Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive136

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Do they mean us?[edit]

Do they mean us? They surely do. Made me think, anyway. Guy (Help!) 19:49, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Face-surprise.svg ... Never - Rjd0060 (talk) 20:04, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
I think he's referring to Internet arguments in general. Isn't the author of xkcd a supporter/fan of Wikipedia, anyway? NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 21:25, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Go on, be honest - how often have you felt that you 'must correct someone on the Terrible Wrong Thing they just edited in? Guy (Help!) 21:41, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
In case anybody else likes such things, Mark Liberman from Language Log analysed the word order here. --Hans Adler (talk) 22:26, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
I do, yes, but I also tend to get the feeling "they're wrong!' when arguing with someone over the Internet on message boards, chat rooms and the like - it's not just limited to Wikipedia editing. I think that general feeling is what Mr. Munroe is referring to, it's not targeting any web site in particular. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 18:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
At least he seems to know Wikipedia fairly well. In case somebody still doesn't know it: Citation needed. Be sure to move your mouse over the image: The best thing is the tooltip. --Hans Adler (talk) 23:07, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Heh, I love that one. JoshuaZ and I were hammering away at each other over the Daniel Brandt DRV till all hours one day and I don't think I stopped till he linked that strip in his edit summary. Relata refero (talk) 22:38, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, this phenomenon is definitely one of the engines that powers Wikipedia. The "somebody is wrong" cartoon definitely helped me kick my mailing list habit. :-) And yes, Randall Munroe is definitely a Wikipedia fan. [1] [2] [3] William Pietri (talk) 05:31, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Don't forget [4] and [5]. EdokterTalk 22:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Backlog at WP:SSP[edit]

Can anyone assist in clearing it? Cheers, Enigma message 06:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm looking to get through a few within the next hour, after lunch. Regards, Anthøny 14:27, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Still a severe backlog. Enigma message 00:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Just helped clear a bunch, but 33 cases are still listed as open. That's after closing something like a dozen. :) Enigma message 02:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Anon IP got my religion wrong[edit]

... among other interesting issues: [6] But this is probably not actionable, since it is a Dynamic IP using multiple IP addresses. Cannot be prevented. Network Engineer.. /endsarcasm Antelantalk 08:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Slapped it with one-week block. MaxSem(Han shot first!) 08:34, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I was getting a bit tired of reverting him after the first 2 dozen times. --erachima formerly tjstrf 08:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you both. As promised by the original offending IP, this continues under a new IP. Antelantalk 08:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Max blocked that one. Guy (Help!) 12:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Should this be tagged as resolved, or are there outstanding issues? Anthøny 14:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Ah, the frothing "YOO IS JEW" ips have returned! For context, please see this archived discussion. SoLando (Talk) 18:38, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
You should note that earlier edits from this IP include "it (Kristallnicht) was a great day in history", "die you fucking kike", "NIGGER JEW NIGGER JEW NIGGER JEW", "FUCKING KIKE GET OFF WIKIPEDIA WE DON'T WANT JEWS HERE" and much other racist abuse. IP has already been blocked twice previously this month, and I don't think that a one week ban is remotely long ennough. Can we not block any anonymous edits from this IP, and insist that anyone editing from there establish an ID? RolandR (talk) 19:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree and have upped it to three months. They may come back on another IP, but the message needs to be loud and clear that this is intolerable.--Rodhullandemu (Talk) 00:53, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Speedy backlog[edit]

CAT:CSD is backing up rather - over 110 pages and 60 images. JohnCD (talk) 20:57, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll have a look. At least at some. --Tone 21:03, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

AIV comment templates now available[edit]

There is now a set of useful templates when reviewing AIV reports, per the link in the header, following this discussion at Talk:AIV. As ever, comments and improvements welcome. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:15, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Nice. I cannot tell many of the symbols apart, though due to similar colour-scheme/pattern; perhaps emphasize differences between a few. El_C 21:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I should note that this is a forked discussion from WP:AN/I, but I think that requires yet another "comment template" which I can't be bothered to find right now. — CharlotteWebb 21:44, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism of own talk page[edit]

I've removed the "garbage" statement. The page could be locked until the block expires, but this seems likely to inflame the IP more. The IP has obviously read the messages. Any admin would check the block log and probably the talk page history if anything happens down the road. Gimmetrow 01:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Points well taken. Thank you, JNW (talk) 02:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
He reverted again. Page should be locked, inflamed or not, as this is clearly abuse. JuJube (talk) 04:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Category:Images with the same name on Wikimedia Commons[edit]

This category is severely backlogged - any admins without anything to do, please take a few minutes to check and delete some of the images in the backlogged categories. Make sure to check against the criteria listed at WP:CSD#I8; the most common problem is that the Commons image isn't in a category anywhere. Hersfold (t/a/c) 03:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Non-free image outside main space[edit]

Could someone look into the use of this Image on the discussion page here, which has been readded twice after being I had changed iit to a link [9] [10], thanks Fasach Nua (talk) 13:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I can see what the other editor thinks s/he means here: the tags on the image say it's a screenshot of Wikipedia, and we allow ourselves to use screenshots of Wikipedia (almost) anywhere on Wikipedia. However, virtually no Wikipedia is visible, so in fact I'd say this is actually a screenshot of Internet Explorer 6 and thus only for use in the mainspace and only where relevant under the NFC policy. ➨ REDVEЯS is a satellite and will be set alight 13:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh for crying out loud... Fasach is back and continuing what he does best; stalking me, and only me. Too bad. After a period of rest I was this close to closing this RFC. I will change the image, but one more incident like this will result in a ban request. EdokterTalk 14:50, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I fail to see the problem with this image. It bears no Wikipedia logo, and the IE6 interface is not visible either. I'd say this is protected by GFDL and therefore free. -- lucasbfr talk 17:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
It sure looks like a perfectly reasonable GFDL tag. It's a screen shot of a bit of Wikipedia body text, along with a couple of scrollbars at the edge of the window. (The title bar and the remainder of the window are not visible.) At best, I would say that this is an overzealous interpretation of the fair use policy; at worst – if Edoktor's reference to a past dispute is accurate – it is an example of a timewasting and vexatious complaint that may warrant censure. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Ah, I see—the original image included the whole IE window. Still, a bloody wrongheaded attempt to manipulate the fair-use policy in such a way as to annoy and harrass another editor. The screenshot was being used as part of a reasonable effort to troubleshoot a problem with the way that Wikipedia pages rendered in IE. Deciding that it needed to be immediately removed from the talk page because it contained portions of the IE interface demonstrated either abominably bad judgement or bad faith. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  • cough* Not on my part, I hasten to point out. I assumed good faith on behalf of the original poster (and Edoktor, for that matter) and had no reason to know there was any history between them. I am many things, but omnipotent isn't one of them. ➨ REDVEЯS paints a vulgar picture 21:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
You meant omnivorous whoops omniscient, right? — Athaenara 06:48, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
There is very little history between myself and Edokter, just because he is paranoid doent mean I am out to get him, if you look through the RFC where he has given evidence I am targetting him only 3 of the 19 examples have anything to with him, and you only have to scroll a few threads up this page to see an identical issue raised with anothher non-free image. Just because Edokter has a vendetta against me doent mean I take undue interest in him. Paranoia should not give this user carte blance to run roughshod over fair use policy, and raising a breach of policy for independent review should not be grounds for censure Fasach Nua (talk) 08:10, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
And since when is the way to contest a usage of a potentially non-free image to make a report here? If you can't resolve it on the user's talk page (did you even try that first?), WP:PUI would be the place to go. Mr.Z-man 16:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
The image was clearly unfree, the user had tagged it as such, but used it on a talk page, and there seemed little point raising the issue at WP:PUI. There is a useful little tool Special:Contributions/Edokter which allows you to see what edits any user has made, but to save you looking it up, the only attempt Edokter made to resove this (prior to me raising the issue here) was this edit comment [here] Fasach Nua (talk) 11:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Puzzling editor will not use Talk or edit summaries[edit]

I'd like some suggestions on how to reach an apparently "clueless" editor. That's not a personal attack, but perhaps a concise way of describing his behaviour. Specifically, David Krysakowski (talk · contribs) likes to work on a set of articles that intersect my watchlist, namely the set of lists in category:lists of Olympic medalists. Some of his edits are useful, updating links from disambiguation pages, for example, but many of his edits are destructive, requiring reversion or repair. All efforts to appeal to him to improve his editing behaviour seem to fall on deaf ears. He responds to messages (from anybody, not just me) by blanking his user talk page, he never uses edit summaries, he marks all edits as minor, and he habitually makes multiple edits in a row to a single page instead of using the preview button. All the while, he continues to edit the same set of articles over and over and over again — a quick look at his wannabe_kate edit count shows many of these lists have hundreds of his edits. What do we do? — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 22:27, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Is it worth considering a 'conditional indef block'? The idea would be to explain the rationale on his Talk page when issuing the block, and require him to actually participate in a discussion there before the block would be lifted. The block could be lifted immediately if he were willing to make some undertakings about his future editing, including the use of edit summaries. A short block seems unlikely to change his approach, since two have already been tried, one for 3 hours and the other for 12. EdJohnston (talk) 02:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


