Maybe a bot to categorize (is that the term you were looking for?) all the pages / subpages of blocked indef/banned users. Good idea! - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:19, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
I really just meant someone to create a list of the page/subpages. It wouldn't be a bot per se, but just a list created. That way, people could check it and strike names out that shouldn't be deleted yet. I worry about a category as to what to do for ones that aren't appropriate. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:45, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

A bot was proposed for this, but was rejected. It needs human thought and assessment to pick up the pages that actually document useful stuff for the encyclopedia. Some "good" editors turn "bad", but (unless they invoke 'right to vanish') there is no need to clear out the good pages that existed before they went "bad". For this purpose, replacing the userpage with "indef blocked" or "banned" is not helpful. Adding a notice at the top of the page is better. Consider User:Giano II (this example used as an extreme example and due to recent comments made by Jimbo). Even if something happened in future and the user was banned, I would strongly object to replacing the page with an indef blocked template, putting in the "temoporary Wikipedians" category, and seeing the user page and its subpages deleted. I'm sure others would object as well. There is a spectrum, and the reasons for deletion depend on the reason for blocking or banning. Sometimes those carrying out the blocking or banning use the wrong template, and that causes problems further down the line. If the editor was always "bad" (vandal, troll, etc) then the indef blocked template and page deletions are usually appropriate. For borderline cases, "|category=" can be added to the template to prevent the page ending up in the "temporary wikipedians" category. These would be cases where someone thinks preserving the pages is worthwhile, or where the user might be unbanned and unblocked in future (relying on being able to restore deleted pages is not good practice - better to get it right first time round). Carcharoth (talk) 09:30, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Edit Warring on Peter Yarrow Page[edit]

Resolved

Page has been protected by User:LaraLove -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:57, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


I whole lotta people worked out consensus language on Yarrow's conviction, incarceration and eventual grant of clemency.

Two days later a single editor started unilaterally changing the page.

Please read the history of the article and its talk page. David in DC (talk) 02:09, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Note, per above, this noticeboard is NOT for content disputes, so I'm going to close this. If the user continues to be disruptive, then start by going through any of the options at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution before coming here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:57, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Did You Know needs updating[edit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Did_you_know/Next_update is 6 hours overdue.--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 10:49, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Done, thanks for the note. Daniel 11:30, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Supparluca[edit]

In regards to Category:South Tyrol, I received a notification on my talk page from Chris - It seems that Supparluca emptied and redirected Category:South Tyrol despite consensus at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 November 28#Category:South Tyrol to leave it alone. This, in itself, should be punished - IMHO. Rarelibra (talk) 17:14, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

School Threat[edit]

Resolved: Drama has subsided; authorities notified, and peasants are merrymaking after the storm

58.109.120.73 made a treat this morning (their only contribution) against a school in Australia. Is it practice to make notification to the school administration regarding threats such as these? Brianga (talk) 10:22, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Since this is an overt threat, somebody familiar with Australia who can identify the city should contact the police. - Jehochman Talk 10:36, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
The school is located in Victoria, Australia. Telephone is (03) 9430 5111, email is info AT elthamhs DOT vic DOT edu DOT au. The police phone number is (03) 9247 6666. Who wants to call? --Haemo (talk) 10:43, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Could do with notifying the foundation and possibly User:Mike Godwin via e-mail. Pedro :  Chat  11:04, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
I think this needs an immediate response. I am not capable of calling Australia right now, tho. Brianga (talk) 11:13, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh for goodness sake, this is schoolboy vandalism. Ignore it.--Docg 11:30, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

