Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive144

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

Noticeboard archives


Community-imposed revert limitation?[edit]

Miyokan is currently blocked for 10 days. I suggest he post his comments on his talk page and someone can copy them over to here.

Miyokan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) aka Ilya1166 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

This chap's an incorrigible revert-warrior, with eight blocks for edit-warring under these 2 different accounts, and a good deal more edit-warring in his contributions that he has not been blocked for. He can write ok content, but when it comes to disputes goes completely haywire in a manner both tendentious and disruptive. These disputes are usually related to recent Russian history and contemporary Russian politics, due to his intense Russian nationalist perspective. I suggest we, as a community, formally limit him to one revert per page per day for a period of a year, excepting obvious vandalism. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 15:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Support generally in any cases like this. This is the best way to keep people that would or could otherwise be decent content editors from being totally booted. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 15:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Always better to try to reform than ban, so I support. MBisanz talk 19:29, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Nice to give this user some time to think about himself. This user has been doing the same thing on other articles and with other users. I have been watching him for some time now, so I think this should do some good. — NuclearVacuum 19:48, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Object - too strict. TreasuryTagtc 19:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support As a person's history of problems gets longer and longer, there is an expectation that something will be done. Proper enforcement of the policies may have a beneficial effect on a number of intractable disputes, especially those that involve strong national feelings. This revert limitation seems rather innocuous compared to blocking. EdJohnston (talk) 20:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. Sounds quite logical. Qst (talk) 20:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Why not hit them gently with the carrot, rather hard with a big stick? LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - Seems logical based on his constant conflicts, users that edit war over politics are usually the harder to convince otherwise. Carrots? - Caribbean~H.Q. 20:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose - A year is a bit much, and might as well be permanent. If this is to be a temporary injunction in an effort to teach a lesson (and it should be), it should be a month or two at most, for now. The user can then be blocked or the time period stepped-up if they still don't seem to be "getting it". Equazcion /C 21:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Concern that it would do more harm than good. I've interacted with User:Miyokan on South Ossetia where he was a very positive force in that article to add much needed neutrality. From what I can see from Turkey it looks like Miyokan was in the right however he did make more than three reverts in 24hrs. Eventhough he's not a new user he might not understand the whole dispute resolution process as it is complicated to figure out. I suggest someone explain the dispute resolution process to him and let him know how to deal with situations where he is right without repeated reverts. My concern with moving the electric fence to 1RR might just mean more frequent crossing of the electric fence. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 01:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Dispute resolution is not that hard to learn. He's had eight blocks in just under a year. That's enough time to get to grips with the rules. Moreschi (talk) (debate)
      • If the longest he's been blocked for is ten days, I would rather see more stepped blocking first, rather than resorting to this exotic sentencing idea. The logistical complication this creates just isn't worth it yet. In other words, I'd rather block someone for 2 weeks and then a month and then 2 months, rather than create a "special situation" for an entire year. Imposing 1RR on someone for a year is in a way a punishment for everyone else who has to uphold that restriction. Again it's not worth it yet. He hasn't had to sit through any substantially tough blocks yet, so let's see if one of those gets the message across first. Equazcion /C 13:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Plus: I think the point of the suggestion is to be more lenient with this user, but I think the method is somewhat misguided. I have a feeling that given the choice, he would rather take even a month block than have to walk on the eggshells of 1RR for an entire year. I know I would.Equazcion /C 13:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. Unlike the longer block, 1RR is a good measure, because it exactly addresses the problem - RR warring. This does not prevent his positive involvement in the project if he can improve his style. And I think he can really improve a lot. I know him well. He can exercise self-restraint and discipline. Biophys (talk) 23:46, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Too strict. While I agree that he does seem to engage in a lot of edit warring, and that isn't the correct way to solve disputes, I know first hand that he is a good faith editor and puts a great deal of effort into his work. Put yourself in the shoes of a (proud) American trying to edit American/history/cold war related articles on the Russian wikipedia and I think you might have a better perspective of his situation. I don't think that just looking at a number (of blocks, reverts, whatever) and deciding a punishment based on that is appropriate in this case. I think this highlights one of the most obvious and inherent flaws of wikipedia policy as a whole, the fact that it alienates those without a western conformist point of view, and promotes the "friends backing friends" aspect of edit warring, which goes hand-in-hand and allows some people to get away with edit warring while not others. All I can see this resulting in is the eventual permanent block of a positive and well informed contributer. Krawndawg (talk) 01:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
What "Russian shoes" and "western conformist point of view" are you talking about? I am a Russian user, and I edited a lot of political articles. I had absolutely no problems with "western bias" and with good Russian users. Wikipedia is not a democracy, but rules are the same for everyone. Let's not bring nationalist feelings here.Biophys (talk) 02:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Biophys, this has nothing to do with nationalist feelings. I said point of view. Please pay more attention, I am discussing content not feelings. The fact that you contribute exclusively negative things about your country to wikipedia does not help your case that you "have no problem" with western bias (note, again, I didn't say anything about bias in my post, nor did I make any comments or inquiries directed at you to warrant such a reply.) Krawndawg (talk) 02:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't believe this is necessary. I have been editing for over a month with no edit warring under Berkunt, check for yourself. My main work has consisted of fighting vandalism. When my contributions get reverted in almost all cases do not bother to revert them back, and in the rare cases when I do, I usually go to the talk page before. After that I do not bother with a third revert.--Miyokan (talk) 07:33, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