Well, I'd try a 31 hour block first (that'll make sure that he notices) in case he doesn't think people are really serious. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:34, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Besides the two blocks, this editor has received dozens of warnings on his Talk page over the last 10 weeks, and he has removed all of them. After I notified him of this discussion, I saw that he had removed a previous message about the same AN thread. I think we'll have to talk very loud to get his attention. The puzzling Olympic edits plus the lack of communication go as far back as August 2006. EdJohnston (talk) 14:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
After logging on today, his first (and third) edits were to blank his user talk page again, so he is reading these messages, yet declining to respond to them. About three hours later he started to work on List of Olympic medalists in rowing (men)‎, making eighty consecutive edits to that list! It's good work, adding the names to the teams that were missing that information, but the method of editing is certainly annoying. He absolutely refuses to use show preview, apparently, so the page history is clogged. But here's the question — is that disruptive? Enough to warrant a block? I'm inclined to wait until he does something that requires repair before issuing the "conditional indef block", which I think is a good idea as it forces him to start communicating via his talk page. But are his actions of today sufficient to justify that...? — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 19:09, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
(btw, thanks EdJohnston for renaming this thread. It was the right thing to do.)
I've blocked him until he chooses to address these troubling concerns. John Reaves 19:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
After you blocked him, he seems to have been replaced by a new "contributor" Kryskwsk. A coincidental similarity in the names? David Biddulph (talk) 14:33, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Clearly the same editor. — Athaenara 00:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that too. It appears as though after logging in for the first time after his indef block, he blanked his talk page and created the sock to continue. I have indef blocked Kryskwsk, and also put a three month block on the static IP 71.58.191.7 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) as this seems to be the same guy too. It would be so easy for him to simply respond positively on is talk page, and yet he chose this route. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 18:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Gooddays, part 2[edit]

Continuing from the earlier thread about Tone, Shoessss, Seraphim Whipp, et al, I think we need to have a look at his behaviour. Basically, these are the concerns:

  • Lack of civility and prone to accusations of admin abuse, and:
  • The editors contribs appear suspect. Antandarus alerted me to this problem. Looking at the mainspace contributions, they are solely to Slovenian topics, and adding an ambox template on his fifth contribution looks a bit suspect. I agree with Antandarus that this is part of a "nationalist pissing war", and I've got a feeling that it's an incarnation of a banned user. Thoughts? Sceptre (talk) 00:40, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Not only that, but I've just found out (I've only interacted with Seraphim before, I don't know Tone or Shoesss) that Tone is Slovenian, which pretty much confirms this is ethnic based. Sceptre (talk) 00:44, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Whatever the motivation may turn out, the routine way of increasing length blocks will deal with this particular account. Since after my 2 hr block the same pattern resumed, I've blocked for 24 hours, and will increase as necessary. The pattern is distinctive enough that if it occurs on another account, the duck test will deal with it. DGG (talk) 01:27, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree with the above and also find some things suspect. One example was the fact that s/he moved their talk page to a misleading title and then requested to have it deleted, as if they knew it wouldn't have been done otherwise. A real newbie would have slapped a db-userreq tag on their talk page; that's if they even know what a db-userreq was or where to find it. Seraphim♥ Whipp 01:38, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

As expected... have a look at User:Star Rising. An obvious sockpuppet of Goddays. I request a block. --Tone 08:08, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree this is not a new user. Goodays knowledge of Wikipedia policy concerning WP:Civility, WP:ANI and WP:Blocking is to far advanced for anyone with only a few days with the project. However, what concerned me the most about Gooddays behavior was not necessarily the tagging of the articles. If you followed his tagging program, though it was all Slovenian issues, it was alphabetical and once he tagged an article they just followed the blue links within the article to the next piece. But, rather their response to other users when their behavior was pointed out. It almost seemed that the tagging was done to generate a response from other users. Gooddays was than able to respond and coached his remarks in such a way with WP:Civility though Lawyering , to inflame the issue rather than help. To me, personally, it seemed that their objective was to see how they could force the blocking issue and the tagging was just a means to the end. Thanks for listening. ShoesssS Talk 11:04, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Like DGG said, the duck test would take care of any sock puppets and Tone has pointed out an obvious sock puppet account, which I have blocked indef. I hope my action was correct. Seraphim♥ Whipp 11:31, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
What is the procedure when a blocked user uses a sockpuppet to edit? Leave the edits or revert them all? About incarnations of a previously banned user as pointed out before in this discussion, I don't remember any user doing anything similar before on such scale. And I would surely notice since I monitor several Slovenia-related articles. I remember an anon tagged some articles once but those were small cases, not 100+ edits per day. In fact, the reason I got involved in this is that User:Andrejj asked me to have a look at curious edits. I'll ask him, maybe he's encountered anyone before. --Tone 12:57, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Found the guy. It's here. But you can see how this discussion was civilized and a multi-party talk that eventually led to a well-referenced article. And not limited only to Slovenia. --Tone 13:15, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I have just found and indef blocked another sockpuppet, User:Yellowlax. I would kindly ask someone to second check my action and eventually revert all the disruptive edits, I don't have time at the moment. --Tone 07:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I have already entered a report about User:Yellowlax here Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Gooddays_(2nd). -- AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 07:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikistalking?[edit]

Resolved: Not mmm-mm-mmm-mmming, apparently. Hard to disagree. Guy (Help!) 23:15, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I recently created a personal sandbox 1 to work on a refactoring of an existing page 2 that I was having difficulty updating because of another user whom get reverting my edit. The sandbox page isn't linked to from anywhere and isn't in any categories. I also didn't mention it to anybody on Wiki. However a couple of hours after I put it up the editor who kept reverting the original page listed my sandbox for MFD on inaccurate grounds. I believe that this user has been watching my edit history in order to act on my edits as I didn't even link to this page from my own Userpage let alone from a page that the user would have browsed to in the normal course of editing.

I twice gave gave testemony this User in arbcoms 1 2 on because of what I believed to be poor conduct and now believe that they may be wikistalking my edits. Could an administrator please investigate this matter if only to put my mind at rest. - perfectblue (talk) 21:26, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

ScienceApologist seems to be blocked, currently (see also #Saying "Put up or shut up" is a blockable offense? above). This seems a bit odd, but one odd incident does not equal a pattern of stalking all by itself. Has this sort of thing happened, before? – Luna Santin (talk) 21:48, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
There have been several incidents that could be put down to coincidence under W:AFG. This one is less easy to do so. - perfectblue (talk) 17:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
SA was unblocked at 20:12 according to his block log. DuncanHill (talk) 21:59, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Hm, since contributions of every user are available with just a click to everyone, I would not neccessarily call this stalking. About arbitrations, have you changed your username since I don't see your edits in any of the two cases? I think you two have a misunderstanding. An easy suggestion is to ask SA to wait until you finish your sandbox article (maybe just move it to /sanbox to avoid confusion) and then you both can have a look at what to correct and how. This is a faster way to get to an article you both agree on. I let a note on MFD as well. --Tone 22:02, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, my contributions were under the evidence section See 1 and 2 - perfectblue (talk) 17:23, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
I know Perfectblue of old. He is another advocate of fringe views. Guy (Help!) 22:18, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
A polite request, please stop calling me he. I'd also ask you to note that on the sandbox in question I'm clearly supporting the mainstream view that the topic is modern myth/folklore. - perfectblue (talk) 17:23, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Does anyone remember the episode of All in the Family where Edith was telling a story, and Archie got so tired of hearing her saying "cling peaches" that he put a ban on her using the words for the rest of the story, and so wherever "cling peaches" figured into the story she'd just mumble "mmmm MM-mmms"? That's how I'm beginning to feel about seeing the word "wikistalking" in print. For freakin' serious, people. Someone editing the same articles: NOT mmm-mm-mmm-mmming. Someone reverting your edits in >1 article within a day? NOT mmm-mm-mmm-mmming. Someone looking (horrors!) at your contributions list--NOT mmm-mm-mmm-mmming. There are very clear examples of TRUE mmm-mm-mmm-mmming--but these are totally, abjectly, utterly NOT IT. (/borderline incivility-temperfit.) Jeez. Gladys J Cortez 22:29, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
I have closed Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Perfectblue97/shadow1 as a speedy keep. Sandbox page was created at 14:03, 29 March 2008 and nominated deletion roughly 5 hours later at 18:46, 29 March 2008. -- Cat chi? 16:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Serbian World Congress[edit]

I'm very confused. Serbian World Congress is a new page, which looked to me as if it might be copied from somewhere else. A Google search led me to http://www.swc.eurowiki.net/, which, as a Wiki, I wanted to see what their license was, so I went to the home page at http://www.swc.eurowiki.net/MainPage, which says, "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia". But the history of the Serbian World Congress article doesn't show any such article as having existed before. Any ideas? Corvus cornixtalk 22:37, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I would first ask the editor who created the article. Second, from looking at the history there, the entire thing was created in one edit by a editor Vize there. It looks like the editor dumped the text here, and then copied it there (including the "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" line on all our articles). Let me ask him. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:44, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

CSD backlog[edit]

Yet again, would appreciate some help to clear it up. « Gonzo fan2007 (talkcontribs) 07:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Religious violence in India[edit]