That's what I think too, but I went ahead and asked for any active Australians an the mailing list so that we can at least say we tried. John Reaves 11:34, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo has repeatedly said that issues like this are to be taken seriously. What should be done is an LEA decision, not ours, and this applies equally to suicide threats. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 11:43, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I can't believe this thread. The threat is ridiculous and anyone contacting the school is being a melodramatic fool. There's thousands of these type of thing every day. Forget it and move on. --Docg 12:00, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
You might not say that if there was another school massacre. Seraphim Whipp 12:05, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Or if you'd seen Jimbo's interventions in previous cases. Not our decision. Period. End of. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 12:10, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Get a grip. This is just silly now.--Docg 12:13, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Jimbo's view is that, yes, it may be silly. But it's also a criminal offence. I've seen similar cases here where the FBI have been involved. Now, do you want to take responsibility for the headline "Wikipedia fails to prevent school massacre"? Hmmm? --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 12:18, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
(ec)So, phone the school and say "hey, some anonymous person blanked your article with a threat to hunt down and kill every single one of your pupils in some unspecified way - they implied they wanted to warn you by being one of the millions of people who vandalise us every day. Actually, we get stuff like this routinely on wikipedia mostly by 12 year old trolls. Mainly we ignore it but, in this case, we thought you'd want to know....(click)"--Docg 12:29, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Agree that it's almost certainly unnecessary and commonsense says 99 out of 100 times it's a childish post. Also underline "almost". As far as I know, WP practice is we do take such statements seriously, regardless, and let the school or lEA know. They're not naive either; a school or LEA that sees that will often say "thanks for letting us know" and then make their own decision if it's childish or not. But that's their choice, not ours. And email, not phone. FT2 (Talk | email) 12:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I'd love to know what qualifies DocGlasgow to assess this type of risk. The school and their local law enforcement agencies will have people trained to make appropriate risk assessments. In a country like Australia they are likely to have already developed protocols for dealing with threats of this nature - if we do not tell them, then we deprive them of the ability to make their own judgment. If we do tell them, they can assess the situation and take whatever further action they deem appropriate. DuncanHill (talk) 12:41, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Qualified or not, we have to do some limited assessment. We get thousands of silly "die scum" vandalism every month - should we report every one? When someone blanks George W. Bush with "I'll do this asshole in", do we run to the FBI? (We're not 'qualified' to say he isn't the next Lee Harvey Oswald are we?) Certainly, some threats should be reported. But whether you think this one should or should not, you are making some for of assessment, unless you are seriously suggesting we report every one? That would need a wikiproject in itself.--Docg 13:06, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
      • Really lousy example - Bush has the Secret Service to take care of him - and I suspect the FBI and the CIA and the NSA and others have lots of very clever tools to detect threats to his person. Remarkably few schools enjoy this level of support. DuncanHill (talk) 13:13, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
        • You are almost certainly correct; but you have just made a risk assessment.--Docg 13:27, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
I've now emailed Mike Godwin about this situation. A last resort, obviously, but it seems the Foundation's message is not getting through. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 12:42, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
I think as a matter of policy someone relatively local to the site of the threat should notify the school. MikeGodwin (talk) 12:58, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Did anyone email the school? info (at) elthamhs (dot) vic (dot) edu (dot) au--CastAStone//(talk) 14:08, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

If no one else does, I will - but I'm sort of in Ohio, so I'm not sure that I'm the best person for this sort of thing. ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 14:14, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

The problem with this is - what if ClueBot or VoAbot reverts it? There's not even a guarantee any human ever sees the threat. —Random832 14:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I revert stuff like this all the time - it's childish vandalism, we really don't need to be taking such measures - so IMO, we don't need to worry if one of the bots revert it. Ryan Postlethwaite 14:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with Doc glasgow and some of you are saying. All threats should be considered credible until they are resolved by who are trained to respond to it. Those of you saying that it is nonsense to report it or it's childish vandalism wouldn't be laughing when either someone went through with it or Wikipedia was blamed for its non-response to it. Lets face it, this is the one of the most popular websites on the Internet, and the chances of someone posting a real threat is probable. If you want to choose to ignore it, that would be your choice, but there are some (including me), who are not afraid to call authorities when murder threats or similar things are reported. Considering I have reported just as serious things as this and the FBI was interested in the threat enough to approach the editors house and question him about the credibility of the threats he made, then things like this definitely need to be reported to by authorities. Doc, etc. you are not exactly qualified nor in a position to define what is a serious threat to report and what is not. — Save_Us_229 15:10, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

