Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive135

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Image sizes going haywire[edit]

Just an FYI to people, something has been changed site-wide, and a *lot* of images are now being treated as if they had no pixel size assigned to them. A discussion of the situation is going on at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Barnstars format, but I thought this would be a good thing to get the word out about. - TexasAndroid (talk) 18:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

This discussion has been centralised at Wikipedia talk:ClickFix, so check there for details. Happymelon 20:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Jack Merridew[edit]

(Note: I do not think it would be helpful if the contributors to the episodes-and-characters conflicts chipped in to this discussion.)

I request a decision as to what to do with Jack Merridew (talk · contribs) and White Cat (talk · contribs): more specifically, as to whether community/administrative consensus exists to block Jack Merridew as a sockpuppet of Davenbelle (talk · contribs) aka (almost certainly) Moby Dick (talk · contribs) and other socks. Evidence to connect Jack Merridew to Davenbelle can be found at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Davenbelle, Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Davenbelle, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2/Evidence.

Here are my thoughts on the matter, for what they are worth.

  • The evidence connecting Davenbelle/Moby Dick to Jack Merridew is fairly strong and coherent. The chances there being 2 separate editors from Bali whose contributions fit so well together? Not high. Dmcdevit has described this one as being "the likely side of possible". Moby Dick is a banned user: ergo, Davenbelle is banned, ergo, any future sockpuppets should be blocked under policy.
  • However, Davenbelle though he may be, Jack Merridew seems to have conducted himself in a restrained manner. He has not been blocked during his time here, has acted in good faith and civilly, and his interactions with White Cat have not been unrestrainedly hostile (and White Cat certainly can be infuriating, not to mention outright disruptive). If this is Davenbelle, it is a Davenbelle who has behaved far better than his previous incarnations. There may well be a case for saying "Ok, fine, you're Davenbelle, but if you keep behaving yourself we can handle you. Just to stick to this one account and we'll let bygones be bygones".
  • This is a possible solution, but we may not wish to set a precedent whereby editing well with a sock, and so flouting policy, can get you unbanned. The Davenbelle of years ago was genuinely disruptive: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Moby Dick, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Coolcat, Davenbelle and Stereotek, and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Trey Stone and Davenbelle.

Thank you for your time. Moreschi (talk) 21:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Have we tried contacting the editor privately and inviting him to put his hands up and ask nicely? Guy (Help!) 21:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Sent him an email, and am waiting for a reply. Moreschi (talk) 21:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
      • He said a few days ago that he was going away for a week. Black Kite 21:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Fine, no rush. Guy (Help!) 22:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppet[edit]

Resolved: Blocked. Spebi (talk) 05:54, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Catgnat is back again of User:Catgnat. Could be a coincidence. Guest9999 (talk) 05:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Blocked as an obvious sockpuppet of Catgnat, the evidence linking the two would be the name (obviously) and the creation of Asshole Fish, which is now protected from creation. Cheers, Spebi (talk) 05:54, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick response. Guest9999 (talk) 05:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
For the record, the sockpuppet was actually Catgnat is back again. (talk · contribs), the difference being the period at the end of the username. Spebi (talk) 05:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry about that. Guest9999 (talk) 05:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
No problem. :) Spebi (talk) 05:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Revision deletion required[edit]

A revision deletion is needed at Aqsa Parvez. I've also requested oversight, but it's taking a while. Andjam (talk) 06:17, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Done. John Reaves 06:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Phillipines radio stations - bad names, cut-and-paste, possible COI[edit]

User:Pinoybandwagon had created a series of articles on radio stations, using their brand names as article titles rather than the call letters. I moved some of these to the proper titles, explaining why both in the edit summary and in a note on the editor's talk page. Instead of responding to me in any way, PBW's simply blanked the articles under their proper names and done a cut-and-paste to the old names, with no explanation or justification under the edit summary. Example: Campus Radio General Santos alias DXCJ. It is possible that Bandwagon works for the owning company, as all of the stations involved seem to be part of the same network of station ownership. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Some other editors were helping with this, but Pinoybandwagon has not only started doing this again, but left an angry message on my talk page ordering me, "DO NOT move the Radio Station Info from its name to its callsign just like you did to the Radio Stations in General Santos because it is FINAL." --Orange Mike | Talk 12:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Single User Log-in[edit]

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-03-24/Single User Login. Admins are the new guinea pigs! Discussion here. Carcharoth (talk) 22:08, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Eep, eep. Anyone got a dandelion leaf? Guy (Help!) 22:30, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

That... is... awesome. I can log into any wiki with this username! Woot! ViridaeTalk 22:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok jokes aside, from what I understand this will affect all MediaWiki projects, what will happen when a admin tries to create a global account but his user name is already taken in other Wikis? - Caribbean~H.Q. 22:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
You can, depending on local policy, usurp your username on that wiki. seresin ( ¡? ) 22:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I have no idea, and was actually wondering the same thing. But overall I think this is pretty sweet! Tiptoety talk 22:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
A pig just flew past my window. :) krimpet 22:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Hey, discussion at the village pump. Flying pigs stay here. :-) Carcharoth (talk) 22:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
And I just got a phone call from my buddies in Hell, they said it is very chilly down there. Anyways, in all seriousness, thanks devs. We been waiting for a long time. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 22:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I feel so at one with the universe now, well wiki-universe anyway...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC) I can log into languages whose alphabets I don't even recognise! ViridaeTalk 22:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

(4xEC)We should keep any serious discussion at VPT. Facetious comments only in this thread, please :D Happymelon 22:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Now that I've got that edit through.... hehe... thanks devs, this is awesome! Own up then, who's forgotten passwords on obscure wikis? It took me five minutes to remember mine on http://test.wikipedia.org ("aaa" for future reference... :D) Happymelon 23:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
<sob> No-one is answering my question at the WP:VPT discussion. Everyone is making silly comments here. And I tried to find a (free) picture of hell freezing over and failed. Obscure passwords? Mine were all the same anyway, or I hadn't bothered to register other accounts. Hang on. Is that serious discussion? I meant to say THANK YOU DEVELOPERS! Carcharoth (talk) 23:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I found one. —Random832 (contribs) 02:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Satan is trapped in the frozen central zone in the Ninth Circle of Hell, Inferno, Canto 34.