The below is copy paste comment by User:Otolemur crassicaudatus in my talk page. This is regarding edit warring and disruptions by two editors in the article Religious violence in India.
The edits by the other users do not follow various guidelines and WP:CRUFT. The article in its present version has several problems. The "Background" section, if stays, it should include the causes and analysis on religious violence, there is no need to make two separate section "Background" and "Root causes". The root causes should be dealt in the background section. The section "Christian Militancy in North-East India" also has some problems i.e. it documents facts like "The South Asia Terrorism Portal reports that up to 90% of the NLFT cadres are Christian" which is not directly associated with violence. The "Ancient India" section should be rewritten. I named the section "History", but it was renamed to "Ancient India". The section does not deal with ancient India only, but also medieval and post-Independence history. The other users are now engaged in edit-warring and blind reverting. My involvement will not improve the situation. If I get involved in the article, they will revert my edits also. It is very much tough to deal with a pack of disruptive users. I will propose that you bring the matter in administrators noticeboard and a consensus is needed to solve the problems with the article. Thanks. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 07:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

These two users (User:Desione & User:Anupamsr) are spoiling the enhancement and tone of the article because of a prior AfD nominated by me. Today, User: Desione was only involved in edit warring and blind reverting of this particular article. Pl see his contribs and another editor AnupamSR’s contribs. I request you to take immediate action to save the article. Please see the talk page of the article also that clearly shows that these users are editing against consensus & voting. --Tomb of the Unknown Warrior tomb 08:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Admins, please wait & watch the activities going on in the article. Coz, I hope it should be alright since User:Relata refero has also supported my fight against CRUFT-pov-pushing. --Tomb of the Unknown Warrior tomb 08:44, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

The article came out of protection and the edit-war started up again. I've tried to make it clear that discussion should take place in as civil a manner as possible, and that further warring is unacceptable. If a standard discussion doesn't solve the problem, I'll put out an RfC. Ah, the plague of mystical nationalists. --Relata refero (disp.) 13:14, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Gooddays, part 3[edit]

Resolved: Blocked for 48 hours. The public face of GBT/C 12:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I have addressed my concerns about these administrators before, but they have unfortunately ended up being ignored. [11]

To sum it up, these two administrators constantly revert other editors doing good work (one of which was me, until recently), accusing them of being trolls and sockpuppets with no supporting evidence except for wild assumptions [12], and blocking them. At first, Seraphim Whipp used another administrator as a proxy to block me [13], and later on, Tone and Seraphim blocked other two editors directly [14] [15].

I don't care for my account anymore, as I have since given up contributing to Wikipedia because of all these events, which I personally consider rather hilarious. But I don't want to see other new editors going through the same piss of immature administrators as I have, and being blocked indefinitely just because these administrators have a hard life. Gooddays (talk) 12:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

What's the relation between the SSP case and SW or Tone? Rudget. 12:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Your concerns weren't ignored, they were discussed at great length, and the arising consensus was that you were trolling. The last message on your talk page (placed after your second block) read "If you resume, expect increasing blocks until you finally decide to stop playing games with us" - and yet you're back with the same trolling less than 48 hours after coming off that block. Usually blanking of a talk page is prima facie evidence that a user has read and understood the notices and warnings being blanked - in this instance it would appear that they have been read, understood and resoundingly ignored.
You claim to have given up contributing to Wikipedia - clearly this is in all respects other than trolling. May I suggest you give that up too, before you find yourself on a substantially longer, and probably indefinite, block? The public face of GBT/C 12:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  • The relation between the SSP case and SW or Tone is here [16]. The interesting part here is seeing other administrators following their silly rumors. Regards. Gooddays (talk) 12:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  • 48 hours in the cooler seems appropriate here. Guy (Help!) 12:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
endorse the block; but suggest not using the term "cooler" since we dont block to cool off; myself, I would have blocked cosndierably longer to prevent continued abuse of the system. I reassure Gooddays that I block of my accord--I am nobody's proxy. DGG (talk) 14:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Wow, a first! An unduly lenient block from me! :-) Guy (Help!) 16:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Had to happen sometime. ;-) GBT/C 18:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Got nothing to do?[edit]

There are lots of articles that reference MySpace, random clicking suggests that lots of them need to be cleaned up or deleted. MaxSem(Han shot first!) 13:44, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

My random clicking suggests most of them link to "Band X's MySpace page", and not as references, either but external links. Are such ELs considered inappropriate? I've always treated them on par with "Band X's official website". --Relata refero (disp.) 14:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
If there is no official site, such links are appropriate. But there are lots of pages like 104.7 (Canberra) where official site is mentioned, and followed by myspace profile intended only for advertising among this site's visitors. Also, there are articles where myspace is the only "reference" - they need to be either referenced (or at least tagged with {{unreferenced}}), or deleted. MaxSem(Han shot first!) 14:20, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
I've always seen the band's official MySpace as an excellent external link. Obviously though, it's a poor source. J Milburn (talk) 14:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Why is an official MySpace link bad? External links are there to serve as key jumping-off points for readers; material that we can't add to the article for various reasons (NPOV, copyright, etc). If a MySpace page serves that purpose, why remove the link? The main reason I'm asking is because a lot of people knee-jerk whenever "MySpace" gets mentioned. Content trumps the URL. EVula // talk // // 15:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't mind MySpace as an external link if it's an official site for the band, and as a reference an official band MySpace page is a self-published source. The problem arises when it's a fansite. DurovaCharge! 15:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
For an external link and a self-published source, MySpace is fine, but self-published sources have very limited circumstances. To source a brief comment, it could be done. For an entire article, MySpace shouldn't be its only source, otherwise its notability can certainly be questioned. But as Durova pointed out unofficial or fan sites are the problem, those just need to be removed as unreliable. — Κaiba 15:35, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Just agreeing here, but my take on it is that MySpace links are fine as external links for further information, but not as secondary sources. I don't see any problem with letting bands and comedians plug their MySpace sites as long as it's all external links. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Redrocket (talkcontribs) 16:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Tindal (2nd nomination)[edit]

Resolved

Can someone close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Tindal (2nd nomination)? It's been overlooked because it was originally "incomplete". Reggie Perrin (talk) 15:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Bah, I was about to close it when JzG tagged it with {{closing}}. Bah. EVula // talk // // 16:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Community sanction or ban for Jack Merridew[edit]

I'm looking for either some sanctions against Jack Merridew, or perhaps a community ban/topic ban. My main concerns are that checkuser indicates a fairly strong correlation between Jack and a banned user, Davebelle, but can give no confirmation that they are the same person. There is, however, serious behavioural concerns between Jack and White Cat (talk · contribs), a long time contributor to the project, and looking at various toolserver tools to compare editing patterns, there is a strong correlation between the editing patterns of Jack Merridew and White Cat, and it looks like there may be some element of harassment and on-wiki stalking going on, with Jack reverting White Cat on a number of occasions, and making unusually large numbers of edits that seem to be directly opposite to those of White Cat. I'm firstly looking for some confirmation that I'm not seriously mistaken, and if not, I'd like to propose some type of a topic ban on Jack Merridew editing Oh My Goddess articles and related topics, or perhaps a more general topic ban which prevents Jack Merridew from reverting White Cat, or making edits that whilst not reverting White Cat directly, have the effect of effectively reverting the edits made by White Cat. I also notice an alarming tendency for Jack Merridew to edit war, and I'd like to place Jack on some form of revert parole of 1 revert per article per day.

If Jack continues to edit against White Cat, then I propose blocks slowly escalating towards a final block of 1 year, with any user found to be baiting Jack also liable for the same punishment. I would appreciate thoughts on the issue.

Also of interest to this case are This tool which shows overlap of edits, Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Davenbelle and Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Davenbelle.

Thanks for your time folks. Nick (talk) 03:09, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

