Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive133

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

Noticeboard archives


Real Life Ministries Redux[edit]

original note on this here...

The article has become a battle ground between church supporters and detractors with allegations and denials of direct church involvement, general incivility, misleading edit summaries (with a valid point raised), allegations of vandalism and edit warring. At this point it's no longer about the Afd, which was apparently vandalism but the establishment of anything resembling a stable argument. I have no vested interest in which "version" of the article exists but I'd prefer it to be something stable. It appears that the at least several of the editors have some connection to the church, including the IP, although some are handling it far better than others. I think the edit warring and article in general needs an eye by someone not headed to bed this minute. Thanks! TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 05:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the page. Bearian (talk) 18:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I hate to do it myself because I've voiced my own opinion at the AfD, but is there any precedence to protecting/semi-protecting the AfD itself? I've never seen that done, but then again, I've never seen a lot of things, a million dollars being one of them. Doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
There have been some recent AfDs protected due to socks and other shenanigans, unfortunately I don't remember the article names. Something about Maoism in India and SriLanka, that might jog someone's memory. I'm so sick of this recent trend of nearly all out wars on AfD. I think there's a lot of good faith here but if the church is involved and/or vested detractors, this is never going to be a calm article. Has it just been deleted once (the speedy) or does it go back even further? TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 18:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Not sure. As for calling this AfD "bad faithing" a recent trend, well. It's been going on longer than either of us have been here. Everyone has there "pet" articles or feels that they're topcis/hobbies/interests are important enough to be here. Some can discuss that civilly, others not. Churches/church groups, unfortunately, are no exception. Deep breaths, Cari. It will all be over soon.....and then replaced with about 100 more per day....sigh. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I think it's just that I've been involved in a number that have gotten rather heated. I think the ones that truly amuse me are the ones where people have no apparent tie but argue for the sake of arguing. This one at least has more context as there are at least two parties with some tie (official or not) to the church if they know about an article that hangs on the back wall. I like article stability :) TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 19:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I've been involved in my fair share of hotplates too, and I haven't always been civil. All I can say from my own experience is to be sure you're keeping your head above the fray. <insert cliche about flies, honey, and vinegar here>. In debates, use policy/guideline/precedence/logic to describe your opinion, but be dispassionate about it. It isn't personal, so don't attack other editors no matter how ridiculous or combative they may come across or how much they attack you. Report ludicrousness here (as you've done in the past). Keeping in mind that bears in corners tend to show their claws, most of the n00b and IP contribs are to be expected in some sense when they don't understand this place well or simply say "BUT I LOVE IT AND YOU SUCK!!!". I'm not saying that you are guilty of any of this, BTW, quite the contrary. From what I've seen, you conduct yourself nobly and with the interests of the encyclopedia in mind, not just your own interests. Keep going! Glad you're here, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! I like it here. I just think I live in a fantasy world where I'd love people to not take a deletion discussion about "their" article as a personal attack. That's why I think people should have minimal involvement in subjects close to the heart, I think it's natural to feel under a microscope so discussion is good but some lately have not gone so well. Thanks again TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 03:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism accusations[edit]

I'm not sure where to put it, so I'm putting it here. I recently tried to fix an article on New York to fix the name of the governor. I tried to fix it by reverting, which also put some comment about 9/11 into it. It had already been there and I was unaware of it. I was notified that I was going to be blocked for vandalism. I had found this statement afterwards and was trying to fix the problem (it was an honest mistake, I didn't know it was there). When this came up, I told the notifier what was goning on, and was immediately posted by another individual I was going to be blocked for vandalism User:Invisidble Diplomat. I tried to tell HIM what was going on, his reply can be found on his talk page (a picture of a gun) [1]. Just now, I was told (by him) to go to an administrator. Here I am. (talk) 19:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Have left a civility warning on Invisible Diplomat's talk page. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 19:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Attempts to obtain user's passwords[edit]