Any idea when ordinary mortals get the SUL?--RegentsPark (talk) 00:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The Signpost story said: "It will be enabled for all users at a later date, but in order to work out any bugs in the system, and roll the system out slowly, developers decided to limit the number of users who have initial access to it.". Carcharoth (talk) 01:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Important note[edit]

Just a note, if you are merging accounts, they all need to have the same username. If you need to have an account renamed, do so before merging your accounts as it is currently not possible for bureaucrats to rename an account to a name reserved by a global account. Mr.Z-man 23:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

This looks like a serious comment. I'm copying it to the place for serious discussion (though it is important enough to leave here as well). Carcharoth (talk) 23:08, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
If you need accounts on other wikis usurped, you can ask a bureaucrat on that wiki, or make a request on m:Steward requests/Usurpation. Mr.Z-man 23:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Note that where the account has made edits, the stewards are only able to perform requests where the wiki has no local bureaucrats or local crats haven't responded to requests after a reasonable period of time. WjBscribe 23:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Could some kind person point me towards the usurption request pages at Commons and fr-Wikipedia and (if possible) a translation of the French Wikipedia one, if that exists? And do I need to attempt usurption on both Commons and fr or just Commons? (I have a differently named account on Commons, but no account on fr, and both Commons and fr have an account with the same name). Carcharoth (talk) 01:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, but it looks like the French Wikipedia doesn't offer usurption. From the page on renaming: "Il n’est pas possible de prendre un nom de compte déjà utilisé," translation: "It isn't possible to take the name of an account that's already been used." No mention on any exceptions to this. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 03:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I wonder if the user in question agreeing to usurption would help (I haven't tried to contact them yet - they have been inactive for over a year with the exception of a single upload on Commons in August this year), or maybe it is a legal thing to do with GFDL? I've had a reply on Commons, and it seems that request might go through (it seems it is the same person). What does this mean overall, though? Does it mean that my global account (when I create it) will work on all projects except fr-Wikipedia and Commons (unless the usurption requests are successful) or does it mean I can't get the full benefits of SUL? (the answer, from meta, is "You will be able to use the global account on all wikis except for the ones where the named account is not under your control.") And what if the fr-Wikipedia user resumes editing and they want to create a global account? Surely the only way they can do this would be to get renamed, because I will have taken the global account first? And what happens when an admin takes a global account that a non-admin user with many, many edits wants? Could be problems. Also, my French is not great. How am I meant to ask on fr-Wikipedia about the usurption process - are interpreters available? I would like to ask at the meta help page, and make sure the developers are aware of these threads, but don't have an account over there yet (I was waiting for SUL, surprisingly - I know, it is best to create the accounts anyway, to avoid cybersquatting, but still). Hmm. Questions, questions! Any answers? Carcharoth (talk) 09:07, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
(unindent) By the way, I actually needed a link to the French usurption page, and when you don't know a language it is almost impossible to find this sort of thing. I've made a request for more interwikis and help here. Carcharoth (talk) 09:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, I didn't give a link as the page doesn't exist. The renaming page is here and requests are here, though. I assume that if the editor agreed to usurption, they could simply do a double name change (that's allowed on en, even if the editor in question has edits). It might be easiest to contact a bureaucrat on fr. I won't be able to help you much with communication, though. Roughly interpreting French into English is the extent of my ability. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 18:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  • This doesn't affect usurping, does it? I need to usurp one created by a vandal on gaWP. Guy (Help!) 00:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
    • I think (but don't quote me on this) that ordinary usurping when you don't have any edits you want to claim, just involves renaming the other account to another name, taking the edits with them, and then you gaining that user name. I think that can happen after creating the global account. What can't happen is for you to have previously registered an account and want to rename that to a "global account name", and that can't be done (yet, and it may take a long time to happen), which is why renaming (to credit edits to your name) needs to take place before the global account is created. eg. I need to get my Commons:User:Carcharoth (Commons) edits renamed to Commons:User:Carcharoth, which involves a usurption request. Only then should I create the global account. But a straightforward usurption of the name, with no edits to rename to the name, is less of a problem. eg. I request fr:User:Carcharoth to be renamed after I create the global account, and then I can automatically login as Carcharoth on the French Wikipedia. I think. The Commons account is a problem for me, in that the passwords of en-Wikipedia Carcharoth will match the Commons one (I could change this to avoid confusing the system), but the usernames won't match, though a match for usernames will be found (but different passwords). Did that last bit make any sense? Carcharoth (talk) 01:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

SUL and renames[edit]

Wikipedia:SUL/Consultation on renames

The implementation of Unified Login may mean that bureaucrats should agree to perform renames in circumstances where our practice is currently to decline them. I have created the above page in an attempt to get a feel for community consensus on SUL and how far bureaucrats should go to accommodate SUL-based rename requests. Input from all welcome and appreciated. WjBscribe 01:20, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Not to be facetious, but there is a rather glaring typo in the page name. Will add a more useful comment at the page if I can get in there before someone jumps in and moves it. :-) Carcharoth (talk) 01:40, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
David Eppstein fixed the typo and I'm going around and fixing all of the links. =) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 04:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Signal it on your userpage[edit]

Of late, I've been more off Wikipedia than on it; so, I do not know how the community reacts to SUL. I personally feel that SUL is indeed a good system in non-controversial cases where there is no conflict of 2 users having the same username on different Wikimedia projects. I also believe that it is important that people who have gone for SUL signal that their username is unique on all Wikimedia projects - I created the template {{Unified login}} to signal that. Pl. feel free to use it/ improve it. --Gurubrahma (talk) 09:15, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Great idea :) I've made some changes to it, including a name change. It now sits at {{User unified login}}. Spebi (talk) 09:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Userbox equivalent at {{User SUL}}:
Wikimedia-logo.svgThis user has created a global account.
Happymelon 13:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

New vandals[edit]

Resolved

developed conversation at ANI alreadyKeeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:35, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

There's a steady stream of new users who are so called "wiki-mafians". Be on the look out, they have a tendency to mess with RFA, AFD, the mainspace and user talk pages. Rudget. 14:54, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I just posted some specifics in ANI, too. Tan | 39 15:17, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
In an effort to keep conversation in one place, I'm "resolving" this thread and pointing people here. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:35, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Unified log in[edit]

Hey, just as a reminder, this is now enabled for all admins. Go to Special:MergeAccount to do it. Justin(Gmail?)(u) 15:25, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

See the thread already running above. Happymelon 15:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


behavior of UKPhoenix79 in Great power article[edit]

UKPhoenix79 (talk · contribs) continually ignore/remove a source from "the Canadian Encyclopedia", that contradicts his POV and the very disputed list of current Great powers, please ...can someone stop him? thank you --80.104.56.158 (talk) 17:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Harassment and incivility[edit]

The user 213.97.51.67 is continuously attacking other users, myself as well as the Macedonian people. The user, who by his own admission is a Greek nationalist, repeatedly accuses anyone not sharing his view of being a troll and pushing for POV, [1], [2], [3] even going so far as to claim that those who doesn't share his view should be "indefinitely banned" from Wikipedia. [4] As can be seen already by a quick look at his edits, it's pretty clear the user is the one with a POV-agenda as he only acknowledges the Greek point of view [5], [6], [7]. A good deal of his anger is directed at me. For the record, I'm neither Macedonian nor Greek, not in any way involved in the dispute and have reverted edits by nationalists from both sides to uphold WP:MOSMAC. This is enough for the user to repeatedly call me a troll and to call for me to be blocked [8], [9]. He has been warned over his incivility, but has instead decided to go even further today, including claims that Macedonians "steal, usurp and kill everyone" [10] and continued attacks against myself [11], reinserted even after an admin removed them [12]. I consider his continuous attacks directed at me on multiple pages harasemment and slander. Obviously he takes no heed of requests for him to observe WP:CIVIL. JdeJ (talk) 20:00, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