  • I need to check some diffs, but if it is true that Jack's first edits to each new article he joins are in opposition to White Cat--that is to say, he decides what to edit by looking at White Cat's contribs and taking the opposite view, then indef ban as a sock of Davenbelle. Too much coincidence, and White Cat has been through too much with this user. We should treat our good faith contributors better than to give their stalkers second, third and sixth chances. Thatcher 03:27, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  • If this user ends up being indef banned as a sock, could someone please make a note of it on the ANI where Jack accused me of being disruptive yesterday? If this is the case, the anime and television episode people are going to have some serious work ahead of them cleaning up his previous edits. Thanks though! Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 08:32, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  • In my experience Jack has a very uncivil and aggressive approach that he uses to advance his controversial interpretations of policy. I didn't realize he was also suspected of being a sockpuppet of a banned user. It looks like a ban, or at least some sort of editing restriction, is in order here. Everyking (talk) 08:49, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I would support a revert parole; and also a revert ban for Merridew on White Cat's edits but only if the reverse applies as well - otherwise it leaves carte blanche for White Cat to go round reverting "good" Merridew edits, knowing that there can be no response. Black Kite 10:35, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  • When this first came up, a similar editing pattern didn't seem to be that big of a deal - it could happen. Then, Jack just happens to share the same metropolitan area and that starts to look a bit odd. Now, from what I can see, Jack has followed WhiteCat around a number of places and is exhibiting behavior similar to the original stalking -- I'm sorry, but three strikes and you're out. There are far too many odd little coincidences piling up here and there is absolutely no reason WhiteCat needs to go through this yet again. If Jack cannot voluntarily avoid WhiteCat like the plague, I would support banning this account as a reincarnation. Shell babelfish 10:45, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  • The overlap in their edits are in tv episode/character articles. Perhaps I assume the good in people too much, but going on the editor alone, I can't believe that this is someone abusive. I see the disagreement between them as being more about one being inclusionist minded and the another more deletionist. Seraphim♥ Whipp 12:01, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I have worked with Jack a considerable amount through WikiProject D&D where we have both worked to remove/redirect/merge/whatever many of the articles on minor elements of the D&D universe- this has met opposition, as you would expect, but Jack has always acted inside policy. I have also found him to be civil, even in the face of opposition, sometime opposition based on nothing. I have no opinion on him being a sock of a banned user or of stalking White Cat, I have not looked into the evidence. All I can say is that I would be very sad to see Jack banned from the project, and I know he would be missed at WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons. J Milburn (talk) 12:37, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
    • I can't really speak to the other items being discussed here, but I would tend to disagree that he would be missed much at WikiProject D&D. I would also disagree regarding his civility towards RPG editors who challenge him as well. See Talk:Paladine (Dragonlance) for the latest of many examples of such. BOZ (talk) 16:30, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
    • I also have to chime in here and say that Jack wouldn't be missed much at WikiProject D&D. He hasn't been the most constructive editor (mostly just adding tags and voting for AFDs, and I've never once seen him vote anything other than delete, with many of them being the same cut'n'paste reason for deletion given on multiple AFDs). A lot of people on the project have had friction with him on an ongoing basis, especially the more productive editors who have added sources, cleaned up and added content, etc, and he's been rather uncivil at times towards those with a different editing perspective than him.Shemeska (talk) 01:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Jack and I worked together nicely here, for which I applaud his friendliness and efforts, but to be balanced, I cannot think of any reasonable or valid "delete" arguments made in AfDs or elsewhere that benefit the project. On the contrary, I have see many unproductive delete "votes" that do not help reference articles, welcome new users, etc., i.e. things that help the project accomplish its objectives of being a comprehensive encyclopedia that anyone can edit. So, maybe an AfD ban would be acceptable, because there is where his weakness lies, and then we could use him as an article expander, where he could develop his strengths, which would allow him to contribute to the project more constructively. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 15:51, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
    • That comes off a lot like you don't agree with him being more deletionist minded and want to ban him because you personally don't agree with him. Just because you can't see the value in his afd comments, doesn't mean they aren't valuable. In fact, I've just been through his most recent afds and the vote he cast was the result the debate ended with; this would indicate that his vote has consensus. Seraphim♥ Whipp 16:15, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Not necessarily. Just because a half dozen or so out of thousands of editors in one week (when say any given article may have been worked on by far more editors and over months or years) felt an article should be deleted does not necessarily reflect true consensus. Much of his controversy seems to be about just wanting to delete stuff. In the example I link to above, I found him friendly to work with in regards to trying to help him expand an article he created. Thus, if he channeled his energy to the kind of work that brought about cooperation and zero controvsery as in his and my work on that article, I think it would be a compromise of sorts. AfDs will go on fine without any one other editor and if they really are consensus deletes, then another delete voice is not necessary. This way he would definitely be contributing the project and would greatly reduce the likelihood of running into the same problems. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:47, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

input and insights[edit]

I suppose I should not be surprised to see this accusation again. If someone repeats something enough times, people start to believe. This is the underlying principle of advertising.

Firstly, I am not a sockpuppet, as White Cat has repeatedly alleged. He has asserted this many, many times and, quite frankly, I'm now viewing it as harassment. This current thread appears to have been initiated by this plea; Sanity please and its removal from ani four minutes later by User:Nick, whom I don't believe I've ever encountered before. This thread also would appear to be related to Kyaa's attempt to resurrect three redirected articles yesterday; see here.

Secondly, the editing of common articles is primarily centered on the Oh My Goddess episode and character articles; most of the other pages are user talk pages and the two sets of arbcom case pages. The episodes were redirected, by me, after discussions initiated by User:TTN - which is how I became aware of them and where I first encountered White Cat. I documented this all in the first TV E&C case. After that unpleasant experience, it was suggested, by User:Tone, that there were too many character articles and I proposed merging the character articles into a list of characters, which, amazingly, didn't exist at the time; I created said list and proposed the merge, which after several discussion threads, TTN performed.

All of these 'articles' failed to in any way establish notability. White Cat is a fan of this show and and hates me for my part in their being redirected. So, yes, I've edited some common pages. I have not 'targeted' pages because of White Cat's interest in them. I look for articles that are non-notable and have found many TV episode and character 'articles' that don't measure up, but have also found many D&D articles, and recently 'Honorverse' articles. I'm sure, if I were to look into other domains, I would find more. It is amazing what people view as appropriate for an encyclopedia.

I have not taken any position on any issues merely in order to oppose White Cat. Indeed there are issues we have agreed on and I have pointed this out a few times. We agreed on some proposals in the E&C 2 workshop and about it being inappropriate to promote Wikia. At heart, however, we hold different views on the include/delete question, so we are bound to disagree often. I have reverted White Cat on a number of occasions; the ones that most stand out in my mind are the time he reverted all my merge suggestions to OMG chars and the time I reverted his redirection of the OMG List of episodes. He was out of line in both cases.

I do not consider myself to be an uncivil editor. I may express myself strongly, but I don't attack people. You will be hard-pressed to find a diff where I cross the line.

As to edit warring, I have probably undone better than a thousand edits of other users. However, the vast majority of these are the likes of User:Grawp. I have been frequently supported in these efforts by a wide variety of other editors, and I don't believe I have even received any cautions about it.

Cheers, Jack Merridew 10:15, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

struck a key word. Cheers, Jack Merridew 15:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