Beware of User talk: Has attempted to obtain my Admin password by fraudulently requesting the Wikimedia software to send them a new "lost" password. Obviously this ruse does not work as an email is sent to my email address with a new temporary password. I found a warning from another user on their page where they had done exactly the same. I blocked the account for a few days pending a review to see if anything else can be done for this type of fraudulent activity. The IP is registered to Qwest Communications and it may be a semi-static home address IP. I do not know if this situation has arisen in the past (I suppose it probably has). A longer block may be in order. Comments? -- Alexf42 21:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Endorse block as it stands. He actually CAN'T get the password using the methods he is trying, though trying it is grossly disruptive and deserves to be blocked on its own. A week is fine by me. If he returns and does something else problematic, we can always return the block for longer then. 21:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't sure how to bring it up or even to bring up this IP's conduct (I'm the one who warned him after he attempted this method of acquiring my password this morning). The person behind the IP had tried the same behavior last month with me under another Qwest IP as part of a harassment campaign against me for trying to keep him in line; he is likely the sockmaster behind Gsnguy and related sock accounts, so I am very familiar with this fellow. Thank you for the block action and I'm sorry that he tried to get you too, Alex. Nate (chatter) 21:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure this appropriate. It certainly isn't necessary, since the action can't harm anything; and it could well have been done entirely innocently. Regardless, I get things like this periodically; it's at most annoying. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Read the IP's edit history; it's clear that they are not doing this under innocent pretenses and are attempting to harass other users. Nate (chatter) 21:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry Jpgordon but I work in data and software security in RL. I don't see attempts to obtain user passwords, no matter how ineffective or misguided as being "entirely innocent". In RL this type of behavior in the company I work for would get our attention and could start prosecution by the proper authorities. In WP, all I can do is block the account. Has been warned, blocked for a while and watchlisted so I'll keep an eye out. To me (personally) this is second in abhorrent behavior after racism/antisemitism/et al. -- Alexf42 21:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
There is no realistic way that the lost password requests can do harm. Annoyance. Deliberate annoyance, in the case of this IP (and, of course, I spoke up without looking at the contributions). But still just annoyance; it's hard to see that an action which can have no harmful effect (and which the perpetrator knows could have no harmful effect) could be prosecutable as a security issue. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
You are coorect in that regard. I did not mean to imply it is the same case. I just meant that I don't believe this to be an innocent act. Stupid and misguided in the part of the user, yes. But as REDVERS said below, I vented already, now I'm content with WP:RBI. Cheers! -- Alexf42 22:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Will a block actually do anything here? I believe Special:Userlogin still works if your IP is blocked. Mr.Z-man 05:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Little or nothing that can be done, other than setting up a filter in your email client to dump such requests. Assuming I'm not atypical, such requests for a new password come from one in every 20 or so blocks, perhaps a bit more. It's actually touching: block a vandal and then get hopping mad that suddenly they can't vandalise. So they request a password, as if, somehow, it will appear on screen for them or come through the mail the next morning. Bless. WP:RBI is good advice. That and chortling to yourself about how incompetent they are being :o) ➨ REDVEЯS is a satellite and will be set alight 22:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
(RE "REDVEЯS is a satellite and will be set alight" -- Is FEH! considered uncivil in this neck of the woods?? Wanderer57 (talk) 22:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC) )
In Wikipedia's current fashion, breathing is considered uncivil by many people. Especially if the "uncivil" person doesn't agree with you, in which case it's an unprovoked personal attack. Fuck 'em, I say. So, no, "FEH!" is not in the slightest bit uncivil, as far as I am concerned. But I'm in a minority. ➨ REDVEЯS is a satellite and will be set alight 22:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Mantanmoreland[edit]

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. Wikipedia's role with respect to serious off-wiki or "real world" controversies and disputes is to provide encyclopedic coverage of such matters from a neutral point of view where they are notable and sufficiently documented in reliable sources. Neither Wikipedia's mainspace article content, nor its administrative and dispute-resolution procedures culminating in Arbitration, are intended or may be used as a vehicle for off-wiki disputes such as those involving the financial markets or legal or regulatory issues. Actions related to the articles involved, including naked short selling,, Patrick M. Byrne, the (now-redirected article) Judd Bagley, and Gary Weiss, have been repeatedly disruptive and have had serious implications both on and off wiki. Any current or future editor making substantial edits to these articles is directed:

(A) To edit on these from only a single user account, which shall be the user's sole or main account;
(B) To edit only through a conventional ISP and not through any form of proxy configuration;
(C) To edit in accordance with all Wikipedia policies and to refrain from any form of advocacy concerning any external controversy, dispute, allegation, or proceeding; and
(D) To disclose on the relevant talk pages any circumstances (but not including personal identifying information) that constitute or may reasonably be perceived as constituting a conflict of interest with respect to that page.

Any uninvolved admin may impose reasonable restrictions, after warning, upon involved articles or editors. Knowledgeable and uninvolved editors are urged to review these articles to ensure accuracy, fairness, and adherence to wiki policies. User:Mantanmoreland, under any current or future account, is banned from editing articles related to Gary Weiss, Patrick Byrne,, Naked Short Selling, and other mainspace articles in the area of dispute, broadly construed. He may make suggestions on talk pages, subject to the requirements of remedy 1 in the decision. User:Mantanmoreland is directed to edit Wikipedia from only a single user account and to advise the Arbitration Committee of any change of username, and to edit only through a conventional ISP and not through any form of proxy configuration.