  • WP:ARBMAC applies. However, it isn't clear to me if this is a stable IP or one with changing users. Can anyone tell? If stable, notify the editor for the case. GRBerry 20:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Appears to be stable and I've notified the editor of this report. JdeJ (talk) 20:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
    • It's certainly been stable since 25 February, possibly even since last year, as this points to the same user (the IP is in Spain, so it's not just any random Greek). You can apply ARBMAC sanctions against the user currently behind it, and then if he resurfaces under other IPs they can automatically be applied to those too. Fut.Perf. 20:12, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Ok, I've put the IP address on warning, using the good faith version because it might be a shared IP. Admins applying sanctions probably need to reevaluate stability at the time they prepare to act. GRBerry 20:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, but that seems insufficient to me. "This notice is not to be taken as implying any inappropriate behaviour on your part"? If you really meant that, then why did you give the warning in the first place? That the notice might at some point in the future be read by somebody uninvolved is an entirely different issue, but the point is, the person who is using that page now needs to be given a much much stronger signal.
The only other issue that remains is to work out whether the anon user behind 87.2*.*.* IPs (87.221.4.107, 87.221.5.113, 87.219.85.2, 87.219.85.248, 87.219.85.149, 87.221.5.81) should be treated as a sock- or meatpuppet and placed automatically under the same restrictions. He said here [13], [14] that they were a group of friends, apparently coordinated off-wiki. Fut.Perf. 20:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I used the assuming good faith version of the ARBMAC warning because I think there is a high likelihood of the warning eventually being seen by someone other than the current editor. If the IP is a small business with more than just a modem/DSL connection, then there could well be other employees. If the IP is a modem/DSL connection, then it will likely be eventually reassigned to some other customer of the ISP. (The power outage scenario, for instance.) If you feel that stronger actions are needed for current behavior, feel free using the usual tools. The point of the notice is to make the full discretionary sanction toolkit available in the future. GRBerry 20:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment While I appreciate the ARBMAC, I wish to repeat that I consider his multiple attacks directed at me harassment, and that's a matter outside ARBMAC. JdeJ (talk) 20:35, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Good point. His behaviour was so clearly disruptive that there's really not much need waiting with sanctions for another round of warnings. Fut.Perf. 20:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Meh. I'm stupid. I totally forgot that I had warned him already myself, on 4 March [15].. So, definitely no reason not to apply sanctions at this point. Fut.Perf. 21:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Problem with Eratosthenes[edit]

Eratosthenes

I've been doing Recent Changes reversal for a few months now and this particular problem escaped my attention. I reverted edits that were very helpful. Perhaps helpful enough to improve the article's quality rating. Unfortunately, the poster was anonymous and edited my personal page in response...and I didn't see it until now. here's the diff: [16] from December 27.

Unfortunately, the edits that I reverted have now been built upon by other people. I think this is valuable information that should not be lost. How do you suggest we proceed? Jadeddissonance (talk) 23:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

If you think the information is important enough, use the info from the diffs and weave it into the article. In the edit summary, cite the diff where you found the information. I also think it's very admirable in the care you've shown by bringing this up here.Seraphim♥ Whipp 23:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Use of rickross.com and religionnewsblog.com as external links/convenience links (has been moved to WP:RSN)[edit]

Discussion moved
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


A number of Wikipedia articles currently link to rickross.com and religionnewsblog.com. With respect to rickross.com, talk page consensus on Talk:Prem Rawat a few weeks ago was that the site appeared to be in breach of WP:EL#Restrictions_on_linking:

Material that violates the copyrights of others per contributors' rights and obligations should not be linked. Linking to websites that display copyrighted works is acceptable as long as the website has licensed the work. Knowingly directing others to material that violates copyright may be considered contributory infringement. If you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work. Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors. This is particularly relevant when linking to sites such as YouTube, where due care should be taken to avoid linking to material that violates its creator's copyright.

Our concern was based on the rickross.com's copyright disclaimer:

rickross.com: "All META tags, page titles, keywords and other content descriptions used throughout this website are only intended to assist search engines for research and locating purposes. This in no way, shape or form is intended to mislead anyone by implying any official representation and/or relationship exists between this website and the owners of any trademarks, service marks and/or copyrights, which may contain the same keywords and/or titles." ... "Any publisher, Webmaster or news service (i.e., official and legal holder of copyright) that objects to their material being included in this archive may request that it be removed and/or that future material be excluded. An official written and signed request sent via fax or regular mail made by the copyright holder and/or their legal representative on company or legal letterhead will be honored."

Some of the material hosted on rickross.com is for sale online by the legitimate owners.

Religion News Blog has been mentioned as a similar case; in particular, this subpage was proposed on the Prem Rawat talk page as a suitable external link. Here too it seems that copyright owners' permission is not routinely sought:

"Religion News Blog includes copyrighted material the use of which may not always have been specifically authorized by the copyright owner."

The Religion News Blog also carries a rather large amount of advertising.

Please advise to what extent these two sites should be linked, or existing links to them removed. Jayen466 17:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Suggest taking to WP:RSN with disclosure that local consensus at Talk:Prem Rawat is the subject of scrutiny at an ongoing arbitration case. DurovaCharge! 17:21, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 Done, any further comments please at WP:RSN#Use_of_rickross.com_and_religionnewsblog.com_as_external_links.2Fconvenience_links. Jayen466 17:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

08:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Two things[edit]

First of all, Image:Yellow_Sub.JPG isn't being used anywhere. This seems supicious.