Hi all, long time no see (ha). Several months ago (1 March 2008) I trimmed the excessively long plot summary at A Simple Plan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), per WP:PLOT, via one edit. Apparently the user mentioned above (Drstrangelove57) started edit warring and issuing personal attacks once this was done (I didn't pay much attention). I returned yesterday to find the excessive plot summary reinstated, which I again removed. I'm again on the receiving end of some nasty personal attacks. Some highlights:

Other really interesting stuff

This is long term and completely unacceptable. Any help is appreciated. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 14:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I've warned the user about personal attacks, citing the two diffs from this past week in the warning. I concur that there is a long pattern of incivility here, but I don't think a block would prevent harm to the project at this point - it would be punitive, at least in the absence of further shenanigans. No comment on the content dispute regarding A Simple Plan, but more eyes there probably wouldn't be bad, either. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 14:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I've protected the page to prevent further edit warring until the disputes can be settled amicably. Edit warring never solves any issue, especially when they are peppered with personal attacks and character assassinations. seicer | talk | contribs 16:14, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Unprotected, now that user Drstrangelove57 has used his right to vanish. Fram (talk) 07:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Have you tried other forms of dispute resolution yet (e.g. a WP:RFC on User Conduct)? If not, I would suggest you look into them as they might help. Sasquatch t|c 17:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


Odd case, here. It seems that I had advised him on a speedy deletion back in January. So had at least one other user. Well, he's back with the same text dump as before. No other edits I can see. Can someone take a look at what's going on? Thanks. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 23:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

It rather looks like he had hoped you had gone away, and wouldn't notice. I would tend to ignore it for now, hope that the editor becomes a useful contributor, and zap him the next time there is an attempt to recreate the article. I don't think warning them further is going to provide them with any more clue. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Permanent move protection for articles on countries[edit]

Some of you might have noticed this persistent vandal who's been moving articles on countries to "HAGGER" every single day. Since articles on countries are unlikely to be reasonably moved to a new location (and definitely not without a proper listing at WP:RM, lengthy discussion and adequate closure of the move proposal by an admin), perhaps they should be granted permanent move protection. That way we would avert any move disruption including this HAGGER pest. Please provide feedback. Húsönd 11:43, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