For the committee, RlevseTalk 21:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

What is a "topic ban"?[edit]

I just noticed that a user was blocked for violating a "topic ban". Apparently they were not allowed to edit a given article or its talk page. How do such bans work? Does an admin just say on the user's talk page that they may not edit a given article from now on, or is there a more formal process for it? --Arctic Gnome (talkcontribs) 22:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

It's normally the Arbitration Committee that decide on topic bans, although it's possible (though usually quite unlikely) for a group of administrators to decide and enforce a topic ban without more official support. Nick (talk) 22:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Just to expand a little, a topic ban applies to a set of related articles, so that if one applied to The Beatles, it would also apply to all articles about their albums, films, singles, and the individual members. A topic ban can result in wide-ranging limitations and therefore is usually only applied at a fairly high level. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 22:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
(ec) Administrators can issue temporary topic bans unilaterally for articles on article probation, as well. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, uninvolved admins can issue short term or long term topic or article bans. It should happen after attempts to nudge the user toward collaborative editing has not worked. Often the user can still make comments on the talk page. In those cases, it can be a way to help an user began to explain their edits instead of reverting. FloNight♥♥♥ 22:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe I know which user that Arctic.gnome is referring to. This particular user has been ban from editing both the article and the corresponding talkpage. At this point, it's at indefinite because this individual wishes only to push his/her POV and has, in the past, been uncivil while making libellous comments. nat.utoronto 03:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

A Speech of Apology[edit]

Resolved: Blocked as sock

This is the father of Gsnguy (Mr. GSNII),

I just want to inform you guys about Gsnguy's spree on reverting 75 slogans and performing miserable behavior, and fighting you guys.

It's a fraud for them to let them know that my son, has creating an spree of 75 slogans way back in October of 1986 err 2006. But then, he came back of January of this year, doing the same process over and over again, and eventually fighting other wikipedians (a very good encyclopedia person). Creating about 10 sockpuppets is very awful! And especially using the "Forget Password" feature. So I would've been trust my son, to let him suspend from this Wiki Net until April 1. Gsnguy? What did you say?

Gsnguy: To all of you Wikipedians and the Wikipedia Network, i am sorry about all of this nonsense i did, when i come back to editing on April 1, here are the five commandments of Wikipedia:






I will follow the Wiki Rules and Regulations of this encyclopedia forever and ever, and ever. Thank You! And God Bless America!


Mr.GSNII (talk) 23:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I think this user is a sock of User:Gsnguy Tiptoety talk 23:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
And.. exit, stage left. The father can email the Foundation if necessary and offer an apology there. A credible one, that is. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 23:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Probably, he just posted the same cut-and-paste to mine and Gladys' talk pages. Reported to AIV and of course, he can't come back on April 1 due to his indef block. Nate (chatter) 23:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
And I just denied his unblock request. Tiptoety talk 23:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Just blocked another sock. Tiptoety talk 23:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, though: does it count as "fishing" to request a checkuser if you already know you've got a sock-farm and just want to ferret out ALL the footwear? Because if it's not, in this case I would think it might be a good idea. Thanks for all your blocking thus far...Gladys J Cortez 00:13, 14 March 2008 (UTC)



Someone in #wikipedia has requested an unblock of (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log); it was indef-blocked back in 2006 due to Squidward. He says it's an ISP NAT IP now (and appears that it was before the vandalism too), and I see no reason to disagree. If someone has other evidence that this IP is still an open proxy, please act on it, but two years is enough time for an IP to change hands or be closed. --Golbez (talk) 23:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance[edit]

This Arbitration case is closed and the final decision has been published at the link above. PHG (talk · contribs) is prohibited from editing articles relating to medieval or ancient history for a period of one year. He is permitted to make suggestions on talk pages, provided that he interacts with other editors in a civil fashion. PHG is reminded that in contributing to Wikipedia (including his talkpage contributions, contributions in other subject-matter areas, and contributions after the one-year editing restriction has expired), it is important that all sourced edits must fairly and accurately reflect the content of the cited work taken as a whole. PHG is also reminded that Wikipedia is a collaborative project and it is essential that all editors work towards compromise and a neutral point of view in a good-faith fashion. When one editor finds themselves at odds with most other editors on a topic, it can be disruptive to continue repeating the same argument. After suggestions have been properly considered and debated, and possible options considered, if a consensus is clear, the collegial and cooperative thing to do is to acknowledge the consensus, and move on to other debates.