Secondly, I found a really amusing comment in an article recently that isn't vandalism per se, but just a very very funny phrasing. Should I do anything about it? I really don't want to. 81.149.250.228 (talk) 08:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Nothing suspicious about it. Correctly licensed at a glance, and we have thousands of unused images like this. This one is also unusable, so feel free to send it to WP:IfD for discussion if it bothers you.
If you don't want to do anything about the "funny phrasing", then don't. Editing or not editing is not compulsory. You could, however, provide a link and let others judge. ➨ REDVEЯS is a satellite and will be set alight 08:35, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
The article is Sulfur hexafluoride. See if you can find it! 81.149.250.228 (talk) 08:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Doesn't look like anyone's found it yet! 81.149.250.228 (talk) 12:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
"like all gases other than oxygen, SF6 is not oxygen." A bit of tautology there methinks ... Graham87 13:09, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
It was added in this edit, apparently in good faith. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 13:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Yep, funny no? 81.149.250.228 (talk) 08:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Long list of image sourcing, unspecified license, and disputed fair use rationale for user's uploads[edit]

Wiki-film-fan has a long stream of issues with his image uploads, which have all been tagged as delete because of their lack of licensing information, fair use rationale, sourcing, etc. I think this is the place to report this sort of thing. — scetoaux (T/C) 23:40, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Left a final warning. -- lucasbfr talk 17:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protection at Furry fandom[edit]

Recently someone at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection requested indefinite semi-prot at Furry fandom. It's been protected several times in response to vandalism, before, and doesn't seem likely to stop being a target. That said, I'm not sure if it regularly rises to the level of vandalism I usually associate with indefinite semi. Previously the page was indefinitely move-protected, and so I haven't applied any automated expiry to my current protection (such an expiry would also remove the move prot). Leaving the floor open for discussion of an appropriate expiry time on this current protection (if any). – Luna Santin (talk) 06:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

As you can see from the history, there's a good deal of vandalism at the article for the past week. It's fairly common for the article to be the target of forums or just bored folks. That said, I'm not sure an indefinite is necessary, as the majority of the vandalism is caught rather soon and reverted. The occasional *chan attack will happen, but we can protect it when that does. I'd say a week at most is all we need right now. -- Kesh (talk) 06:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't like protecting articles. Unfortunately, the page is the number one hit for a popular target of ridicule, so they do keep coming back. While they can be reverted, doing so and checking over other editors' reverts wastes time (I'm sure I'm not the only one who has it watchlisted). For me, the main argument against it is that the article is still not at a standard where it is unlikely that anonymous edits could significantly improve it (if anyone wants to change this, there's a reward). It was indefinitely semi-protected for months before, and we had a couple of complaints about it during that time. I'm not sure which cost outweighs the other, though. GreenReaper (talk) 09:34, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
It seems that much of the vandalism is spotted right away. I know it doesn't appear that any recent IP contributer has made any appealing edits, but the fact that they are vandalism seems pretty obvious to RC Patrollers. I think we only need indefinate semi-protection when the IP editors cause sufficient problems to the article, and I don't really feel as if the article is under much threat, as the vandal-edits are quickly dealt with. If they weren't, and other, more recent edits masked them, meaning they stayed in the article, then it would be necessary. Lradrama 10:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Just briefly glancing at the history (and counting the number of times the word "revert" appears :D) I would support this protection, at least for now. Remember indef doesn't have to be infinite - just like blocks, protection is reviewed as the situation changes, and can certainly be reversed as and when necessary. Happymelon 10:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Looks good, FWIW. Yes, most of it was being reverted quickly, but it still clogs up the page history and wastes valuable contributor time. Indefinite semi is not the devil—as Happy said, indef != infinite. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 13:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Semi-protection is now on and looks good to me. I'll watch it, too. Bearian (talk) 15:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC) P.S. 3 months is probably more than enough. Bearian (talk) 15:25, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I think the article will always be a vandal magnet, and there's probably not much that can be done to prevent it other than semi-protecting it permanently/indefinitely. For the most part I have not noticed the level of vandalism being that bad in recent weeks, although I see it got hit pretty hard for a couple of hours last night. --Mwalimu59 (talk) 15:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Request for redirect inversion on Swiss Italian[edit]

Would it be possible to invert the redirect Swiss Italian with the actual page Italian language in Switzerland, for consistency with Austrian German for example? Thanks!! 195.176.176.226 (talk) 13:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Why not keep in consistant with American English? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 Done since your edit last February reflects this change and nobody objected. Thanks! (note: edit conflict, I have no opinion either way). -- lucasbfr talk 15:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Image on main page not protected[edit]

Resolved

FYI. 65.213.184.1 (talk) 13:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

PipepBot[edit]

Can I suggest that an eye be kept on this bot? It sometimes seems to delete interlanguage links for no apparent reason, for example recently at Gmina Brzeg Dolny and Brzeg Dolny. I've left a note at the owner's Italian talk page (from where it appears that there have been similar problems in the past, involving blocks being placed).--Kotniski (talk) 17:14, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Update. Following brief discussion with the bot owner (he replied at my talk page, I at his), he claims this behaviour is intentional, i.e. the bot is apparetnly deleting interlanguage links which it finds on more than one page. I have serious doubts as to: (a) how a bot is supposed to be capable of deciding which of duplicate links is most correct, and (b) whether there is anything wrong with having such duplicate links anyway (in some cases they would seem to be highly desirable). --Kotniski (talk) 17:38, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the main problem I see with this is that it is often the desired behavior. There is not going to be a bijection between the topics in one Wikipedia and the topics in another. For instance our biography of Isaac Newton spans many pages, but it seems to me that they should all link to the (lone) Isaac Newton page existing in most other Wikipedias. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:52, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
You make an excellent point. I don't think the bot, or rather, the bot "operating in manual mode" as Pipep described it, should be going around removing interwiki links in situations of the type you describe. - Neparis (talk) 01:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I would like to answer the questions of Kotniski. (a) The bot is operating in manual mode, and I (the bot owner) am deciding, which of duplicate links is most correct, not the bot itself. (b) Accordingly to Help:Interlanguage links, "Interlanguage links are links from any page (most notably articles) in one Wikipedia language to the same subject in another Wikipedia language", and "interlanguage links are only put from an article to an article covering the same subject, not more and not less". --Pipep (talk) 19:24, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

That's a stupid policy. It seems like it was placed specifically to make it "easy" for interwiki bots to operate. Well, this is an encyclopedia for humans, not for bots. —Random832 (contribs) 13:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree. And the page Help:Interlanguage links cited by Pipep as if it were a policy, is only a help page, not a policy (not even a guideline). Could somebody correct me if I am wrong please? - Neparis (talk) 01:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't get it. If other languages/projects do not yet have an article about Isaac Newton's later life, do we want to make it appear that they do? Hmm...

Well, actually, we could link to something like es:Últimos años de la vida de Isaac Newton, then follow the link and redirect it to the es:Isaac Newton#Últimos años de su vida section, then if all goes well we wouldn't need to change anything when such an article is created. But for that procedure to scale well, we would require smarter bots and better communication between projects. — CharlotteWebb 18:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Having the links implies there's an article where there is none - that doesn't seem like a good thing. It could potentailly cause users who want to translate articles for another language Wikipedia not to. Guest9999 (talk) 20:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Unprofessional[edit]

This section has been blanked as a courtesy.

This was only hurting the subject of the article, something we should avoid. Given the high-profile nature of this page (including its' archives) and its' search engine rank, we should give consideration to this fact and move any further discussion, if needed, to user talk pages. The previous contents of the thread, which could be considered "resolved", can be viewed here.