Thanks for your comments, I've got one small question, can you give us a few details on how you noticed the thread at WP:ANI that I removed - the thread was only there for 4 minutes. Cheers. Nick (talk) 13:35, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
You left a note on my talk page directing me here and I wondered who? So I looked at your user page, talk page, and contribs and there it was not far down; immediately before the creation of this thread. Cheers, Jack Merridew 13:41, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
That seems a rather fair explanation, actually. Anthøny 13:49, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
It isn't unusual to check someones userpage to have a sense on who this user is. However it is certainly unusual (at least for me) for someone to go through individual edits of the said user - particularly those edits to notice boards. But of course the rational explanation presented is one possibility. What that fails to explain is...
  • How Jack Merridew would explain edits like this. How did Jack noticed my edit to an image page? Mind that the difference in time stamps is 30-34 minutes. I was removing a fair-use image from a gallery at Depiction of Jesus which is not related to fiction. There probably are millions of free alternatives to "Depiction of Jesus" so I still do not see why we need a fair use image in that gallery.
  • How Jack Merridew noticed this edit to Jimbo's talk page. The time stamp of my edit is 14:39, 15 March 2008. Jacks edit is 09:49, 16 March 2008. Jack loaded every diff presented on the diff I presented to Jimbo. There is a 19 hour gap between the two edits which is more than enough to make such an analysis. What's more interesting is on 09:36, 16 March 2008 Jack posted a comment at User talk:Pixelface. Between his edit to User talk:Pixelface and arbitration case is 13 minutes. In other words he analyzed a really long thread from 2005 which he discovered from my post to arbcom in just 13 minutes.
  • How Jack Merridew noticed this edit which links to my edit/discussion with Tony Sidaway between 15:15-19:34, 21 March 2008. Given Tony removed/archived my edit on 18:36, 22 March 2008, I wonder how Jack Merridew noticed a removed edit that is only available in user history as his edit came on 12:12, 23 March 2008. By the time he linked to the discussion the page in question was blanked/archived by Tony. While compiling this evidence I had to review a few diffs even though I knew exactly what I was looking for.
  • Why was Jack Merridew involved with this thread on ANI? Is his behaviour there consistent with Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Moby Dick#Moby Dick banned from certain articles? Alas that remedy there does not sanction someone from editing talk pages. But I feel Jack Merridew's contribution to the discussion was less than constructive.
Another interesting question is weather or not Jack Merridew really is a new user. The question about weather or not he is the sockpuppet of Davenbelle/Moby Dick/Diyarbakir trio aside his first few edits to Wikipedia were quite professional.
  • First edit of Jack Merridew (back then 'User:Senang Hati' meaning happy hearts in Indonesian or so Jack Merridew claims) was rather professional with wiki-linking, bolding of the first sentence, sectioning external links, categorization ([17])... He even picked the right stub template. He made other 3 professional edits to the same page. All this happened between 8-9 UTC on 11 April 2007. Page was nominated for speedy deletion at 12:45 UTC. It was speedy deleted at 14:39 same day. Jack complained (complaint itself is professional, he knew about the {{hangon}} template and etc without actually seeing it (see his complaint)) and got the article restored. Jack placed a {{hangon}} template the same day after it was restored. He requested a username change 2 days after his first edit (his 17th edit) over COI concerns ([18]).
  • All this happened in the same week as the Moby Dick block discussion that got Moby Dick and his sockpuppet Diyarbakir blocked indefinitely. Original IP of Moby Dick/Diyarbakir is still blocked.
-- Cat chi? 14:23, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
I would oppose any kind of anti-stalking sanction. Such sanctions had proved to be ineffective such as in the case of Davenbelle and in Moby Dick and I would dislike to go through the same nonsense again. While the "goodness" of his other edits maybe disputed (%26.77 of edits by Jack Merridew are to pages that TTN also edited in a "tag team revert war" manner), presence of other "good edits" cannot be used an excuse to continue "bad behaviour" elsewhere. -- Cat chi? 15:11, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
But we haven't established if this is Davenbelle. If you take into consideration that this is a different editor, this technique might work fine. Seraphim♥ Whipp 15:18, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Moby Dick was never a confirmed sockpuppet of Davenbelle. He was treated like a new user. I do not see how it will be different for this "third" person from Bali, Indonesia. All I am saying is that the suggestion in question had proved to be ineffective against two "seperate" people from Bali, Indonesia. Fun thing is I had this kind of a discussion roughly 1 year ago. Talk about dejavu. -- Cat chi? 15:24, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
This is a very complex issue, and one that has been long-running: White Cat has been filing complaints against Jack for some time now, and Nick's raising of this issue is going to finally allow us to get to the bottom of it. I'd like to address the problem of the root of the issue, and what that root is. With regards to that, we have two options: whether the problem is about Jack's status as a sock puppet, or whether the problem is his conduct as an editor and a contributor to this project.
I would tentatively suggest that the problem here is the latter: his conduct as an editor. Indeed, there is evidence supporting the accusations that Jack's account is a sock puppet. Conversely, however, there is also evidence on the counter: the checkuser conclusion was not particularly strong (I recall it being a "possible, erring on likely"—such a finding is not conclusive by anybody's standards); the editing habits are worrying, but then again, a lot of accounts have taken a worrying interest in White Cat's contributions, and by no means have all been sock puppets; and the creation of each account could very easily be circumstantial. Forgive me for acting as a devil's advocate here, but I am simply making the point that the possibility of the root issue being that of Jack's status as a sock puppet is somewhat moot.
That leaves the issue of Jack's conduct. I think it is pretty clear that it is somewhat unacceptable—I will leave the justification of that, to the above comments (e.g., Nick's comment), which somewhat sums my thoughts up. Rather than rambling, I'm going to cut straight to the point: something needs to be done. Nick's suggestion of a ban is one possibility; probation or a restriction (remember, it's not only the AC that can install editing restrictions!) I do, however, support some disruption-limiting remedy in this matter, and I would like to hear suggestions as to what can be done. Regards, Anthøny 14:29, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I can give you stalking WhiteCat and similar article interests with that explanation, but when you add that they live in the same area? At some point, you have to look and go "gee, isn't that odd" -- for the third time. Possible erring towards likely is actually a rather strong statement when you consider the labyrinth that is interpreting checkuser. Maybe we should first ask if Jack would be willing to stop any and all contact with WhiteCat? Shell babelfish 15:35, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  • First user from Bali, Indonesia (Davenbelle) was asked to stop after the arbitration case. He for the most part had stopped stalking me to excess. Instead he started nominating templates on my user space for deletion, putting my wiki-stress meter on his userpage, posting a "Cool Cat" image on his userpage, nagging my mentors and so on...
  • Second user from Bali, Indonesia (Moby Dick/Diyarbakir) he completely stopped editing before the arbcom case was closed in August (he did stalk and run). He did not edit for months only to return with this edit. Then he continued harassing me on Wikimedia Commons for a little while. He then continued the harassment with his account Diyarbakir with lots of edit gaps preventing any kind of ANI action. After all he could always argue he learned his lesson at any of the gaps.
  • So I am not so hot with such a possible sanction to this third user from Bali, Indonesia. Maybe I have a thing for people in Bali, Indonesia... ^ ^;
-- Cat chi? 16:09, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  • It would actually be very difficult for Merridew to stalk White Cat at the moment. That's because White Cat has only made 53 mainspace contributions this year; practically all of his other 1,200 edits have been pursuing his attempts to get Merridew blocked. You have to ask - who is making more contribution to the encyclopedia at this point? Black Kite 16:20, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
    Yes. You see I am not allowed to edit wikipedia. If I were to edit article namespace someone (generally from Bali, Indonesia) contradicts whatever I am doing. I used to edit Turkey related real world topics. Because Davenbelle/Moby Dick/Diyarbakir stalked me on such topics I started editing Anime related articles. See where we are now? Had I had peace and quiet in a colaborative enviorment and not have to deal with these three "different" users from Bali, Indonesia for the past 3 years, I am sure I would have more time on the article namespace. I also want to point out that I edit over 300 wikis in various degrees - mostly ones where people from Bali, Indonesia do not interfere with my work. My bot User:Computer has made over 9,000 edits alone in English Wikipedia just this month. Not that I care too much about the "number of edits" but thats more than Jack Merridew's entire contribution since he registered. People are so quick to disregard my hard work. I know no good deed goes unpunished but this is ridiculous. -- Cat chi? 16:41, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
    Also despite having so few edits in the article namespace I was still stalked to a degree. I do not edit Wikipedia for the sake of getting stalked. -- Cat chi? 16:46, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
    In all fairness, BlackKite, I don't think it is White Cat that is the root of the problem here. Anthøny 18:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

edit point alpha[edit]

  • Full disclosure: Jack asked me for input here; before editors get bent out of shape & bandy around the empty rodomontade of canvassing, he did so because he & I have crossed paths for a long time now and I can attest, as I have done so before, that his actions have always struck me as in good faith and positive for the project. It is possible that I am prejudiced by the fact White Cat has proven to be such a highly disagreeable editor over his long history here. Frankly, in this instance the credibility of the messenger counts, and the source of these accusations, high-pitched, insistent and repeated as they have now become, is near zero. I don't know who Nick is, but I am disappointed that he has chosen to sanction these scabrous insinuations; I would naturally oppose any course of action that even approximates those called for above as completely inappropriate, bordering on hysterical overreaction. Jack's contributions have been consistently solid and this seems sadly to be another battle in the episode war fought by other means. Eusebeus (talk) 16:27, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm siding with Merridew myself. What contact I did have with him on Dungeons & Dragons articles has been good (I won't say exemplary because he has a tendency to report sockpuppets of *someone* to me). However, I will disclose that I have only really had contact with Merridew, and the little contact I had with White Cat was at the declined RfArb (where I pointed out that her ArbCom request looked to be on the wrong side of spiteful), ergo I will not comment on that. -Jéské (v^_^v Detarder) 17:56, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I too am against sanctions against Merridew at this point. First, I'll be blunt: From what I've seen, Merridew is a better contributor than White Cat. Even if he is a Davenbelle reincarnation, and even if he has been stalking, if I have to choose between Merridew and Cat, I'll choose Merridew. The Arbcom ruling back from 2005 was never a very good ruling in the first place. – Apart from that, White Cat in this section above gives four examples of evidence of alleged stalking by Merridew. Three of them are from the last few days. Now, this is plainly absurd and shows to what lengths Cat's obsession with this issue has gone. Cat has made it his full-time business for the last several week to get Merridew banned. So now Merridew is stalking Cat? Well, of course he is, now. Who wouldn't? If I knew another user was manically out to get me like this, of course I would check every step of theirs on a daily basis. Fut.Perf. 18:14, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
    I was asked to provide recent examples. Old ones are available in the linked pages. I did not file either one of the E&C cases. I filed the RFAR because an arbitrator recommended me to do so because it wasn't entirely in the scope of E&C2 arbitration case. I filed to RFCU and SSP because arbitrators declined to look into the arbitration case citing a lack of prior steps (RFCU & SSP).
    Unlike people who are the source of disruption by constant revert waring, I stopped editing completely. Regardless of the validity of the reverts, I believe consensus should be reached prior to such edits. I made a very serious effort to reach a consensus on the E&C matter. I do not believe anyone can deny this. Perhaps you simply unhappy because I do not share your opinions on Episode and Character related articles?
    I did a quick check and I am quite unimpressed. Coincidences... :) This is why I hate what Moby Dick was doing. If you are stalked non-stop you start developing a level of paranoia. It becomes harder and harder to assume good faith. Which is why stalking (harassment) is a prohibited behaviour.
    -- Cat chi? 19:28, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
    Outside comment by passing editor. Quality of edits do not excuse or lessen violations of policy (if that is what has happened here - like I said, I was just passing by). Rather an honest drudge contributing than a stylish miscreant. I think policy is with me on this. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:19, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Well, one of the problems with this debate is it resurrects old battlelines from the trench warfare at AfD, with those of a like mind on much popular culture material having a similar view on Jack's edits as either a net positive or negative on the 'pedia, hence the opinion of Black Kite, Eusebeus, Future Perfect at Sunrise and Kww among others on one side, and some others (me included) on the other. Having had some more positive interactions with Jack recently, my view is one of an expatriate living in Bali who has an issue with systemic bias on wikipedia who became very unhappy after some early Indonesian material they input into the project was deleted, the Senang Hati Foundation being one which was saved, while Allison Sudradjat was not. It is feasible to me that he then has attempted to address systemic bias by setting about to remove material he deems unencyclopedic rather than focus improving some non-western articles. I suppose I am saying I can see a ready explanation for his behaviour as a massive POINT for these early reversions rather than necessarily a sock. However, I have not reviewed the old material so can offer no comment but I did note the timing of all accounts as intriguing.