PHG is encouraged to continue contributing to Wikipedia and Wikimedia projects in other ways, including by suggesting topics for articles, making well-sourced suggestions on talkpages, and continuing to contribute free-content images to Wikimedia Commons.

For the Arbitration committee, Thatcher 01:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Page protection level again[edit]

We have another spurt of IP and sleeper account vandals hitting AN. I have boosted the protection to semi-edit / full-move from unprotected / full-move, with indef expiry to avoid the expiry wiping out the full-move.

In a few hours someone should turn down the semi-edit manually, retaining the move protection. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Good move, I am getting tired of reverting. Thanks, Tiptoety talk 01:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Some sort of bizarre hijinks[edit]

Some interesting behavior came to my attention today, involving Handy wall link (talk · contribs) and various socks. For some reason, this user creates a new account, lists himself as his own sockpuppet, and then posts their password on a bunch of random talk pages (this is how I originally came across this). I've been indef protecting the user and user talk pages, since they are only used by the user putting indef blocked, username blocked, and sock puppet blocked tags on his sock's talk pages. I'm wondering if we should delete and salt the sockpuppet category, since it's apparently only being used for disruption. I'm also going to file a checkuser to see if we can rangeblock or something, since autoblocks are clearly not helping.

Some of the other sock accounts are The Lemmick unit in the sin (talk · contribs), Hjuikopl (talk · contribs) and The golden easter party man (talk · contribs). There are also some IP addresses involved, but I can't tell if they are part of the disruption or are acting in good faith. Natalie (talk) 23:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I've reported this here several times regarding The Lemmick unit in the sin (talk · contribs). He also uses many many IP addresses, other socks (potentially a gigantic sock army), and carries on weird discusions on his own sock talk pages where he accuses himself of being socks of other puppetmasters (primarily Elspeth Monro (talk · contribs) and Rastishka (talk · contribs). Some of the IPs resolve to Ukraine and some of the to the UK. So far, nobody has done anything about it. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 16:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Suicide announcement[edit]

There's a 99.99% chance that this is a sick joke, but it's better to be safe than sorry. (talk · contribs) has announced his/her suicide here. AecisBrievenbus 02:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Suicide_note a number of sections above. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 02:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
So this note has also been posted from another IP. AecisBrievenbus 02:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it's suspected that this a 4chan thing... WjBscribe 02:22, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm sure this is just a troll - he keeps announcing this stuff to cause a reaction - best to just RBI. Ryan Postlethwaite 02:23, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
(ec x 4)This guy has been trolling this for a couple of days now. If he were serious, he'd have done it by now. WP:DENY & WP:RBI apply. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 02:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
(ec)While I strongly agree with WP:SUICIDE, I have to agree with what is said above, just WP:RBI. Tiptoety talk
Well, its being coordinated by a forum, which is why the messages come from non-proxy but geographically unconnected IPs (multiple people, all posting the same message). WjBscribe 02:26, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
And it is getting quite out of control, look how many times User talk:J Milburn has been protected because of it. Tiptoety talk 02:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) - there's been what I think is good work recently over at Wikipedia:Threats Of Violence which may be tangentially (or directly) related to this issue. It'd be great for anyone to take a look and see if there's anything they disagree with... I've suggested a variation on WP:RBI which may or may not be appropriate here, but might be a good rule of thumb, which is Report, Revert, Ignore. thoughts most welcome..... Privatemusings (talk) 03:34, 14 March 2008 (UTC) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) if anyone still cares. Mr.Z-man 05:50, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
And now this from (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Tiptoety talk 06:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Very clear this is simple trolling. Even I am inclined to ignore it. Bstone (talk) 06:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Blocked (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and‎ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log) for same issue, 12 hours each. MBisanz talk 06:26, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
To end it you need to; collect times and IPs. Work out locations. Call the tech number you got by running the IP. Have the server name abnd info ready! Next, find this forum and record where it is. Call the FBI and lay out the situation. Tell them you have what appears to be a felony suicide hoax as well as a conspiracy to commit. Get a case number and post it back here. If you need any further help, email me. Geoff Plourde (talk) 06:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Not that it's particularly relevant here, but what, precisely, is a "felony suicide hoax" (there are some state or federal statutes under which I suppose charges might be brought—although I'd have serious doubts about their tenability and would wager a great deal of money that no submission that the underlying conduct is criminal might be sustained—but I can conceive of no theory under which the post(s) at issue could be seriously prosecuted as felonies, at least with respect to the "suicide" content; whether some action relative to mere disruption of the operations of a site might be leveled is, of course, a separate question, although one I'd also resolve in the negative)? Joe 07:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
It is a felony hoax because police will have to be called and time will have to be wasted. Geoff Plourde (talk) 15:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