  • I'd support that, even in the face of WP:DENY. Rudget (Help?) 12:59, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Count me in. Both Irpen and I mentioned the general idea in the thread above (see Grawp). - Regards, Ev (talk) 13:21, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, good idea. We ought to move-protect high visibility articles (which have no reason to be moved). Hut 8.5 14:27, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Really bad idea. Block the abuser (s). Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit. Let's not go down the slippery slope of prophylactic implementation of page and move protection because they 'might' be vandalized by lots of people. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 19:01, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Move protection doesn't prevent anyone from editing, but it does stop high-profile articles from vandalism from an extraordinarily prolific vandal. There is no reason to move country articles without discussion on the talk page. In the odd chance of a page move being decided through consensus (see Burma), an admin can make the move. Horologium (talk) 19:07, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
The protection policy states that pages can be move protected under three circumstances: "Pages subject to persistent page-move vandalism; Pages subject to a page name dispute; and Visible pages which have no reason to be moved, such as the Administrators' noticeboard." Articles on internationally recognized countries meet two of the three criteria, the first (thanks to a certain persistent vandal) and third (because they're all vital articles). In the unlikely event one of these articles does need to be renamed, an admin can take care of it at WP:RM. This seems quite logical and shouldn't be harmful in the least. Hersfold (t/a/c) 22:05, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
There's no point. S/he will just move to some other set of articles. States, cities, actor bios, etc. It's just moving the problem from one place to another. It's not practical and it's not helpful. —Wknight94 (talk) 22:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
I support permanent move protection for countries. This is not anticipating a possible future problem, it's responding to an actual problem. Blocking the type of vandals who are listed in Wikipedia:Long term abuse is an endless task, and may never be finished. By comparison, move protection is easy. Leave things movable where the likelihood of a good-faith move being needed is higher. EdJohnston (talk) 22:17, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
It's pointless, for the same reasons I do not allow semi-protection on my talk page - he'll just move elsewhere. It's an endless shell-game when protection is involved; the only pages that deserve a move-prot are articles he particularly favors and userpages he hits. -Jéské (v^_^v E pluribus unum) 23:34, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, he'll move elsewhere. But since he seems to be sticking to country articles for the moment, I think that it will be an effective solution at least for those articles, which are by the way among the most viewed on Wikipedia. Articles on countries shouldn't be moving anywhere without lengthy discussions so why having them with the move tool enabled for all? It's a blatant invitation to vandals. Furthermore, move protection is certainly better than leaving everything just as it is (not unless some of you would find any joy in reverting Hagger's moves every day). Húsönd 03:21, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) No point, per Wassupwestcoast and Wknight94. Stifle (talk) 21:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I would like the HAGGAR/Grawp bullshit to stop as well. However, as already noted by many, arbitrarily protecting one class of articles will only cause him to bounce to other articles, not stop him, and only restrict legitimate edits to those protected articles. 04:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Preventing articles like Australia from being moved doesn't "restrict legitimate edits", because there is no way a unilateral move of that article can possibly be legitimate. So we prevent move-vandalism with no downside. I support this, so long as we don't move-protect any country articles with disputed names e.g. East Timor/Timor Leste. Hesperian 04:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I move-protected a number of country pages that were vandalmoved before seeing this discussion. The main objection to this seems to be that he will move on to other articles. Ys, obviously, but he is clearly going for high visibility pages, where his vandalism has the most impact. If we can drive him to less visible pages, it may become less fun (best case scenario), and not so many readers will see his vandalism before it gets reverted. I don't see the downside to this move-protection (obviously not edit-protection), but people are free to undo it of course. Fram (talk) 10:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
The HAGGER/Grawp nonsense hasn't been just countries, so protecting the country pages will only move the vandal(s) to other pages.--Fabrictramp (talk) 17:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Support move protection. As noted earlier, this does not restrict editing of the articles, nor does it adversely restrict editors as the pages should not be moved without extensive discussion. Like it or not, we have to accept that certain high-profile articles require extra protection to avoid disruption. --Ckatzchatspy 19:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Support move protection. There are a few possibilities here:
  1. The protection is done and he stops (unlikely, but the best case scenario)
  2. The protection is done and he moves on to other topics he can move (likely, but since those articles won't ever legitimately be moved without consensus it won't harm the articles so there is no downside and the upside is that at the very least his edits will effect less important articles. A better scenario then we currently have)
  3. We do nothing and he continues doing it until we can argue more strongly that it's "persistent"
I think #2 is what will happen, but will still be better then the status quo. Also, I think it might be useful to do a long term move block, but not permanent. A month perhaps? Then test the waters again. Chris M. (talk) 15:05, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Related issue - damage to watchlists[edit]