And FYI, I have contacted the authorities and the police in that area for this threat if no one did so already. — Save_Us_229 15:23, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
  • For the love of all that is good and holy, report this to the Australian police now! To the naysayers, all threats of harm to self or others must be taken seriously. If it was an empty threat then there is nothing to worry about, right? Just imagine if this is the real thing. Recall, the Virginia Tech guy put videos on YouTube before he went on his spree. Bstone (talk) 15:23, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
It's already been reported. — Save_Us_229 15:27, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, Save Us. I'm sure this will all be an overreaction, but I dread the alternative. Brianga (talk) 15:38, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
I point out that anyone who does feel this to be real can perfectly well call by themselves, and would only need to tell others to prevent duplication. DGG (talk) 15:57, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Save Us, can you please clarify who this was reported to? Thanks, Sarah 16:06, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
It was reported to the school and authorites in the area. — Save_Us_229 17:03, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I understand that but can you please clarify what that means exactly? I guess I'm trying to find out what you mean by the "authorities in the area" because the phone number given above isn't correct. That phone number is a number for the state's Police Centre, the Commissioner's offices in the city. The phone number for the 24 hour police station in Eltham is 61 03 9430 4500. I don't know who you reported this to or how, and that is what I am trying to clarify. Did you ring the police on the phone? If so, what police did you ring? Did you email the school or leave a message there? Sorry if it sounds like I'm interrogating you, I'm just concerned that the info gets to the right people and I know it is difficult for people overseas to make contact, especially because the Australian police forces are somewhat different to the American's. Sarah 17:54, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
I e-mail the school with the above e-mail, given that the e-mail address is right. I called the Victoria Police by phone and told them about the threat to Eltham High School, the IP address, the link to the threat and that I already e-mailed Eltham High School about it. As far as I know, they are looking into it. — Save_Us_229 18:18, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
For informational purposes, it is 3:08 am in Melbourne (Eltham is a suburb of Melbourne) on Saturday morning. Yesterday, Friday, school finished for the year. As in the school year, not just for Christmas. School is now out for the summer and won't back until February next year. Whoever did this should watch the news more. Just a couple of weeks ago, a guy was arrested in Frankston, about 40 minutes from Eltham, for posting a shooting hoax threat on the internet. [15] Sarah 16:06, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Sarah, is there any chance we could record advice in an essay to avoid these long threads in the future? We can discuss appropriate ways to respond at the essay. Then, when there is an incident, we can have less drama. - Jehochman Talk 16:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
We have WP:SUICIDE, which deals with threats of suicide or personal harm. Surely, a similar essay - or an expansion of that one - would be appropriate, especially if there are hard and fast policies from Jimbo and the Foundation, as there appear to be. ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 16:33, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Try this. And with respect to Doc's opinion, he may be right this time and the next time. He might even be right every instance he sees. But once we open the door to making threat estimates ourselves, eventually one of those threats could very well be real and someone who isn't quite so wise would follow precedent and call it a hoax. It only takes one missed warning to result in tragedy. DurovaCharge! 16:48, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Responding to threats of violence -- So we can record the consensus advice once and reference it in the future. These long threads violate don't feed the trolls and don't stick beans up your nose. - Jehochman Talk 16:54, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Most of the essays and proposed guidelines that spring up after these events violate both of those principles also. DurovaCharge! 16:59, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Agree with Durova. An essay is just asking for anonymous kids to blank their school's page with "let's kill them all" in the knowledge that a wikimop will be phoning the headmaster pronto. It's like being able to set off a rogue fire alarm with no consequences.--Docg 17:07, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
No consequences? I hardly would say the police or the FBI knocking on your front door step to be a lack in consequences. Good-faith editors are timid to report these. Do you honestly think someone is going to blatantly take the chance that the FBI may or may not show up? — Save_Us_229 17:12, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I've agreed with DocG in the past but then I saw User:Vampire Warrior II and changed my mind. The idea of the police actually hunting vandals down and knocking on their door tickles me to no end. I say call them in every opportunity. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:05, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

This definitely needs to be reported. 4chan#Pflugerville High School terrorist threat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nmajdan (talkcontribs) 17:18, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