Thanks, Daniel (talk) 21:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Stale DRV[edit]

Resolved

Someone please close the ignored and stale unclosed DRV here. I don't know what happens under these circumstances. Thanks! —Kurykh 00:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Closed. Nakon 00:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Disappearance of Madeleine McCann[edit]

I am concerned by the defamatory nature of this edit summary. Not only does it contravene WP:BLP but it could render us liable to action. I think it should be removed from the edit history. However, since I am heavily involved with editing this page I should welcome a review, and if judged appropriate, removal of this entry by an uninvolved admin. TerriersFan (talk) 00:32, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that you should email Mike Godwin, the General Counsel of the Wikimedia Foundation, about his opinion on wikipedia's liability. Currently the policy is only to remove libelous information when either: a) on the advice of Wikimedia Foundation counsel or b) when the subject has specifically asked for the information to be expunged from the history, the case is clear, and there is no editorial reason to keep the revision. Jon513 (talk) 00:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I went to delete the article in order to remove that edit, but I got a message saying it's over 5,000 edits and therefore can't be admin deleted. I don't know what the procedure is for such pages, but that edit summary really ought to be removed. SlimVirgin talk|edits 00:54, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh for goodness sake. Block the troll, and ignore. The WMF will not, and could not be sued over such nonsense. We've plenty of real libels in article space without worrying over silliness in an unsearchable edit summary. --Docg 00:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I would be surprised if we were liable for things in the edit history. I thought that hiding edit history was only done to remove personal information. --Arctic Gnome (talkcontribs) 00:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I checked the page history on this site, which says the article only has 3,761 edits. I understood that that site was normally accurate, so I wonder who is right. Doc and AG, it's not a question of liability; there's just no reason we should keep edit summaries like that. SlimVirgin talk|edits 01:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Looks to be under 5000 edits [17]. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
As a first step, I think that User:Sad Git should be blocked to avoid a repetition. I would prefer this done by an uninvolved editor. I suspect that this is a sock account anyway - newbies rarely start by using detailed edit summaries. TerriersFan (talk) 01:04, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Besides, we just had two high-profile libel cases in the UK over accusations that the McCann's did it... should definitely be oversighted. Sceptre (talk) 01:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Oversighted is certainly overkill. There's no private information here, just idiotic vandalism. Yes, some journalists got sued in the UK, but I hardly think stuff in an edit summary by some kid messing on the internet is at all comparable. Goof grief, Wikipedia plays totally irresponsible on BLPs and then hyperventilates over this shit. Perspective people, perspective! There's nothing significant here.--Docg 01:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Block of User:Sad Git[edit]

I am a little surprised that people are working on removing the edit summary when the user that made it is unblocked. I have just indef blocked this user for a "serious BLP violation". (1 == 2)Until 01:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Does that merit an indef block? I would have done it for a month or 3 ... but I can live with what you did. Bearian (talk) 01:39, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
That is a really nasty thing that person said, and it was about a living person. The website in question is ran by the girl's parents, so that bit of context may be important. When I see a user do that who has no history of contributing positively, I block indef until they can convince me they will not be such a liability in the future. (1 == 2)Until 01:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree with the indef block; serious BLP problems, and towards people who have brought legal action against people who have said the same thing. I would also support removing the edit from the history. J Milburn (talk) 01:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I think it was a good call. There is an organised campaign here and their POV position can be seen below the line in posts by GoodForYou (bottom of the page). TerriersFan (talk) 01:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Indef block open and shut. Troll account, no need to stand on ceremony. If he wants to come back as a good contributor he can do so in 24 hours with a new account.--Docg 01:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Amen to that. - Caribbean~H.Q. 02:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
To be fair, I gave a little explanation of our policies, but I doubt he's more interested in anything more than being a jerk. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
While I am pretty sure his ignorance of what he did wrong was feigned, I agree that it helps appearances to give an explanation as you did. Thanks. (1 == 2)Until 16:16, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Russian Wikipedia-problem with Neutral point of view[edit]

Request Rollback on Pseudopseudohypoparathyroidism[edit]

Resolved: Vandalism rolled back, and all is again right with the world.

I believe this page has been vandalized as part of a personal prank. The main text now reads "means that Halley sucks balls". I do not know how to roll it back myself and I do not think I have the privileges anyway.

I am sorry if this is not the right place to make this request but I have looked around for the last 10 minutes and this is the best I have found. The Wikipedia section on vandalism says that it is only for reporting chronic vandals for potential banning. I am genuinely trying to follow proper procedures.

In addition to rolling back Pseudopseudohypoparathyroidism to its proper entry, can someone check and make sure that when people type in vandalism and/or rollback in the search box they are directed to a clear place they should go to report vandalized pages that need to be rolled back.


--Michalchik (talk) 09:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Done. For future reference, you can do it yourself (even without the rollback tool). See here for an explanation of how. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 09:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

User edit warring again after block[edit]

After user User:Res Gestæ Divi Augusti was blocked a few days ago for 3RR in Turkish operations in northern Iraq (2007–2008), he appears unwilling to talk and continues to revert multiple users' edits in [18] and [19]. Thanks, --TheFEARgod (Ч) 09:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Re-blocked (log) by Scarian. — Athaenara 16:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

COI issues[edit]

Resolved: Moving venue Rudget. 14:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

This may not be the right venue, but does this have a conflict of interest. I started the article a few months back but I think the real person is clearly attempting to promote themselves in the most recent edits. Could this be a username block proposal? Rudget. 14:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:COIN would be a good place. Kelly hi! 14:28, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I was trying to think of the link.. Thank you. Rudget. 14:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Gooddays' concerns[edit]

SA in trouble again? More evidence of WP:CIVIL out of control?[edit]

I completely disagree with a 72 hour block for this, or stating someone's arguments are boneheaded. I mean, come on, this is really pushing it. I am disgusted frankly. I will also note that SA apologized immediately after: [104].--Filll (talk) 17:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The block also mentions this other edit [105]. Also, wonder at his awesome block log [106], altough I have to say that on first sight he was never blocked before for WP:CIVIL, so maybe 24 or 48 hours would have been enough for first violation of civility --Enric Naval (talk) 18:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Enric, SA has been blocked for WP:CIVIL many times and is under an ArbCom restriction that specifcially prohibits incivility. Please see my link below. Ronnotel (talk) 18:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
So this was all just an innocent mistake? As were the four previous violations of his Arbcom restriction? Ronnotel (talk) 18:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