AWB CheckPage needs attention[edit]

There are very, very old requests at Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage. Littleteddy (roar!) 09:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Odd Posts[edit]

Resolved: links removed--Hu12 (talk) 14:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

DrunkenDialer (talk · contribs) The recent posts are vague comments followed by a URL. I'm not sure what if any action is approp. Someone please take a look. Wanderer57 (talk) 13:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

It looks like most of the offending posts were removed. I have left a friendly note on their talk page, per WP:AGF. It looks like the editor has made some good faith edits to articles, it's just talk page comments that cause the problem. I'll keep an eye on this one. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 14:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Sneaky talk page spamming. [2][3][4][5][6][7]
DrunkenDialer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam) (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
--Hu12 (talk) 14:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC) Linksearch en (https) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:frMER-C X-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: searchmeta • Yahoo: backlinks • Domain: Linksearch en (https) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:frMER-C X-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: searchmeta • Yahoo: backlinks • Domain:
Add LinkSummaries .. added (manually) to monitoring list of User:COIBot. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Hu12, since the issue has been resolved, the links have been removed, and I have vowed to discontinue attaching these links with my signature, is there anyway to redact the link so that it does not get crawled? DrunkenDialer (talk) 09:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

User leaves confusing message on my talk page... Possibly admits to COI[edit]

Could someone please look over this message: [8] and see if I am reading this person correctly. They appear to claim to be editing Wikipedia to increase their own financial gain by pushing a certain POV in some articles. Its a bit confusing, but that is what I read on that. Any ideas or alternative theories? 20:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

That's the way I read it too and if so, it is reprehensible. The user did not sign his comment, (it is User:Nukeh). He should be told the facts of life and if he wants to increase his visibility/Google ratings he should go somewhere else. -- Alexf42 21:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
The plot thickens: [9] He claims to be doing the work pro-bono, but this is a CLEAR admission of COI and seems entirely against the basic core principles of Wikipedia... 04:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Right, so he admits that he has a conflict, so we can educate him about our COI policy. Has he spammed his site anywhere? I don't see any evidence of it. Wave power is a pretty small field, we're unlikely to get many experts who don't have some kind of vested interest one way or the other - the usual problem for wave power is that assessments of the field are dominated by those with a vested interest in some other form of generation, as far as I recall from my electrical engineering degree studies. Guy (Help!) 21:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Off-wiki canvassing[edit]

Just a heads up, but a couple of science blogs are canvassing their readers to come to this article and fight a battle:

Ohconfucius (talk) 15:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

looks like one WP:SPA has already begun Asdfg12345 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log), perhaps some protection of Falun Gong is waranted?--Hu12 (talk) 15:11, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
err ok, looks as if its still semi-p from last year--Hu12 (talk) 16:13, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Just to note that the result of this canvassing has been the attraction of myself and one other established Wikipedian to the article. I don't intend to blindly support Martin's viewpoint or efforts, but rather to work to get the article in line with Wikipedia's standards, and to try to stop a battle, rather than prolong it. Some of the problems there lately have been due to Martin's inexperience with Wikipedia, and that shouldn't be too hard to correct. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 16:23, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I recently requested my userpage to be deleted. I've edited wikipedia for a while. Is anything going to be done about this canvassing?--Asdfg12345 22:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Er, what, exactly, do you expect "to be done"? It's merely an alert for a possible intake of well-intentioned newbies/edit warriors, so editors can keep an eye on things. --Calton | Talk 22:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Huge backlog at Wikipedia:Suspected copyright violations[edit]

I guess this page is not as watched as it used to be, but there's a huge (I'd say 60 items) backlog here. If you can spend a few minutes on a couple articles to see whether they (still) meet WP:CSD#G12, or need to be {{copyvio}} tagged, that would be great (non admins can tag too, of course!). A bot will remove the red links automatically, but you need to remove non copyvios by hand. Thanks! -- lucasbfr talk 16:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll help! Rudget. 16:29, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Me too, but can only tag and note as such.--Doug.(talk contribs) 16:49, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I tried, and when I when I finished I can swear there was more than when I started....*sigh* Tiptoety talk 04:54, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:External links[edit]

I've just protected this page due to edit-warring. Looks like some more opinions are needed to establish which side consensus favours. It all looks very silly to me, but I'm sure a few people will find this of sufficient importance to comment :) Cheers, Moreschi (talk) 16:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

At least three of the participants are administrators. I hope they notice the protection... —David Eppstein (talk) 17:20, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
zee top of page notice is not exactly suptle.Geni 19:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Request for review of User:Kaktus999 and their contributions[edit]

Most of this user's contributions are newly created unreferenced Geo and BLP stubs. I've reviewed some of them (mostly last day edits), and tagged them as unreferenced. In some of the edits, I've also noticed that the user would rename "External links" section, which usually contains links in a foreign language, into a "References" section for the sake of getting rid of the unreferenced tag.