First, if the foundation wants to take threats seriously, then we simply need to know how the foundation wants us to respond. That's simple enough. As for why we should bother to report each instance? That's easy. While we can't reasonably differentiate hoax from threat, local authorities (school and police) may well be aware of a pattern of behavior from a particular individual that indicates a genuine threat. Our notification then provides one more piece of the puzzle for them. It may even provide them with the clue (IP address) necessary to identify the culprit. To us, a threat is a puzzle piece without context. To the authorities, a reported threat could be the one piece that allows them to complete a puzzle they've been working on. Now if DocG would like to argue that we should not assist the authorities in any manner, then that's different point entirely. As for flooding the police and schools with useless reports from pranksters, I think we should let them tell us what they want us to do. To date, I haven't heard the authorities make any statements along the lines of "please do not report threats or suspicious activity to us – we really don't want to know." Rklawton (talk) 17:41, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Heavens above, isn't this getting blown absolutely out of proportion? If you observe suicide claims being inserted into an article, take a logical and considered decision over whether to contact the local authorities or not; don't spend numerous bytes of discussion debating the decision itself. The contact itself only takes a few moments, so yes: err on the side of "yes, contact the police" rather than "no, don't". But screeds of squabbling are unnecessary. Anthøny 18:40, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Where ever you are in the world, you can and should call your local police immediately. You don't need to track down a foreign phone number. Such threats even if hoaxes carry penalties in most places. Your local police will make the necessary contacts. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 02:27, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

The reason to call police is primarily because we as Wikipedians are not trained to properly determine what is a legit threat and what is not. Police do not mind being called out for things which were not in fact real threats - they want to be the ones to investigate and make the determination of what was and what was not something they have to handle. If you see it, and you're concerned, notify law enforcement, and the Foundation Office / legal staff. Let them handle it. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:23, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with the above that with the seriousness of the situations involved and with the Foundation's stance clear, I think we have to report incidents like this when we come upon them. Someone above said doing so would require a WikiProject. If such is the case, then I think we ought to get to founding it and finding members. SorryGuy  Talk  06:31, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
I really don't believe that there needs to be a WikiProject for this. Just a little common sense and, agreeing with AGK/Anthony, erring on the side of caution is all we need. No, not every dumb vague threat will require notifying the police, but if you think there might be something more, go ahead and make the call, or send the e-mail, or get someone else to. Of course, usually, thankfully, the threats are not acted upon, but again, I would err on the side of caution and let law enforcement deal with it. If you see something suspicious in real life, you call the police, right? If it turns out to be nothing, do the police say, "Boy, you really wasted our time with that, didn't you?" No. They let you know that it's nothing, but they thank you for being alert and tell you that if you see anything else out of the ordinary, give them a call back. WODUP 06:54, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Detwinkling[edit]

Per some rather dubious use of TWINKLE by Neutralhomer (see also the top of his talk page), I've blanked Neutralhomer's monobook and protected it for 96 hours. This is not what mock-rollback tools are for. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 20:16, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Yup, those reverts didn't need an automated tool, and should have been done with a valued edit summary. 96 hours is nothing at all, I hope Neutralhomer can refrain from misusing the tool when he gets it back. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:27, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Based on this edit it seems that just simply removing TWINKLE will do nothing to help Neutralhomer be more civil. Metros (talk) 20:46, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
For further reference, would you all mind telling me what is vandalism and what isn't? Per the reason of my "de-twinkling", I seen that JPG had a station marked as owned by Cumulus, when the FCC said it was Clear Channel. I Warn2'd, cause he should know better. He reverted, Warn3, and so on. I thought, that when someone is vandalising a page, we issue Warn1, 2, 3, 4, etc warnings? Obviously, I was wrong. So, what is vandalism? - NeutralHomer T:C 20:50, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi, did you visit the station website to confirm the content JPG-GR was adding was clearly being added in bad faith with the intent of damaging the article ? Nick (talk) 21:01, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
I was just going to say what Nick said. He was editing based on that source, so I don't see how you can insist this is vandalism and not stop to talk to him about why you believe it's vandalism. Metros (talk) 21:03, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Is this a content dispute, or an allegation of a long-term problem? Wouldn't RfC or other dispute resolution be a more appropriate venue? Videmus Omnia Talk 20:55, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Are you asking me or the others above? - NeutralHomer T:C 20:58, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Simply put, he was reverting good faith edits - it was a content dispute not vandalism. Because he used twinkle to aid that, he got the tool removed. There's no need for an RfC, we sorted the problem out for now at the root. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:03, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Block review[edit]