While SA might be a bit sarcastic and testy sometimes, he is a valuable contributor. And frankly, I value productivity more than worshipping the god of WP:CIVIL.--Filll (talk) 18:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Fortunately, civility versus productivity need not be an either-or choice. Civility can be viewed not as an end in itself, but rather as a way of keeping discussion productive. When you're overly rude, or make things personal when they need not be, it distracts other editors from more productive pursuits. Friday (talk) 18:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree, Friday. But as Raymond pointed out on SA's talk page, this was two days ago. Blocking for something that occurred 2 days ago (and for which SA apologised) appears to be unnecessarily punitive. We don't do punitive blocks. Guettarda (talk) 18:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
That said, the project needs SA. Productivity isn't the issue - he deals with cesspools that most of us can't stomach cleaning up. Credibility of the project is what matters, far more than productivity. Guettarda (talk) 18:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Hang on, this dif is two days stale? Ok punitive blocks aren't good at all. I suggest an ublock, or at minimum, a drastic shortening of the block. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Can someone please explain the preview button to SA? It does wonders for my civility and I suspect could help him out if he committed to using it. But Fill is correct that long blocks for this don't seem to be helping the overall productivity of the encyclopedia. 72 hours seems excessive given how productive an editor SA is. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:44, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I would support an unblock if the user has already apologized. (1 == 2)Until 18:54, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
yes, unblock sounds reasonable based on time elapsed and the apology. Friday (talk) 18:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I've unblocked SA given the relative staleness and the presence of an apology. I'va also asked him to reconsider the... combative nature of the current state of his talk page. — Coren (talk) 19:07, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Shouldn't the blocking admin have at least been made aware of this discussion before going ahead with an unblock? --OnoremDil 19:15, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes. I was under the mistaken impression that this was already the case— I've apologized for that oversight on his talk page. Also see below. — Coren (talk) 19:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Please note that the time elapsed was due to a discussion at ArbCom enforcement. Ronnotel (talk) 18:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Coren, but this was really a poor decision. Without regarding the merits of the block or unblock, we have WP:AE for a reason, and the report was handled there in the usual manner for reports of Arbitration sanction violations. I would be more than happy to merge the entire board back into WP:AN or WP:ANI, but complaints really need to be handled in one place. Specifically,

  1. Filll is forum-shopping, the enforcement request was made and acted on at WP:AE, as was explained on SA's talk page.
  2. You have not checked with GRBerry, or reopened the WP:AE thread to offer your dissent.
  3. Did you review GRBerry's explanation? SA is under Arbcom sanction for repeated instances of bad behavior.
  4. If you feel blocks made at WP:AE are not made in a timely fashion, please consider patrolling there on a regular basis.
  5. Please log the unblock, and your reasons for unblocking, on the Arbitration case page, and make a note on the closed WP:AE thread. Thatcher 19:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
With all due respect, how did me posting this note in one place (aside from a discussion on a subpage of Raymond Arritt's, which I was not aware was a venue for administrative action), without even asking for any action, or petitioning anyone for redress, but to express my displeasure, constitute forum shopping? Have I asked at AN/I for action? Did I petition arbcomm for action at AE? Have I asked ANYONE to unblock SA? Please, perhaps I have forgotten doing so. Please demonstrate to me HOW I am forum shopping. I would be glad to make amends and apologize for forum shopping if it can be demonstrated to me that I am. Thank you.--Filll (talk) 20:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I was made aware of the block too late to chime in at AE (I guess I should spend some time there, if only to give a hand). I did mistakenly presume GRBerry was aware of this thread - an error I've already expressed my regrets over to him.
As for the unblock, I want to make certain it is very clear that it's not a reversal of GRBerry's decision, with which I have no beef, but a post facto unblock because of mitigating factors. Frankly, SA has made giant strides if he can recognize that he was uncivil and apologize for it; and I wanted to make certain he would not perceive the block as punitive (which, judging by his talk page, was already the case) to reinforce that positive step forward. — Coren (talk) 19:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Did he actually recognize that he was uncivil though? "I apologize for any perceived incivility" is not the same as "I apologize for being uncivil." A step maybe, but it's no giant stride. --OnoremDil 19:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
And further, I believe GRBerry took the apology into account in his decision, disregarding it as a "non-apology apology". I concur with Thatcher's point above regarding forum shopping and the out-of-process actions. Ronnotel (talk) 19:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
(ec) I think that the unblock was unwise, but will not be acting further in this matter at this time because SA has clearly climbed the Reichstag since the block, and effective measures to get him down from it need to be taken by others. Overall, I think SA is making some progress towards reform, but like anyone with a longstanding behavior pattern that is attempting to modify their behavior, backsliding occurs along the way. For SA to remain as an editor in the long run, Filll and other editors who agree with SA's point of view need to help SA succeed at eliminating this behavior pattern of attacking other editors. Otherwise, I forsee a future arbitration case giving SA a long term vacation from editing. GRBerry 20:00, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
(ec)This is not a case of forum shopping at all. The discussion at WP:AE was inconclusive, and moreover closed directly after the block, thus preventing further discussion there. Bringing it here and to the attention of a larger group is entirely acceptable. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
It is a poor apology, but it's a significant improvement nonetheless. I've already gotten SA to tone down the rhetoric on his talk page, and with a bit of luck we'll have him down the Reighstag soon. Consider this an attempt on my part to mentor him for a while. I'll keep an eye on his behavior; I didn't intend to unblock and leave someone else to clean up after me. :-) — Coren (talk) 20:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Stephan is right - there one complaint, two people who say "don't block". GRB's decision to block is opposed by the discussion at AE, not supported by it. Trying to justify this block via AE is just perverse. Guettarda (talk) 20:20, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The way I read it at AE, John254 makes the initial complaint, John Vandenburg says "not worth a block", and Rocksanddirt disagrees with John Vandenburg (and thus presumably concurs with the complaint about civility). It does not appear to me that GRBerry was going against consensus, and everyone (John Vandenburg included) there seemed to think there was incivility at some level. alanyst /talk/ 20:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
You're right, I misread Rocksanddirt, he's disagreeing which John Vandenberg. But he doesn't seem to be expressing a clear opinion on the complaint. I can't see his conclusion as support for the complaint either. 1:1 is still not consensus. Guettarda (talk) 20:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree that 1:1 is not consensus, but the 1:1 disagreement was about whether a block was warranted, not about whether SA had been uncivil; where everyone involved seemed to think SA was uncivil to some degree, GRBerry's decision to block in accord with the civility parole does not suggest poor judgment to me. I don't think he needed a strong consensus for it because of the existing sanctions. alanyst /talk/ 21:07, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Here is the remedy as decided by ArbCom: "Should (SA) make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, (SA) may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below." It doesn't seem to be calling for consensus, just the view of one admin. I don't see GRBerry as acting out of process. Ronnotel (talk) 21:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I have really only had contact with SA over one entry, Anomalous phenomenon, where he has failed to remain civil but as some people seem to be objecting to the civility guidelines then that one article includes plenty of other interesting edits - if I am not mistaken he has not only violated WP:3RR [107] but, after being asked to take this to the talk page and discuss things he resorted to simple vandalism [108]. When I asked for more input (so we could reach an consensus, he removed my comments and accused me of inciting meatpuppetry [[109]]. And that is just one article over the space of a week or so - comments on his talk page would suggest this is only one small part of a bigger issue. (Emperor (talk) 20:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC))