I think my watchlist may be suffering as a result of these page moves. Today a couple of countries, American Samoa and (I think) AntiguaAnguilla appeared on my watchlist. Is this because other articles, articles on my watchlist, have been moved to or from these names? If so, there must now be two other articles that are no longer on my watchlist, and I have no idea how to figure out which ones they were :-( SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 03:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, articles only get added, not removed, by pagemoves. This means your watchlist will tend to grow as a result of pagemove vandalism. --Carnildo (talk) 05:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. That's a relief. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 13:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

User talk:HeatherRoseF[edit]

Bad uploads. Someone should look at the rest of them & possibly delete and block. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 11:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Whats wrong with wikipedia?[edit]

I really wasnt sure where to bring this up, so point me in the right direction if needs be. Is it me or has wikipedia become really slow in recent months? I often find that im not allowed to edit until the server catches up, pages an locked, the site is down etc. Is there something wrong or am i the only one having this problem, cheers. Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 17:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

No, you're not the only one. No idea why that is. Dorftrottel (ask) 18:04, May 7, 2008
It was just shut down for the last ten minutes or so. Pretty sure it wasn't just me because nothing on my watch list was edited in that time period. Gwynand | TalkContribs 18:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
That would've been due to an upgrade that caused a database failure. The general slowness I can't explain and wonder as well about. MBisanz talk 18:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Server just went down. Everything went nutso in #wikipedia-en. Nuts, I say! Bstone (talk) 18:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Forget this, I'm going back to Brittannica, who's with me? Gwynand | TalkContribs 18:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
LOL. I couldn't get any of my socks logged in. Er, I mean....Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Gwynand, i could never. ;-) , but seriously, its getting worse and worse. Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 18:13, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
You haven't been around long enough to remember the really bad days when the site would be down for hours at a time and error messages were common. Things have been pretty good these last 2 years or so. Dragons flight (talk) 18:43, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, reference m:February_2005_server_crash and one in 2006 caused by hurricane activity. You think the channels were bad now, the overflow crashed freenode IIRC. Keegantalk 19:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh yeah, and I once 1 crashed teh Wiki for 45 seconds. Woot! Keegantalk 20:13, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
2005 was bad? That year was far better than the ones before it -- have a look at this archived page for the days when the servers sucked so badly we were never sure if the servers were running. Yes, once all of the Wikimedia projects ran on 3 servers (one was broken, the other was unresponsive), & we hated it. Weren't no "good old days" in that regard. -- llywrch (talk) 21:32, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
And back in 1998, we wrote out Wikipedia in spiral notebooks with scratchy Rolling Riter pens, and whenever someone made a change we had to scratch it aaaaaalll out and start over. (And the only time we had to do THAT was when we weren't walking fourteen miles to work in three-foot of snow, uphill both ways--BAREFOOT.)Gladys J Cortez 01:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Luxury!! Orderinchaos 16:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to donate cash so we can buy more servers. :) -- Cat chi? 18:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

If wiki needs money then maybe we should start accepting advertisement offers lol. --Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 18:46, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
OMG, please don't start that thread again...(not that you have yourself, realist, just, OMG dont. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:57, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
OOPS!!! ;-( Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 19:02, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I would like to start a deletion review of Encyclopedia Dramatica[edit]