Just posting this for review. I blocked Codykylefinke (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) as a sockpuppet of MascotGuy (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) based on Codyfinke (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log). See also Wikipedia:Long term abuse/MascotGuy. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 02:01, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't see anything at all wrong with the block. And even if he's not a sock, the username may confuse people into thinking he is. Endorsed. Maser (Talk!) 04:18, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't know, but I guess that one of Barneys friends is a WP:DUCK? Good block. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:58, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Irish football merges[edit]

There has been a discussion on the topic of merging various articles relating to international football(soccer) in Ireland at Talk:Ireland national football team (IFA), the majority of editors support a merger, but there is one very vocal detractor. It is not a simple issue, I would appreciate it if some one external could could come in and look at closing the discusssion, thanks Fasach Nua (talk) 10:15, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

  • The three editors who are supporting mergers have displayed a blatant lack of knowledge of the subject. I urge that common sense prevail and that the relevant pages be protected from merging and not just be merged on the say of three editors who have made no positive contribution to any Wiki article I can find. To allow these mergers would open the door for small groups of editors to get together and censor Wiki. Where would it stop. Djln--Djln (talk) 17:34, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

School Threat[edit]

Resolved: Drama has subsided; authorities notified, and peasants are merrymaking after the storm

58.109.120.73 made a treat this morning (their only contribution) against a school in Australia. Is it practice to make notification to the school administration regarding threats such as these? Brianga (talk) 10:22, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Since this is an overt threat, somebody familiar with Australia who can identify the city should contact the police. - Jehochman Talk 10:36, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
The school is located in Victoria, Australia. Telephone is (03) 9430 5111, email is info AT elthamhs DOT vic DOT edu DOT au. The police phone number is (03) 9247 6666. Who wants to call? --Haemo (talk) 10:43, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Could do with notifying the foundation and possibly User:Mike Godwin via e-mail. Pedro :  Chat  11:04, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
I think this needs an immediate response. I am not capable of calling Australia right now, tho. Brianga (talk) 11:13, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh for goodness sake, this is schoolboy vandalism. Ignore it.--Docg 11:30, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

That's what I think too, but I went ahead and asked for any active Australians an the mailing list so that we can at least say we tried. John Reaves 11:34, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo has repeatedly said that issues like this are to be taken seriously. What should be done is an LEA decision, not ours, and this applies equally to suicide threats. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 11:43, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I can't believe this thread. The threat is ridiculous and anyone contacting the school is being a melodramatic fool. There's thousands of these type of thing every day. Forget it and move on. --Docg 12:00, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
You might not say that if there was another school massacre. Seraphim Whipp 12:05, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Or if you'd seen Jimbo's interventions in previous cases. Not our decision. Period. End of. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 12:10, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Get a grip. This is just silly now.--Docg 12:13, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Jimbo's view is that, yes, it may be silly. But it's also a criminal offence. I've seen similar cases here where the FBI have been involved. Now, do you want to take responsibility for the headline "Wikipedia fails to prevent school massacre"? Hmmm? --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 12:18, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
(ec)So, phone the school and say "hey, some anonymous person blanked your article with a threat to hunt down and kill every single one of your pupils in some unspecified way - they implied they wanted to warn you by being one of the millions of people who vandalise us every day. Actually, we get stuff like this routinely on wikipedia mostly by 12 year old trolls. Mainly we ignore it but, in this case, we thought you'd want to know....(click)"--Docg 12:29, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Agree that it's almost certainly unnecessary and commonsense says 99 out of 100 times it's a childish post. Also underline "almost". As far as I know, WP practice is we do take such statements seriously, regardless, and let the school or lEA know. They're not naive either; a school or LEA that sees that will often say "thanks for letting us know" and then make their own decision if it's childish or not. But that's their choice, not ours. And email, not phone. FT2 (Talk | email) 12:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I'd love to know what qualifies DocGlasgow to assess this type of risk. The school and their local law enforcement agencies will have people trained to make appropriate risk assessments. In a country like Australia they are likely to have already developed protocols for dealing with threats of this nature - if we do not tell them, then we deprive them of the ability to make their own judgment. If we do tell them, they can assess the situation and take whatever further action they deem appropriate. DuncanHill (talk) 12:41, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Qualified or not, we have to do some limited assessment. We get thousands of silly "die scum" vandalism every month - should we report every one? When someone blanks George W. Bush with "I'll do this asshole in", do we run to the FBI? (We're not 'qualified' to say he isn't the next Lee Harvey Oswald are we?) Certainly, some threats should be reported. But whether you think this one should or should not, you are making some for of assessment, unless you are seriously suggesting we report every one? That would need a wikiproject in itself.--Docg 13:06, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
      • Really lousy example - Bush has the Secret Service to take care of him - and I suspect the FBI and the CIA and the NSA and others have lots of very clever tools to detect threats to his person. Remarkably few schools enjoy this level of support. DuncanHill (talk) 13:13, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
        • You are almost certainly correct; but you have just made a risk assessment.--Docg 13:27, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
I've now emailed Mike Godwin about this situation. A last resort, obviously, but it seems the Foundation's message is not getting through. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 12:42, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
I think as a matter of policy someone relatively local to the site of the threat should notify the school. MikeGodwin (talk) 12:58, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Did anyone email the school? info (at) elthamhs (dot) vic (dot) edu (dot) au--CastAStone//(talk) 14:08, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