The problem is his refusal to accept responsibility for his incivility, which will often take the form of non-apology apologies. He continues to insist that it is not his actions that are getting him in trouble, but others reactions to his actions - for instance, someone being 'offended' by what he wrote. SA could never offend me because I'm not offended by Wikipedia talk page comments, no matter how rude - but that doesn't mean it's impossible to be uncivil towards me, it just means I have a thick skin. But whether someone is offended or not, continued incivility does make collaborative editing problematic. Now he states on his talk page that he will no longer participate in talk page discussions. One must wonder how he hopes to reach consensus with those with whom he disagrees if he's not willing to talk to them. Dlabtot (talk) 21:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

At this point, no dispute because of no talk page usage would be an improvement. There is no requirement to discuss anything on talk pages, and as long as no edit warring is taking place, it's good enough for the time being. Let's see how this goes. — Coren (talk) 21:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Hope springs eternal, I suppose. But I just don't see how Bold, Revert, Discuss minus Discuss can equal anything other than edit warring. Dlabtot (talk) 02:27, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually, except under the most strict interpretations, there is a requirement to discuss things on talk pages. It's called WP:DICK. - Revolving Bugbear 18:11, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
No, it's WP:DR#Discussing_with_the_other_party. Dlabtot (talk) 18:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

ROARR[edit]

Civility culture-specific. Little UK users known to use use "WTF" as friendly endearment. "Boneheaded" not horrendous insult in any culture. Atomic deathray perfectly civil in monster culture. Admins not civility police. WP:NPA not remotely suggest blocking for testy edits. 'Zilla alarmed by trend of civility blocks. Alarmed 'Zillas with admin tools considerably more dangerous to project than testy edits HINT HINT. bishzilla ROARR!! 23:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC).

I wholeheartedly endorse this product and/or service. This post earns the MessedRocker Seal of Approval, which means an appropriate licensing fee has been paid and there is no adult content. MessedRocker (talk) 23:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Of course civility is culture specific. But somehow the people at the UN manage to work together. I am glad to see recent arbcom decisions remind everyone that this is meant to be a collegial environment. We could do with a small bit more collegiality and a small bit less edit warring; we won't achieve that if we refuse to sanction editors who too often exceed our community norms. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:34, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Please try not sound so testy, little Carl. That not do tone of place any good. bishzilla ROARR!! 00:08, 29 March 2008 (UTC).
Indeed, we can all use a reminder sometimes. If the overall tone of WP improved to where my testy comments stood out among the others, that would be a great improvement. But, unfortunately, things have devolved to a point where I would have to strain for most people to notice when I'm speaking strongly. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:18, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

People get emotional, people gain a vested interest, people get into a shitty mood, and some people are just not good with people at all. It's up to the communicatee to be the bigger man/woman and not let what they perceive as incivility get to them. MessedRocker (talk) 01:15, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Well said, Messedrocker. And given that there are now about 1500 admins, and several thousand other users, from all over the world and from all sorts of societies and cultures, there is no single definition of "civility." Five different editors or admins can have five different interpretations of exactly the same words. The greater problem is that editors cannot predict which admin's personal standards they have to meet in order to remain within the bounds of civility. If they have only encountered admins or other editors who have a liberal interpretation of the policy, and suddenly encounter another admin who has a very strict interpretation that they have never been exposed to - is it the editor who is the problem, really? It is worrisome to see people penalized for using expressions that are perfectly acceptable in their own cultures because someone from another culture decides to interpret them as a great insult. Risker (talk) 01:48, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
I think you're worried about a different problem. Everyone has bad days - that's to be expected, and nobody is (I think) talking about blocking without warning for an isolated comment. The issue I'm thinking of is editors who have an established pattern of incivility despite attempts from others to encourage them to change. It's perfectly reasonable to expect editors to meet some community-established level of decorum if they wish to contribute here, and to remove from the community editors who aren't willing to do so. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:03, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I've had a good idea[edit]

Since nothing stays on the web that long, how about writing a bot that will:

  1. Webarchive[110] Sorry, mean webcitation [111] each reference on an article
  2. Amend the link on each article to refelect that

Thoughts? 81.149.250.228 (talk) 12:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

a good idea! --TheFEARgod (Ч) 12:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Wow, i just tried that for one of my sub-pages, and that is stunning. Webcitation could very well be one of the most valuable tools we could get in terms of having to replace references. — Κaiba 12:36, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Hold it for a moment. That would have a number of implications that need to be thought through.--Tikiwont (talk) 13:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
This is a very good-looking tool, but probably not for having a bot do mass conversions (if nothing else, we're the 9th most popular site in the world and could thus easily swamp webcitation.org). But very worth suggesting its use by editors. Do that at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources to see if people want it written into the notes. ➨ REDVEЯS paints a vulgar picture 13:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
In simple words, if asking an external site on a large scale to archive a copy of material that we cite was compatible with our goals, we might also be doing ourselves, and it seems to be clear that we wouldn't keep copies of copyrighted material here. Moreover, their cites should in any case not replace current ones. As indicated above webcite seems to target individual authors. Actually, we have an article WebCite and dissison threads already at e.g.Wikipedia_talk:Citing_sources/Archive_14#WebCite, Wikipedia_talk:Citing_sources/Archive_19#Webcite An quite a few links already [112]. --Tikiwont (talk) 13:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
An archived copy is never a substitute for the real thing; however most citation templates support a parameter like |archiveurl=, and adding an archived copy is always useful. Happymelon 13:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
This site is good for that at least. I dont support removing the whole reference and replacing it with a archive link, but certainly having the archiveurl parameter filled easier with webcite is always a benefit when URL's are moved, deleted or change drastically in content. — Κaiba 15:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't understand some of the above. What should I do? I've been doing a lot of Wikipedia reading recently (must be honest: some of it at Wikipedia Review, Encyclopedia Dramatica and Wikitruth) and think I have a good handle on what's going on. I think the idea is good. What next? Rather drunk at the moment as well 81.149.250.228 (talk) 19:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and by the way, interested in proper contributing as *well*, but the problem is I don't write well. Also have temptations to be rather profane. Better doing random improvements, if you get me 81.149.250.228 (talk) 19:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

help with ClickFix on template:Geobox_image[edit]