There are times he has pushed the limits of definitions to push for deletion, and the rate of mowing though RPG material was rapid, and I will not forgive him for making me rummage around in my garage finding dusty old magazines at 35C and 80% humidity in a sticky Sydney summer to find references. I'd be happy if the behaviour could be diverted into more positive endeavours, at least some of the time. Jack is very good at layout and formatting articles properly and there's a heckuva lot which need wikifying. I have found that once away from AfDs (as with some other folks, probably me included), interactions become alot more positive. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:22, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

  • I won't deny that I, personally, have little sympathy for those editors who wish to infect what is an encyclopedic project with the mindless, fan-driven, obsessive in-universe detail of so many of the fiction, RPG & vidgame articles that we have here. But White Cat's behaviour goes well beyond whatever trivial animus I might have on that particular issue; to suggest I would rise to Jack's defense because of the blinders I wear over that issue is simply incorrect. In one of White Cat's many failed RfAs, I can recall an editor stating to the effect when White Cat gets adminship is when he leaves the project: I basically concur with that sentiment. This is a highly, highly problematic editor whose has created enormous trouble for a very long time. This is simply the latest example of the obsessive disruption that he has made his specialty. Frankly, Wikipedia would probably be better off without him. It would certainly be worse off without Jack. Eusebeus (talk) 20:16, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Thankyou for your measured, thoughtful and sober response. :) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:23, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Are you always this hostile Eusebeus? And I am already an admin btw. -- Cat chi? 20:54, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
      • I don't show that you are an admin... your rights sir. NonvocalScream (talk) 21:15, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
        • Oh not here on en.wikipedia but on wikimedia.commons. Commons by far is the most sensitive of all wikimedia projects. A deletion of a single image there can easily affect every wiki. I am happy to say the fears of people threatening to leave on my adminship are unwarranted. -- Cat chi? 23:47, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I've looked further into this. Here's one thing I wonder about: timing. Jack Merridew began getting involved in episode notability conflicts first with an edit at WP:ANI [19] on 6 June 2007, and then with a series of reverts in support of User:TTN a month later [20]. Throughout July and August, he was heavily involved with episode issues, apparently taking his cues mainly from TTN. This seems to have been at a time well before White Cat became involved with this field. All through June and July of 2007, White Cat was busy with other conflicts (Turkish/Kurdish ones and personal issues). The first instance that I can find where Cat got involved with episode notability conflicts during that period was 20 August 2007, when TTN chanced to hit upon the List of Oh My Goddess episodes [21] (to which White Cat had previously contributed [22]).

If Jack had chosen that field of controversy in a premeditated plan to stalk White Cat, he must have been a genius of strategic thinking ahead. Am I missing something? Fut.Perf. 21:30, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Not really. Jack Merridew originaly edited articles related to non-profit organizations in Bali, Indonesia. He only started editing against fiction related topics as a reaction to people deleting his non-fiction related article: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allison Sudradjat ([23]). Giant WP:POINT if you ask me. He was a very inactive user till the end of June [24], and only started editing fiction related articles as of 7 July 2007. I do not think it was planned at all. Had a bunch of deletionists did not pursue his article to deletion, Jack Merridew would probably be still writing about Bali, Indonesia. He tag teamed with TTN there on. His first contact with me was on 27 July 2007 (20 days after he started editing fiction related topics) at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Admiral (Star Trek) which is a part of the Starfleet ranks and insignia series at which I have 456 edits on that specific article alone. An interesting thing to note is the time stamp of my first edit to the afd was 06:21, 26 July 2007 and Jack Merridews was 11:28, 27 July 2007 which puts a 29 hour 7 minute time gap between each other [25]. Davenbelle also was quick to suggest deletion of Star Trek ranks Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparative Ranks and Insignia of Star Trek [26]. After that I started encountering this person more and more. I am sure it is possible to argue that these earlier contacts were mere coincidences and it is not like someone will be sanctioned for his or her edits from January over 6 months later. The key problem is the dosage of the salking has been increasing since. If Jack Merridew is Davenbelle, he is merely returning to his old edit pattern in such a way that he can game around WP:HA. Oh and I personally would not call Jack Merridew a genius. -- Cat chi? 23:47, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Any disagreements in any of this? -- Cat chi? 13:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Update[edit]

I don't know if anyone else caught this, but it looks important. Regards, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 15:23, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Blocked as a sock of a banned user. There really isn't much else to say now... Ryan Postlethwaite 16:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Dear Ryan, just as a note: he also admitted in that edit to being Davenbelle and Note to Cool Cat, which remain unblocked. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
I think they're all blocked and tagged now. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:37, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Okay, thank you. Kudos to Whit Cat for his persistence in this matter. As seen here, White Cat endured a good deal of guff from editors for posting what turned out to be correct information and what did indeed result in a block as proposed by White Cat in that case. In fact, I was one of the few to have taken White Cat seriously then. I encourage those who ridiculed White Cat for his accurate suspicions to at least consider apologizing to him. My concern now, though, relates to some of the below discussion. As it has been indeed established that the account was indeed the sock of a banned editor, how many illegitimate AfDs did the account start or participate in that marred the outcome or tainted those processes, in addition to policy discussions and as seen below ANI threads on good faith editors? I.e. is there damage that needs to be undone? Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 19:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
"is there damage that needs to be undone?" There is plenty. Ranging from real word topics (Mass "Kurdistan" categorization of various cities by this user) to fiction related topics (mass blanking/redirectification of various series of articles particularly Oh My Goddess! related ones)... While I acknowledge there is a problem, I also discourage any mass action... We certainly have time to discuss individual contribution by this user from any of the 5 accounts he used. -- Cat chi? 22:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit war on Megalithic geometry[edit]

See also: Articles for deletion/Megalithic geometry and Articles for deletion/Megalithic geometry (2nd nomination).

History. It is up to 5RR if the IP counts as a sock. Seems to be yet another fringe theory article in need of some admin attention. - Neparis (talk) 05:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

  • See Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 March 29#Megalithic geometry. It's a one-man kook theory with no mainstream support, and the article is almost entirely written from primary sources by someone who thinks we should have an article because "the numbers all add up" - ie WP:TRUTH rather than WP:V. I cannot find a single mainstream source that even dignifies this with a debunking. Guy (Help!) 11:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Ugh. There's a lot of pseudoscience about the megaliths of Great Britain. Some is interesting, some worth including because it was proposed or discussed by someone notable (say a 17th century antiquarian, or a literary figure like Robert Graves), but most of it neither interesting or notable, even as examples of mare's nests. -- llywrch (talk) 06:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

SCV backlog[edit]

Resolved: Thanks to copyvio-busting hatchets from Kateshortforbob and CIreland

shoy 21:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Suspected copyright violations has a major backlog, and I could really use some help clearing it out. Thanks all! GlassCobra 01:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm working on it, but there's still entries going back a week... =/ shoy 14:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

User:LisaTierny[edit]

Resolved: All socks and their master blocked by me and someone else. MaxSem(Han shot first!) 12:49, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

User:LisaTierney has apparently conducted her own RFA, passed it, and is now putting protect and semi-protect tags on pages. After being blocked, she has apparently created a sockpuppet, User:BarbaraPoeTierny and uses the sockpuppet to vandalize, while Lisa goes back and cleans up the mess. This user needs to be investigated. Also seems to have found a way to make her user page invisible.

There seems to be a pattern that I have not noticed before. A number of past vandals to the article Ed, Edd n Eddy and related articles, have also edited Mormon Tabernacle Choir. All of them have eventually been banned. This needs investigation. -- Elaich talk 05:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Her userpage isn't invisible, you just spelled the name wrong (BarbaraPoeTierney (talk · contribs)). That, and she hasn't created a userpage yet. JuJube (talk) 06:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
RfA deleted as unneeded. ViridaeTalk 06:28, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Has the reason you came to this conclusion been because of the use of Tierney in both usernames? It might be an impersonator, something that has happened to many users, which is why doppleganger accounts are created. It is also worth noting that I can only find one edit by BarbaraPoeTierney that LisaTierny has reverted. Lradrama 08:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Mind you though, this edit might be worth looking at. What do others think? Lradrama 08:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
We should be clear on something - LisaTierney is not an admin, never was. JuJube (talk) 08:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Obviously not if you look at her very small set of contribs. But, regarding this particular case, if BarbaraPoeTierney is a sockpuppet, the sock and the creator would both need blocking, and all other account creation prevented too. Which means we would have to make a report at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets That is the conclusion we need to arrive at. Lradrama 09:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

A range of IPs...[edit]

A range of IP addresses has been adding the same extreme point-of-view passage to the beginning of Sea Shepherd for a few days. The IP addresses are 60.254.234.31, 60.254.235.65, 60.254.251.21, 60.254.252.151, 60.254.235.200, 60.254.237.88, 60.254.236.122, and 60.254.250.59. They all source to Japan, according to a Whois on the APNIC. I'm not really sure how to approach this. Here are some diffs of the change: [27] [28] [29] [30] [31]. Note that the provided reference does not substantiate the claim that's introduced, and even if it did, it should be introduced in the body first, not in the lead, and not in the language used. Thanks. Djk3 (talk) 16:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I have sprotected the article for a week, since nearly all ip edits are from the range complained of. In the meantime, I suggest that those more knowledgeable regarding rangeblocks have a look at the smallest possible range that might be targeted against potential collateral damage. If a rangeblock is not feasible, then sprotecting when there is a higher than normal amount of vandalism may be the only recourse (understanding, of course that the version protected will be wrong...) LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Backlog at WP:RM.[edit]

We've developed quite the backlog at Wikipedia:Requested moves lately. We've got one item that's over a month old, and many from the early part of March. Any help in clearing this backlog is greatly appreciated. JPG-GR (talk) 19:14, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Exceptions to policy allowing removal of user page notices[edit]

There is a new discussion at Wikipedia talk:User page#Exception to WP:BLANKING about whether we should allow certain exemptions to WP:BLANKING (version prior to recent edits). Specifically the proposal calls for prohibiting users from removing sockpuppet notices (suspected and/or confirmed) or unblock notices (while blocked). As the blanking policy is an old and often contentious issue, additional input would be useful. Dragons flight (talk) 19:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Table sorting problem (with possible fix)[edit]

These tables don't sort properly...