If no one else does, I will - but I'm sort of in Ohio, so I'm not sure that I'm the best person for this sort of thing. ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 14:14, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

The problem with this is - what if ClueBot or VoAbot reverts it? There's not even a guarantee any human ever sees the threat. —Random832 14:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I revert stuff like this all the time - it's childish vandalism, we really don't need to be taking such measures - so IMO, we don't need to worry if one of the bots revert it. Ryan Postlethwaite 14:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with Doc glasgow and some of you are saying. All threats should be considered credible until they are resolved by who are trained to respond to it. Those of you saying that it is nonsense to report it or it's childish vandalism wouldn't be laughing when either someone went through with it or Wikipedia was blamed for its non-response to it. Lets face it, this is the one of the most popular websites on the Internet, and the chances of someone posting a real threat is probable. If you want to choose to ignore it, that would be your choice, but there are some (including me), who are not afraid to call authorities when murder threats or similar things are reported. Considering I have reported just as serious things as this and the FBI was interested in the threat enough to approach the editors house and question him about the credibility of the threats he made, then things like this definitely need to be reported to by authorities. Doc, etc. you are not exactly qualified nor in a position to define what is a serious threat to report and what is not. — Save_Us_229 15:10, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

And FYI, I have contacted the authorities and the police in that area for this threat if no one did so already. — Save_Us_229 15:23, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
  • For the love of all that is good and holy, report this to the Australian police now! To the naysayers, all threats of harm to self or others must be taken seriously. If it was an empty threat then there is nothing to worry about, right? Just imagine if this is the real thing. Recall, the Virginia Tech guy put videos on YouTube before he went on his spree. Bstone (talk) 15:23, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
It's already been reported. — Save_Us_229 15:27, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, Save Us. I'm sure this will all be an overreaction, but I dread the alternative. Brianga (talk) 15:38, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
I point out that anyone who does feel this to be real can perfectly well call by themselves, and would only need to tell others to prevent duplication. DGG (talk) 15:57, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Save Us, can you please clarify who this was reported to? Thanks, Sarah 16:06, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
It was reported to the school and authorites in the area. — Save_Us_229 17:03, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I understand that but can you please clarify what that means exactly? I guess I'm trying to find out what you mean by the "authorities in the area" because the phone number given above isn't correct. That phone number is a number for the state's Police Centre, the Commissioner's offices in the city. The phone number for the 24 hour police station in Eltham is 61 03 9430 4500. I don't know who you reported this to or how, and that is what I am trying to clarify. Did you ring the police on the phone? If so, what police did you ring? Did you email the school or leave a message there? Sorry if it sounds like I'm interrogating you, I'm just concerned that the info gets to the right people and I know it is difficult for people overseas to make contact, especially because the Australian police forces are somewhat different to the American's. Sarah 17:54, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
I e-mail the school with the above e-mail, given that the e-mail address is right. I called the Victoria Police by phone and told them about the threat to Eltham High School, the IP address, the link to the threat and that I already e-mailed Eltham High School about it. As far as I know, they are looking into it. — Save_Us_229 18:18, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
For informational purposes, it is 3:08 am in Melbourne (Eltham is a suburb of Melbourne) on Saturday morning. Yesterday, Friday, school finished for the year. As in the school year, not just for Christmas. School is now out for the summer and won't back until February next year. Whoever did this should watch the news more. Just a couple of weeks ago, a guy was arrested in Frankston, about 40 minutes from Eltham, for posting a shooting hoax threat on the internet. [16] Sarah 16:06, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Sarah, is there any chance we could record advice in an essay to avoid these long threads in the future? We can discuss appropriate ways to respond at the essay. Then, when there is an incident, we can have less drama. - Jehochman Talk 16:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