Can an admin make these changes, (and check them). Template_talk:Geobox_image#fix GameKeeper (talk) 18:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I think I've got it, assuming your request on Template_talk:Geobox_image#fix was correct. I tested it with Sancti Spíritus Province, the test case your provided, and it looks correct. Thanks for providing the code fix and the test case; that makes things easier. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 18:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Hmm. You said it didn't work, so I reverted that edit. Is there a chance that some of the other templates that transclude this template are doing something funny that needs to be corrected? --Elkman (Elkspeak) 18:34, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your speedy help. Yes there is a chance that something odd is happening. I am really confused by Bratislava the image is still broken there. It was broken after the fix, which is what suggested to me that the fix did not work.... but when I recreated the infobox for testing here User:GameKeeper/sandbox it all looks OK. I am still trying to get to the bottom of this. GameKeeper (talk) 18:45, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I did some more experimentation in {{X9}} and hacked away at it until I got it to work. It looks like it's working OK at Bratislava (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), but it might take a little while for the background processing queue to work through every article that includes {{Geobox}}. I think using {{ifempty}} with {{px}} worked better than trying to use the #if formulation. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 20:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
A quick look at that template network left me struggling for breath - as a general rule, any template which requires three categories to keep track of all its subcomponents is in need of a serious shakeup :D! It clearly works, but could also clearly work better and more efficiently with a bit of careful restructuring. Good luck finding where the one- or two-character error is in that mess. Happymelon 22:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Mentorship[edit]

Resolved

Hello, I'm Nothing444. I have been reffered here by a user that doesn't want me to mentor new users because I have been recently blocked. But I really want to mentor new users. I won't teach them bad things, or to vandalise or anything. If you want, check out more info on my block at user talk:Nothing444/Archive2. I really want to do this. Nothing444 22:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I am the user in question. I told him that he was not qualified to adopt by virtue of the blocks in his block log (very recent). He's trying to have another adopter refer adoptees to him for "mentorship". My judgment in this is that the difference between adoption and mentorship is sufficiently small such as to disallow Nothing444 from both. I should say that I find his enthusiasm refreshing, if misguided. - Philippe | Talk 22:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Why can't we assume good faith here? Of course you can assume that I won't teach proteges bad things, but I know that I wont. Please see WP:ASG. Nothing444 22:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
It is great to see that you want to try to help new users out however, you were just blocked on the 16th and received a second block on top of that one. May I recommend that you maybe take a little more time to "learn the ropes" or maybe have an editor review to discover the areas that you can improve upon. Give it around 2 months or so and then consider delving into mentoring new Wikipedia editors.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 22:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Nothing, I don't think that you'd knowingly guide anyone wrong. I don't think you'd set out to teach them bad things. But I also am not sure that you've demonstrated an understanding of Wikipedia's core principles and beliefs. Get to know this community better, take several months (I think more than two, and the adopt-a-user program specifies at least six months from the date of your last block) and really get to make yourself familiar with what we do. Wikipedia isn't about adopting people, Wikipedia is about writing an encyclopedia. - Philippe | Talk 22:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm seems Philippe is right. The program's guidelines do state that if you have been blocked it is more acceptable to become one six months after a block.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 22:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
(2xec)There's something you don't see every day - a new shortcut to Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Makes me wonder just how many there are! Your enthusiasm is extremely encouraging, but I must echo what Persian Poet Gal has said - it's certainly not appropriate for you to be teaching new users the ropes when your block log seems to indicate that you don't know them perfectly yourself. Everyone makes mistakes, and we all believe in second chances, but I suggest you spend a bit more time settling in and learning the finer nuances of Wikipedia - what rules bend, which ones snap, and which ones bite back - before trying to teach a complete novice. No one can be more damaging than a bad teacher, and while my gut instinct is that you'll eventually make a good one, your logs suggest otherwise, and the logs never lie... they just go out of date :D. Happymelon 22:34, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
It may be worth adding the user also appears to have less than 300 article edits. George The Dragon (talk) 22:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
If you all think I need to know the rules better, how about I just write an essay on wikipedia? Nothing444 22:39, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
An essay doesn't seem like a good idea to solve this.--RyRy5 talk 22:46, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
There is no need to stress yourself and write an essay to prove what you know. Just allow an ER to take place, rack up some productive edits here and there, and get to know the community first. It would also give adoptees more faith in you if you have taken the time to adequately learn most of the mechanics behind Wikipedia. Its always good to teach oneself first and then pursue teaching others ;).¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 22:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I echo the above sentiments; the best teachers are those that have learned the skills they wish to pass on, and the best way to learn around here is a) participate in building the encyclopedia, and b)reading and understanding the rules. The fact that you were unaware of the time limit for previously blocked prospective adoptees indicates a basic lack of familiarity in investigating the areas in which you wish to participate. You are saying you wish to teach others to run when you yourself are still stumbling. You need much more experience, although there is no lack in enthusiasm. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:04, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeease. I seriuosly cant wait that long. I cant take it. I just neeeeed to menotr users. Nothing444 00:31, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure that this last comment makes it seem that your're ready to do so. DGG (talk) 01:29, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
That comment backs up everyones worries and reasons as to why they do not feel you are ready to adopt new users yet, I think it simply comes down to a lack of maturity, maturity which you can only gain over time. Tiptoety talk 02:43, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Vote tampering and canvassing[edit]

Can somebody take an appropriate action against User:Harjk. He called for a vote to remove the "Background" section on article Religious violence in India and then canvassed other users to influence the voting (see [113][114]).

Once voting started, he modified a comment against the vote into a vote for removal of the Background section (see [115]).

Now he claims that he has a consensus when the fact is that 2 users have opposed the voting process itself and 1 user wants the entire article to be deleted. Please see Talk:Religious_violence_in_India#Voting_commenced_.28Background_section.29. This is a new user who has indulged in such activities continuously.

Additionally User:Harjk has also used fowl language against other editors (see [116])

Thanks Desione (talk) 09:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

This is User:Harjk. It is all baseless allegations and disrupting. The issue has been already discussed at the talk page of the article. It all started when User:Desione is pushing pov forks and inappropriate stuff to the article with no reason given. Please check the history also (near to 3RR vio), he is acting against consensus and disrupting others. --Tomb of the Unknown Warrior tomb 10:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Additionally, it is true that I'd informed others who had actively edited the main article. It doesn't mean that I'm canvassing them. --Tomb of the Unknown Warrior tomb 10:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't see there is anything wrong in this. Harjk did not change the comment of the other editor, he only changed the format which he described in his edit summary "added comment list-wise". Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 10:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

It was my comment. It was not a "vote" "for" the straw poll. Calling it a change is format is just plain lying. It was border line vandalism and it was when I decided the user is a troll.
I am busy these days, so I cannot provide all the diffs right now, nor arrange them nicely. I have tried to list the important ones here.
But there is no doubt that vote canvassing and trolling is all that is being done by User:Harjk. Here are some relevant ones:
  1. Here is the discussion that I wanted to have. [117] Please note that I started the discussion and my edit is 13th of March, 22:50 pm - already almost 14th of March. Also note the amount of "discussion" in that section. I think one can say that it is null. Also note that "Background" section was added on 15th of march by User:Desione.
  2. When I return on 17th of march, a straw poll has been started by Harjk.[118] at 6:47 am of 17th of March.
  3. Then Harjk goes on to recruit favorable votes.[119][120][121] But as the guy who started the discussion, no message is given to me. The canvassing is removed later, but the message has been sent.
  4. When I object to voting process, and add a comment against "vote for deletion of text by