Summarysm=n
1.4 Lsm=n
2 Lsm=n
19 Lsm=n
1 Lsm=n


Summary
1.4L sm=n
2L sm=n
19L sm=n
1L sm=n


When you press the sort button on the table, it orders the numbers: 1L, 1.4L, 19L, 2L. It may be new math, but it should be: 1L, 1.4L, 2L, 19L. (I used the sm=n flag, BTW)


Possible fix:

It seems the sort function are in this file: http://en.wikipedia.org/skins-1.5/common/wikibits.js

The part that is missing should be in here:

<code><nowiki>
function ts_resortTable(lnk) {
	// get the span
	var span = lnk.getElementsByTagName('span')[0];

	var td = lnk.parentNode;
	var tr = td.parentNode;
	var column = td.cellIndex;

	var table = tr.parentNode;
	while (table && !(table.tagName && table.tagName.toLowerCase() == 'table'))
		table = table.parentNode;
	if (!table) return;

	// Work out a type for the column
	if (table.rows.length <= 1) return;

	// Skip the first row if that's where the headings are
	var rowStart = (table.tHead && table.tHead.rows.length > 0 ? 0 : 1);

	var itm = "";
	for (var i = rowStart; i < table.rows.length; i++) {
		if (table.rows[i].cells.length > column) {
			itm = ts_getInnerText(table.rows[i].cells[column]);
			itm = itm.replace(/^[\s\xa0]+/, "").replace(/[\s\xa0]+$/, "");
			if (itm != "") break;
		}
	}

	sortfn = ts_sort_caseinsensitive;
	if (itm.match(/^\d\d[\/. -][a-zA-Z]{3}[\/. -]\d\d\d\d$/))
		sortfn = ts_sort_date;
	if (itm.match(/^\d\d[\/.-]\d\d[\/.-]\d\d\d\d$/))
		sortfn = ts_sort_date;
	if (itm.match(/^\d\d[\/.-]\d\d[\/.-]\d\d$/))
		sortfn = ts_sort_date;
	if (itm.match(/^[\u00a3$\u20ac]/)) // pound dollar euro
		sortfn = ts_sort_currency;
	if (itm.match(/^[\d.,]+\%?$/))
		sortfn = ts_sort_numeric;
// INSERT HERE

	var reverse = (span.getAttribute("sortdir") == 'down');

	var newRows = new Array();
	for (var j = rowStart; j < table.rows.length; j++) {
		var row = table.rows[j];
		var keyText = ts_getInnerText(row.cells[column]);
		var oldIndex = (reverse ? -j : j);

		newRows[newRows.length] = new Array(row, keyText, oldIndex);
	}

	newRows.sort(sortfn);

	var arrowHTML;
	if (reverse) {
			arrowHTML = '<img src="'+ ts_image_path + ts_image_down + '" alt="&darr;"/>';
			newRows.reverse();
			span.setAttribute('sortdir','up');
	} else {
			arrowHTML = '<img src="'+ ts_image_path + ts_image_up + '" alt="&uarr;"/>';
			span.setAttribute('sortdir','down');
	}

	// We appendChild rows that already exist to the tbody, so it moves them rather than creating new ones
	// don't do sortbottom rows
	for (var i = 0; i < newRows.length; i++) {
		if ((" "+newRows[i][0].className+" ").indexOf(" sortbottom ") == -1)
			table.tBodies[0].appendChild(newRows[i][0]);
	}
	// do sortbottom rows only
	for (var i = 0; i < newRows.length; i++) {
		if ((" "+newRows[i][0].className+" ").indexOf(" sortbottom ") != -1)
			table.tBodies[0].appendChild(newRows[i][0]);
	}

	// Delete any other arrows there may be showing
	var spans = getElementsByClassName(tr, "span", "sortarrow");
	for (var i = 0; i < spans.length; i++) {
		spans[i].innerHTML = '<img src="'+ ts_image_path + ts_image_none + '" alt="&darr;"/>';
	}
	span.innerHTML = arrowHTML;

	ts_alternate(table);		
}
</nowiki></code>
---------------

A line like:
	if (itm.match(/^.*sm=n.*$/))
		sortfn = ts_sort_numeric;

Needs to be inserted at "// INSERT HERE". Tested it and it works. Don't know if it breaks anything else (shouldn't). How do I fix it? I think the other "sm=" switches need to be included too.

I've submitted this on the bugsilla side, but they seemed to think it was on this side? Ephdot (talk) 20:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Some notes:
  • sm=n comes from meta:Help:Sorting, which describes already "improved" sorting, implemented only on Meta.
  • You're proposing to make a change in MediaWiki software, this has nothing to do with Wikipedia admins. This should definitely be discussed at bugzilla. (However, you did not include a link to submitted bug.)
* Bug#: 13535 Ephdot (talk) 23:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Thought it was already part of wikipedia and other tables in wikipedia seem to be using it. Ephdot (talk) 23:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Personally, I don't think we need this change. In the examples above the "L" part can either be omitted or moved into a separate unsortable column.
  • Bug#: 8028 makes the table look funny. Ephdot (talk) 23:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
AlexSm 21:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
There's also the hidden sortkey trick which requires no backend changes. --MASEM 22:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but it's pretty clunky to use though. Ephdot (talk) 23:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

BLP's - New Things![edit]

I've been working on BLPs in the background, the last while. A major concern is that biographical articles can do immense harm with ease, and therefore when we do have them, we need to provide better resources and quality control to handle the issues that can arise. Hopefully in future we'll have better ways, but for now, some items that may be of communal interest:

The problem[edit]

Historically, a number of BLP subjects find out they have a wiki-bio in a bad way - it turns up when they or others search for it. On a number of occasions (relatively very rare but very high profile) it is in a horribly savaged form when this has happened. Extreme cases have included members of the public discovering their biographies have allegations of assassination and espionage (Seigenthaler incident), terrorism (Taner Akçam) and sexual/pornographic slurs (Don Murphy).

Despite knowing we probably catch 'most' vandalism, and these are extreme cases that happen rarely, to those affected nothing less than 100% is going to be enough. That basically defines Wikipedia's needed standard as a community.

Whilst we wait for the devs to create new ways to manage such biographies, or until we as a community handle them better (or not be so willing to be prolific), there are two steps we can at least take for now: -

  • Better information on the spot, to people who have concerns about their biographies (including what they can/should do)
  • Better monitoring of biographies against repeat vandalism/manipulation.

1. Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Help[edit]

I've drafted a project page aimed at providing help and guidance for non-Wikipedian BLP subjects if they have a problem.

It's a very important topic, and can probably be made smoother. A bit of concerted editing by experienced editors might help get it really polished. I wouldn't normally ask but BLP management has been my "target area of the moment" and this is a long needed page.

Especially, if visitors don't know various policies and norms exist, 1/ Wikipedia will seem perplexing and frustrating and they may end up marginalized or blocked, and 2/ they won't know the protection that these policies should offer to them, they will not be able to effectively request either article changes, or our help in remedying any issues.

Bear in mind that this is also a page needing special care by experienced editors/admins, since it's got to address the needs of non-wikipedians in a balanced professional manner, and possibly may also have to address angry/upset non-wikipedians or biased/unreasonable non-wikipedians too... care is needed on both accounts.

2. WP:BLPWATCH BLP monitoring system[edit]

There is a common problem in BLPs and for OTRS, whereby a BLP (or page with BLP material) gets fixed and then might get degraded again a while later. We have no way to protect against that short of full protection, and consensus has not approved this as a routine thing. Typically once fixed BLP pages are watchlisted by OTRS or other users. But if the damage is quietly reinstated a few weeks later and not caught by anti-vandalism patrols, it is quite likely nobody would notice for a while. Realistically, editors can't really sit on every last BLP article for everyone, endlessly.

A common side effect is that BLP subjects themselves must often watch their own biographies - even if they did not request or create them, and don't know a thing about Wikipedia. A vandal may be online when they are asleep or away. One imagines a member of public saying "you create a bio on me and now you say you can't always notice if it's being vandalized?!" Realistically, the vast majority at any given time, are stable and clean, and vandalism is fixed very quickly. But at any time, a proportion of BLPs will be "at risk", in the sense that they were recently targeted, or have known detractors, and hence are more likely to be hit again in hours, days or a few weeks. I feel it's completely unacceptable really, that there has been no way to more thoroughly watch such pages for problematic editing happening again once it's happened once. To say "we fixed the page and now you have to watch it in case it gets defamation reinserted in a month or so's time" is not a view I can concur with.

Solution:

I approached ST47 for a bot (additional to the current OTRS bot). What we have now is the following proposed system:

  • Any user at all (including BLP article subjects) can tag any "at risk" page as {{Blpwatch|date=(TODAY'S DATE: MM/YYYY)|reason=REASON}}. The bot then provides a live recent changes feed specifically for these BLP articles deemed to be "at elevated risk", for a fixed period of several months thereafter.
  • During that period, full information on all edits to the article is posted immediately to an IRC feed, for editors to review. If damage recurs a simple !redate command restarts the clock on watching for another few months. A number of other commands exist as well, allowing "one touch revert" of obvious vandalism (subject to approval), quick tagging, and protection against improper detagging.
  • The aim is that a user or editor with a genuine bio-issue on a less well watched page, can fix it, then tag it for monitoring, and then not have to worry about it for a long time, or perhaps at all. If the vandalism or damage recurs the clock is reset by editors; if a number of months go by without problems it is automatically delisted as "not a current problem".
This handles (eg) cases believed solved by editors but they want an eye on it "just to be safe", or where the matter never got escalated to need great attention in the first place (noticed in passing or from RC patrol), which arent really covered at present. It is also very simple to use, in that all that's needed is a tag which anyone can apply.
Full information: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/BLPWatch
IRC channel for monitoring: #wikipedia-en-blpwatch

3. BLP INFO template[edit]

See Template:Blpinfo -

{{blpinfo}}

Posted for consideration. It may not be a bad idea to have a template like this for use at the base of BLP's. They are not just encyclopedia articles; they also form a significant result in any google search on on how the web will perceive a person. That needs acknowledging, however it is done.