We have WP:SUICIDE, which deals with threats of suicide or personal harm. Surely, a similar essay - or an expansion of that one - would be appropriate, especially if there are hard and fast policies from Jimbo and the Foundation, as there appear to be. ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 16:33, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Try this. And with respect to Doc's opinion, he may be right this time and the next time. He might even be right every instance he sees. But once we open the door to making threat estimates ourselves, eventually one of those threats could very well be real and someone who isn't quite so wise would follow precedent and call it a hoax. It only takes one missed warning to result in tragedy. DurovaCharge! 16:48, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Responding to threats of violence -- So we can record the consensus advice once and reference it in the future. These long threads violate don't feed the trolls and don't stick beans up your nose. - Jehochman Talk 16:54, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Most of the essays and proposed guidelines that spring up after these events violate both of those principles also. DurovaCharge! 16:59, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Agree with Durova. An essay is just asking for anonymous kids to blank their school's page with "let's kill them all" in the knowledge that a wikimop will be phoning the headmaster pronto. It's like being able to set off a rogue fire alarm with no consequences.--Docg 17:07, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
No consequences? I hardly would say the police or the FBI knocking on your front door step to be a lack in consequences. Good-faith editors are timid to report these. Do you honestly think someone is going to blatantly take the chance that the FBI may or may not show up? — Save_Us_229 17:12, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I've agreed with DocG in the past but then I saw User:Vampire Warrior II and changed my mind. The idea of the police actually hunting vandals down and knocking on their door tickles me to no end. I say call them in every opportunity. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:05, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

This definitely needs to be reported. 4chan#Pflugerville High School terrorist threat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nmajdan (talkcontribs) 17:18, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

First, if the foundation wants to take threats seriously, then we simply need to know how the foundation wants us to respond. That's simple enough. As for why we should bother to report each instance? That's easy. While we can't reasonably differentiate hoax from threat, local authorities (school and police) may well be aware of a pattern of behavior from a particular individual that indicates a genuine threat. Our notification then provides one more piece of the puzzle for them. It may even provide them with the clue (IP address) necessary to identify the culprit. To us, a threat is a puzzle piece without context. To the authorities, a reported threat could be the one piece that allows them to complete a puzzle they've been working on. Now if DocG would like to argue that we should not assist the authorities in any manner, then that's different point entirely. As for flooding the police and schools with useless reports from pranksters, I think we should let them tell us what they want us to do. To date, I haven't heard the authorities make any statements along the lines of "please do not report threats or suspicious activity to us – we really don't want to know." Rklawton (talk) 17:41, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Heavens above, isn't this getting blown absolutely out of proportion? If you observe suicide claims being inserted into an article, take a logical and considered decision over whether to contact the local authorities or not; don't spend numerous bytes of discussion debating the decision itself. The contact itself only takes a few moments, so yes: err on the side of "yes, contact the police" rather than "no, don't". But screeds of squabbling are unnecessary. Anthøny 18:40, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Where ever you are in the world, you can and should call your local police immediately. You don't need to track down a foreign phone number. Such threats even if hoaxes carry penalties in most places. Your local police will make the necessary contacts. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 02:27, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