Someone who has the time should further review this user's contributions and take prompt action according to the rules of Wikipedia. Gooddays (talk) 05:53, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Pro-ana and pro-mia[edit]

Hello. I'm involved in an edit war at pro-ana. It basically concerns these edits by user Castillan, which link repeatedly to the commercial pro-ana site [10].

I thought it was a straightforward example of linkspam, and quickly reverted it. My revert was undone shortly afterward. I reverted again, and made additional changes on top of that, and ended up in an edit war. Shortly afterward, I asked for assistance on IRC and was then warned by administator Cyrius that I had violated 3RR (having had 4 reversions in a 24 hour period).

(Castillan has since copy-and-pasted the same text over to the related article pro-mia. The pasted text appears to have "[8]" where the links were because they've mistakenly copied the rendered text and not the article source.)

What I'd like to know is: does reverting linkspam count towards 3RR?

Thanks for your time. — (talk) 00:21, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Probably not, but it depends on the circumstances (see Wikipedia:Three-revert_rule#Exceptions) could be counted as vandalism if they keep adding the "spam" despite warnings to not do so. NanohaA'sYuriTalk, My master 00:25, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Those edits look to be pretty clearly spam, so I think 3RR would not apply to you in this case, Have you warned Castillan and, if so, did they respond? Natalie (talk) 01:43, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
It looks like you haven't warned them. Generally, a warning needs to have been given before an admin will block, because unless the user disregards warnings we generally consider them to be acting in good faith. In this case, it doesn't look like anyone has engaged this user in conversation about why their edits are unacceptable, so I'll drop a warning on their talk page. Natalie (talk) 01:47, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Administrator Swatjester has just semiprotected the page. I suppose that settles the edit war. :P
Sorry about all the fuss, and thanks again for your time. — (talk) 08:24, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Request for using the file Mamintb.png in anarticle for french version of Natsume's.[edit]

How can I do? Many thanks for help.

Can you specify the article (I assume it's one of these; your reference is a little vague) and explain how that image needs to be used in place of words? --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 13:44, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Suggestions about improvements to Wikipedia software[edit]

  • Please where can I send suggestions about improvements to Wikipedia software? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 13:40, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
You can go to the technical section of the Village pump, or the MediaWiki Wiki, or post something on Bugzilla. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 13:55, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Unexplained rename of "Lists of companies" pages[edit]

About a day ago User:Russavia renamed just about all the article (around 100) in Category:Lists of companies by country from names like List of Australian companies to List of companies of Australia . I posted to the user's talk page asking why this was done or where it was discussed but they have not answered and I couldn't find any discuss looking around. I feel that the new naming is sounds a lot worse than the previous wording and should be reversed. IF there was in fact little or no consultation about this could someone with better tools than me please reverse it? I was starting to reverse a few manually but though posting here might be a better idea. - SimonLyall (talk) 07:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

There's no rush in setting things straight -- massively reverting is probably just as bad as massively changing, unless there's some reason doing so is urgent and obviously correct. I can't speak for another user, but I believe the "Foo of Bar" construction is more widely used, at least in this area (see Category:Companies by country, Category:Companies by country and industry. It's a bit wordier, but may make things easier for some purposes -- many people know Australia->Australian, but fewer might know Yemen->Yemeni (for example), and using only one form may make searching easier. Obviously this convention is not universally used or preferred, if we look at examples like Category:People by nationality, but it does seem to be common in the particular area we're looking at. Feel free to discuss, of course, and we should await Russavia's response. – Luna Santin (talk) 07:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I have posted a response on SimonLyall's talk page, and will post here verbatim.