FT2 (Talk | email) 20:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Does the template go on the article or the talk page? Majorly (talk) 20:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Article (page actually affected). It's a hidden category; it won't show up on the article page when added. (Added to WP:BLPWATCH - thanks). FT2 (Talk | email) 20:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Why not a hidden comment instead? If someone wanted to correct the article, they'd be just as likely to see that. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

April Fools' Day[edit]

Folks, heads up for what should be an extraordinary day of vandalism. Bearian (talk) 21:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, fools have a tendency to make fools of themselves. - Caribbean~H.Q. 21:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
...and of others as occasion permits. —Kurykh 21:44, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
It's going to be an amusing day. What about saving some highlights on an archive page? I see there is not going to be a humorous main page as two years ago, though. --Tone 21:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, fools have a tendency to make fools of themselves. - Caribbean~H.Q. 21:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Following up on the above, ... John Carter (talk) 21:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

To quote Gurch, "In other news, water is wet..." Keilana|Parlez ici 23:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Not always... Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 23:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Meh, the fools are already appearing and it isn't even April 1, on this side of the globe. - Caribbean~H.Q. 00:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Hm, no nominations of of Jimbo Wales for admin yet, so that's a good sign. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 00:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi. (I'm not an admin)Well, it is in UTC time. I tend to start AprilFoolsDay at 8 pm local time March 31, because of nonexistant Wikiholism. BTW, have you seen my My user page? Thanks. ~AH1(TCU) 00:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
That is almost as evil as the fake "my messages" template that was briefly placed on ANI, are people still fooled by these? - Caribbean~H.Q. 00:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Ve haff a problem[edit]

Resolved: I think I understand the below to say that this is a non-issue, though it did make my head hurt. EVula // talk // // 22:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

One of our most kind, loving, generous, and not even remotely violent admins (hint, hint), User:Bishzilla, was in the past week unfortunately accused of perhaps engaging in some unauthorized urban renewal. Regretably, the witnesses are not, well, what you you'd call "sane", which is probably reasonable under the circumstances. I did however manage to e-mail them at the Happy Harbor Home for the Helplessly Hopeless and did receive some at least slightly coherent responses. Evidently, she engaged in these activities, while, ahem, "skyclad", which probably is used more approproiately regarding her than most of us, given her height. Granted, I don't think any of the pictures which may have been taken have likely survived the accompanying radiation, and there actually don't seem to be that many witnesses who can speak even remotely coherently regarding the subject. However, I was wondering whether their might be sufficient grounds for at least an investigation of the matter, and possibly, if worst comes to worst, considering recalling that most kind and excellent personage as an admin. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 21:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Which in slightly more comprehensible terms means.....? FT2 (Talk | email) 22:18, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Recall? ['Zilla reduces little user to burned crisp. ] OK, resolved. Somebody know good template to put on? bishzilla ROARR!! 22:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC).
Paging Ahhhnold? FCYTravis (talk) 22:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Whether Bishzilla destroys cities while high in her spare time is not related to her Wikipedia adminship capabilities. --erachima formerly tjstrf 22:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

No offense, but April Fools Day is tomorrow. ;) Valtoras (talk) 22:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Depends on your timezone. --Carnildo (talk) 23:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Ahh, yes. Never thought of it that way. :) Valtoras (talk) 02:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:Erect_Penis.JPG[edit]

Resolved: Image deleted--Urban Rose 23:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

This image should be added to MediaWiki:Bad image list as it is explicit and was used to vandalize Jimbo Wales' userpage. I personally think it should just be deleted as it isn't used in any articles. The only page that it's used on is User:Ryan Postlethwaite's userpage as a "big schlong" barnstar which was "awarded" by a blocked user.--Urban Rose 22:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Was it a Biological image of a Living Penis? :) FT2 (Talk | email) 23:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Deleted, small (the image dimensions) and low-resolution. Much better-quality and directly equivalent images are on commons. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Nice of you to specify. :)--Ramdrake (talk) 23:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Big schlong barnstar? I think I'll stick to my Pedia-I Smiley Award for awards by banned users. :) bibliomaniac15 Hey you! Stop lazing around and help fix this article instead! 23:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
So only big penises are allowed on Wikipedia? Seems size does matter after all. ;-) -- ChrisO (talk) 23:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
*Sigh*...men.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 00:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
resolution and photo quality more than size (it's what you do with it etc etc).Geni 00:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Only people with good cameras and small penises say that ;) You! - Crank dat Soulja 00:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Persian poet girl, here is the xkcd view of the topic of penis size ;) I think it agrees with your view of the topic :P —— nixeagle 19:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

New policy proposal[edit]

Resolved

You all suck. Maxim(talk) 00:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I've formed a proposal that should help alleviate backlogs, reduce admin-burnout, and curb our increasing reliance on process, I would appreciate any comments on the talk page. Mr.Z-man 00:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Have you established a consensus to post here about this policy proposal? We all saw what a nightmare the straw poll for WP:RFR turned into without a poll on the poll itself. east.718 at 00:05, April 1, 2008
Yea, where was the poll on this new policy? I mean that has it has always worked right? Tiptoety talk 00:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
To make certain nobody else misses the point, I've added a proposal for proposals for this proposal here. — Coren (talk) 00:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Doesn't RfB stand for "Requests for Bureaucracy"? Darn, and I always thought it did. Antandrus (talk) 01:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I object to the closing of this thread, Maxim did not get approval for the closure by five admins in good standing. Corvus cornixtalk 03:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Issue with credibility of Wikipedia at a map on universal health insurance[edit]

I psoted this at Village Pump but am raising it here so some admins can keep an eye on things in case incivility breaks out...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


A colleague, Tony, whose opinions I trust has raised an issue with a map here at
File:WORLDHEALTH2.png
map in question
. There is discussion on the talk page over how to proceed, however, after some discussion it has been listed for deletion here Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2008_March_30#Image:WORLDHEALTH2.png. It is obviously a loaded and emotional topic so please be thoughtful about whether such a map as it exists can be NPOV or not and how to proceed. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

{{foolicon}}[edit]

On a somewhat serious note, I copied some stuff from april fool's 2006 and created {{foolicon}} to more easily identify actual april fool's jokes– kind of as a compromise between people who don't like the jokes and those that do. Cheers =) --slakrtalk / 01:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

He, how do I add this to a page I deleted? Tiptoety talk 02:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Very carefully. --slakrtalk / 02:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Extreme ownership issues; editor claims GFDL revoked and demands article deletion[edit]

Ldemery (talk · contribs) appears to have some severe ownership issues about a set of articles he originated and maintains, such as All pages with titles beginning with List of town tramway systems. He has some very strange style conventions for his lists, such as the insistence of using local language/alphabet place names (e.g. Cyrillic on List of town tramway systems in Ukraine, Kanji on List of town tramway systems in Japan), using self-referential language (such as "The original list has been divided because of size. Subsequent divisions have been made to improve user-friendliness and to reduce article size." in the main list), and avoiding proper reference citations in favor of a wikilink to one of the pages. When DAJF (talk · contribs) noticed this on the Japan list, edit warring ensued. Tags added by DAJF were removed by Ldemery and so on. The culmination of this dispute is the statement at Talk:List of town tramway systems in Japan#GNU Free Documentation License revoked; this article must be purged. Some help here from legal-minded admins would be appreciated. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 05:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Left him messages on the talk page and his talk page. Hope he understands now. SirFozzie (talk) 05:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I also saw the pointer to WP:NOREVOKE on the article talk page; I knew I had read something like that before, but couldn't remember the alphabet soup for the link... — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 05:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Evidently not - he just nominated the article for deletion on the grounds that the GFDL was revoked. (I've closed it as speedy keep) Hut 8.5 06:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Abusive User[edit]

Resolved: blocked for 79hrs for being abusive, by User:East718REDVEЯS paints a vulgar picture 09:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to suggest an administrator look into what, if anything should be done about the user Smackboy69.

As you see from his TalkPage, he has quite a few warnings, and after I reverted and warned him about vandalism on Manga Entertainment, he left a rude comment on my Talk Page.

Taking a look at his Contribs, I see that he has quite a few vandalism reverts. The General Logs do not show the edits (which confuses me a little bit.)

Just thought I'd bring it up, thanks! Matthew Glennon (talk) 07:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

More vandalism to my Talk Page. I'm monitoring the article in question, in case the user decides to retaliate there. Matthew Glennon (talk) 07:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Quotes in References[edit]

I could use some clarification on quotes and refs. In the article Bhagawan Nityananda, Footnote no.6 contains a quote of 119 words from someone's book. I think a quote like this should be in the article, not a footnote, which seems to be the drift ofWP:REF. However, when I cleaned it up, someone immediately reverted it. Am I right that such a quote should be in the article, not a footnote?