The reason to call police is primarily because we as Wikipedians are not trained to properly determine what is a legit threat and what is not. Police do not mind being called out for things which were not in fact real threats - they want to be the ones to investigate and make the determination of what was and what was not something they have to handle. If you see it, and you're concerned, notify law enforcement, and the Foundation Office / legal staff. Let them handle it. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:23, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with the above that with the seriousness of the situations involved and with the Foundation's stance clear, I think we have to report incidents like this when we come upon them. Someone above said doing so would require a WikiProject. If such is the case, then I think we ought to get to founding it and finding members. SorryGuy  Talk  06:31, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
I really don't believe that there needs to be a WikiProject for this. Just a little common sense and, agreeing with AGK/Anthony, erring on the side of caution is all we need. No, not every dumb vague threat will require notifying the police, but if you think there might be something more, go ahead and make the call, or send the e-mail, or get someone else to. Of course, usually, thankfully, the threats are not acted upon, but again, I would err on the side of caution and let law enforcement deal with it. If you see something suspicious in real life, you call the police, right? If it turns out to be nothing, do the police say, "Boy, you really wasted our time with that, didn't you?" No. They let you know that it's nothing, but they thank you for being alert and tell you that if you see anything else out of the ordinary, give them a call back. WODUP 06:54, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Foreign languages[edit]

I've always been curious about articles that contain foreign languages. A good example is at Jat people in Mahabharata period. How do we know what the foreign language really says? How do we know Al-Qaeda isn't communicating via WP disguised as an article? I know, I know.. just was curious. -- ALLSTARecho 09:37, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I can assure you they don't. east.718 at 10:07, December 22, 2007
lol! ;) -- ALLSTARecho 10:08, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Lol, simple learn to read it. Jackaranga (talk) 14:26, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
They could be... but frankly I'd expect them to be using YouTube and/or myspace more since they could keep their messages up indefinably whereas it may get removed fairly quickly here. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 03:35, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Detwinkling[edit]

Per some rather dubious use of TWINKLE by Neutralhomer (see also the top of his talk page), I've blanked Neutralhomer's monobook and protected it for 96 hours. This is not what mock-rollback tools are for. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 20:16, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Yup, those reverts didn't need an automated tool, and should have been done with a valued edit summary. 96 hours is nothing at all, I hope Neutralhomer can refrain from misusing the tool when he gets it back. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:27, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Based on this edit it seems that just simply removing TWINKLE will do nothing to help Neutralhomer be more civil. Metros (talk) 20:46, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
For further reference, would you all mind telling me what is vandalism and what isn't? Per the reason of my "de-twinkling", I seen that JPG had a station marked as owned by Cumulus, when the FCC said it was Clear Channel. I Warn2'd, cause he should know better. He reverted, Warn3, and so on. I thought, that when someone is vandalising a page, we issue Warn1, 2, 3, 4, etc warnings? Obviously, I was wrong. So, what is vandalism? - NeutralHomer T:C 20:50, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi, did you visit the station website to confirm the content JPG-GR was adding was clearly being added in bad faith with the intent of damaging the article ? Nick (talk) 21:01, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
I was just going to say what Nick said. He was editing based on that source, so I don't see how you can insist this is vandalism and not stop to talk to him about why you believe it's vandalism. Metros (talk) 21:03, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Is this a content dispute, or an allegation of a long-term problem? Wouldn't RfC or other dispute resolution be a more appropriate venue? Videmus Omnia Talk 20:55, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Are you asking me or the others above? - NeutralHomer T:C 20:58, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Simply put, he was reverting good faith edits - it was a content dispute not vandalism. Because he used twinkle to aid that, he got the tool removed. There's no need for an RfC, we sorted the problem out for now at the root. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:03, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Block review[edit]

Just posting this for review. I blocked Codykylefinke (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) as a sockpuppet of MascotGuy (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) based on Codyfinke (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log). See also Wikipedia:Long term abuse/MascotGuy. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 02:01, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I don