You may or may not have noticed that List of companies in the United Arab Emirates is up for Afd. Just one of many of these lists which have been put up for Afd. I made the changes firstly by following WP:BOLD, because of the following reasons:

  • The country specific category which these lists belong to is Category:Companies of country, not Category:Countryian companies (e.g. Category:New Zealand companies or Category:Barbudian companies)
  • Using titles such as Barbudian companies and the like present problems, as if someone is searching for the list of companies from Barbados, they are more likely to search for the country name rather than the descriptive. It also presents the problem of companies from Dominica and the Dominican Republic, both could be titled List of Dominican' companies. If people are not familiar with the descriptor for a country, it is going to make it harder to find and to categorise (wasting time looking), whereas what I have changed it to makes it so much easier.
  • Using the word "of" denotes that these lists are for companies OF the country concerned. --Russavia (talk) 07:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Somehow, of sounds really bad. Shouldn't that be from? EdokterTalk 13:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  • For what it's worth (not a whole lot), I looked into this once and found "in" was the most popular overall, but with species "of" was most common. For people it always seems to be "from". It's nice to have uniformity because it makes it easier to guess an article or category name. I don't know of any style rule on it. Third Opinion might be a better forum, or Village Pump.Noroton (talk) 23:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
My £0.02 would be that neither "from", "in", or "of" is as good as the plain simple "list of Ausralian companies". As a template- and bot-coder I approve of standardisation as much as the next editor, but sometimes a little bit of common sense should be applied. Who cares if the parent category has a different name to the list (Incidentally, I woudl support a renaming of those categories to "Countryian companies")? It still reads horribly. Happymelon 20:14, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Associated Content, gettin' paid to spam[edit]

See also - Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#Associated_Content_links.2C_get_paid_to_spam
See also - Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/
See also - Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/
See also - Associated Content, Performance Bonus Program and Payment

Past actions and for comparison, here are two links to the many removal discussions:

Associated Content links
  • Have no editorial oversight (see WP:RS) and articles are essentially self-published
  • Offers its authors financial incentives to increase page views
  • Fails Wikipedia's core content policies:

Major concerns. Associated Content articles are no different than linking to a blog or personal website, with the exception the authors are paid by how many page views (clicks) they get. Articles are not professionally written, don't have sources, and are not suitable as reliable sources. We have been spammed with over 730 of these low-quality links. I'm not convinced how these could ever be used as as a citation or source, (in any appropriate context). This type of material is not acceptable in Wikipedia articles. This 'is another, bigger and should be delt with in the same manner. --Hu12 (talk) 13:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd say we should blacklist them. MaxSem(Han shot first!) 13:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
And perhaps someone should take a sharp pencil to Associated Content as well. Ronnotel (talk) 13:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
These are just downright unencyclopedic and we're an encyclopedia.
These links have been cleaned out before only to come back in even greater volume. I strongly recommend blacklisting. --A. B. (talk) 13:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I endorse the decision to blacklist. Maybe this should be commented on more officially, so that external links which have no value can be blacklisted a bit quicker, to prevent some people having to perform a lot of work, and to prevent damage to articles (specific urls on such servers can be whitelisted when necessery). --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Blacklisting seems appropriate here. The site is not a reliable source and probably won't become one, unless they severely alter their publication/editorial standards. If that ever happens they can be whitelisted. I can't personally figure out how the blacklist works, but if there's an admin around who can, I'd suggest they just go ahead and do so. Natalie (talk) 14:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
You can get it added to the blacklist by an admin who knows what they're doing by putting a notice up at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist. I'd do it myself, but I'm tight on time at the moment and won't have time to put up a proper notice there, though I will when I'm free if no one else has by then. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 15:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Alright, I've put up a request at the meta blacklist. This still leaves us the problem of how to deal with the current links. We could set XLinkBot on the task, though that has the potential to cause some chaos. Whatever we do for a project this large, it would be best if we have a clear resolution here we can point to to say this isn't just a bunch of users on a personal crusade. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 15:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Removing blacklisted links certainly cannot someone's personal crusade. I've already filed a BRFA to receive a permission for my bot to remove such links. MaxSem(Han shot first!) 16:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
XLinkBot only reverts, and associatedcontent is already on the revertlist (it only reverts unexperienced editors and IPs). XLinkBot does not have a function to clean back in time, a bot that could do that would be an asset! --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm giving RoboMaxCyberSem a barnstar!--Hu12 (talk) 16:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
We'll still need to handle to handle the links outside enWiki, but those seem to be much less in number (I found 13 on fr and 7 on de when I checked a bit ago), so it should be possible for a human to handle it. I'll likely get at it myself, assuming this link does get blacklisted. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 16:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I tend to wander over multiple projects (my matrix). I'll get those--Hu12 (talk) 17:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Meta request was deferred pending further investigation. I've put up a request at the local blacklist for the time being. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 17:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Full spamsearch results (as in all wikimedia wikis) for are at User:MER-C/ There's about 800 links altogether. MER-C 07:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Would it be too bold to go now and remove these links by hand? And is there any context where we shouldn't remove the links? Because I see a few links on the commons are just pointing out associated content uses a particular image. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 07:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I'd start removing the links after the site is blacklisted. And I'd generally leave anything that isn't in the main namespace (not worth the effort) and especially urls like, which are trackers used by spam patrollers. MER-C 08:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Alright, will do. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 08:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC) is now on the blacklist--Hu12 (talk) 01:55, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Getting paid to spam - other sites[edit]

Some other sites that have a similar (or the same) setup. these also lack oversight, pay for your publications, fail the core content policies, and tend to be spammed quite often, and in those cases also often with a conflict of interest. There is a lot of work involved for several wikipedia editors in cleaning after the people who add these links (though the bots tend to help a bit). A list (feel free to expand):

--Dirk Beetstra T C 16:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree, These fail the core policies also. --Hu12 (talk) 20:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Some more:

--Dirk Beetstra T C 20:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Ehow's parent company (Demand Media) owns 30+ looks like the new ones are the spammiest. I removed all the video links, some links, along with most of the ehow links (there are several new ones added each week it seems) and some of the 64 or so sources (see the history at one golf course with four references[11], since they seemed to be little more than summaries from the golf course info surrounded by advertising links. Flowanda | Talk 23:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

When they advocate the same principles, then they could be added to this list. Are there also similar sites on the site? --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:04, 14 March 2008 (UTC), and have been added to the blacklist--Hu12 (talk) 01:55, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

This may be of interest User:A. B./Sandbox11 Lists many more article submission sites SEO people can and reportedly do spam.--Hu12 (talk) 02:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Cross-wiki spamsearch results for (847 links), (174 links), (168 links - this was blacklisted globally at one point but it got removed) and (114 links). The French, Spanish and Italian Wikipedias appear to have a problem with lulu, should we blacklist it globally? MER-C 05:02, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

SV Dynamo and multi-indef-blocked User:Kay Körner[edit]

Kay Körner (talk · contribs · logs · block log) has been indef-blocked under multiple names, including that one, Fox53 (talk · contribs · logs · block log), and Kay Körner 20.12.1983 (talk · contribs · logs · block log) for disruption, sockpuppetry, and general shenanigens at the SV Dynamo-related articles.

Matter 1: He's now back as a number of IPs, all of which unfortunately resolve to a public library and thus should only be blocked sparingly. These include:

I would recommend liberal use of semi-protecting on articles related to SV Dynamo to hem in the disruption (and give poor Wiggy a break -- read through the edit summaries, you'll see what I mean). If it comes down to it, an abuse report may be appropriate, but I'd feel a little bad doing that to the poor sap since it's the library where he goes to school.

Matter 2: I'm pretty sure he's always been here. I thought about taking it to WP:SSP, but in my opinion it's just too obvious, and too obviously abusive, to necessitate an SSP case.

Captain Future, who edits almost exclusively in Kay's pet area of SV Dynamo, has been creating articles for the IPs to edit: [12] [13] [14] [15] [16]. If that's not using a sock to avoid a block, then I don't know what is. On the outside chance it's a meatpuppet instead of just an alt playing nice, the same standards apply.

I am hesitant to block this user myself because of my history with the situation, but I would strongly endorse a block of this user. - Revolving Bugbear 20:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Yep, it's him. Compare: [17], [18]. I will look for more evidence upon request, but I will block this user unless someone raises an objection. - Revolving Bugbear 20:53, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
The same user (presumably) is indefinitely blocked on the German Wikipedia [19], and if you google his name you will find that it runs amok on several other wiki projects, all related to SV Dynamo. This is what another library user left at the talkpage of one of the ip User_talk:
"Hi. This is a public computer in the library SLUB. I'm not the vandalist, but it seems like someone has used this computer for vandalism before. (I'm writing this just for clarification as I saw that frightening warning.) Maybe to avoid this kind of problems in future, you might wish to contact the SLUB administration. In order to use this computer, a user has to log in with his personal log-in data, so there might be a way to track the evil guy. ;) Greetz, jo) (talk) 20:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC)",
so maybe one can contact the library instead of blocking the ip. Novidmarana (talk) 01:12, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Seeking Community ban of Dot Com Infoway company Adsense marketing and Spamming[edit]

See also - Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2007_Archive_Dec_1#Tamil_celebrity_spam
See also - Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2008_Archive_Mar_1#Dot_Com_Infoway_company_Adsense_related_marketing_Spamming
See also - Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Webgeek

Adsense pub-9515873777130697 .info's
pub-4598819753511212 some .com's related to Dot Com Infoway &