As a new source has just been published which focuses on the site and only on the site: (see here). However, I am afraid to do so for several reasons. First, there have been three separate reviews started for the site in (I believe) the past week or so, and I am afraid that my review will be closed immediately for being "too soon after the last review" (though all of the recent reviews were closed immediately and did not go through). I will explain to the best of my knowledge why the recent reviews were closed. The first of the three was started by myself but was closed immediately because I did not have a draft of the article at the time. I returned with a draft and started a second review the same day which was closed immediately by an editor who was not an admin who cited "disruption" as the reason. My attempts to reopen the review resulted in me being blocked for "the disruptive way in which I advocated the recreation of that artice" (though what that way is has still yet to be explained) and the review was never reopened (Here is a link to the two reviews I am describing). The most recent review was started by an editor other than myself without my prior knowledge using my draft as the draft of the article, but it was closed immediately for three reasons (only one of them being valid): 1. Too soon since the last review (since the article had not undergone a serious deletion review, this should not have applied) 2. Nothing new has changed, and 3. Just, no. (Yes, that was one of the reasons given. Here is the link) The second of the two reasons was however valid, as while my version of the draft was an attempt to make User:Shii's draft more in line with the sources, it did not contain any new sources, so that was a legitimate reason to close the review. But now, I have a new source, and one which covers Encyclopedia Dramatica exclusively, and I would like to start a real deletion review with this new source in mind, but I am afraid that doing so will upset certain editors, result in an edit war, and possibly result in me being blocked for "disruption" again, so I am giving prior notice of my actions. And also, I know that many editors get tired of hearing this, as they honestly believe that this site doesn't deserve an article here, but please try to remain objective on this issue. The site is crass and gross and I don't blame anyone for not wanting there to be an article on it (though on the other hand, the more public exposure it gets, the more likely it will be pressured into toning is attacks and content down), but Wikipedia is not censored, and finding something crass does not justify it not having an article if it truly does merit it. I personally find Saddam Hussein (for lack of a better word) "crass", but that doesn't mean that I think his article should be deleted. If you truly believe that ED does not have sufficient media coverage to warrent an article, I respect that, but I also honestly believe that much of the uproar that centers around the idea of creating an article on ED comes from the fact that it is a very crass website (until recently, for example, the rationale for why the article is protected for recreation read "Encyclopedia Dramatica will never be recreated. Ever."). So anyway, while I know that I am not required to do this, I would like to get prior approval before I start a new deletion review.--Urban Rose 19:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The link at the top says that the "article content does not exist". I don't think it's wise to go into a ED DRV with an essentially 404'd source. -Jéské (v^_^v E pluribus unum) 19:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I just fixed the link. It should work now.--Urban Rose 19:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree with your substantive point, but you're probably not doing your cause any good by pushing it so hard, so repeatedly... you come off as rather obsessed (speaking as one prone to obsessive behavior myself, so I know it when I see it). *Dan T.* (talk) 19:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Ummm.. there is actually an ongoing DRV for Encyclopedia Dramatica (yes, yet another one) but this one will seemingly not be WP:SNOWed. So this is kind of moot. Mangojuicetalk 19:29, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

User:I'm On Base[edit]

I'm concerned that this editor is not here to improve the encyclopedia, but rather user it as a MySpace. His contributions show that he spends all of his time in userspace, and none in mainspace. He has started giving a challenge on his userpage. When I asked him about this challenge, I made a point that instead of telling other users to edit an article as a part of a challenge, he should work on the article himself, and ask for help if he needed it. He responded by telling me he is not a good editor, and telling me to be bold and edit the article (which were my words in a comment to him). He has since blanked his page, but you can see my comments in his talk page history, and his comments on my talk page. He recently has had his IP blocked, and I believe been accused of sockpuppeting, I think. He also had an RfA, which he tried to re-open a few minutes ago, and opened an RfB for himself immediately after he tried to re-open the RfA. King iMatthew 2008 22:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Update: He added a fair-use image onto his userspace, and I removed it, explaining that a fair-use image is not allowed on a userpage, and twice he reverted. I gave him proof that it is not allowed, he asked me if I'd like help editing an article to "make up for it." I then politely said that I was fine, but he should edit the article he used for his challenge. A few minutes later, he changed his challenge from editing an article, to creating a "cool" userbox by Sunday. King iMatthew 2008 23:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Has this user done anything specifically against any policy or guideline? -- (talk) 14:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
The stated goal of this project is to create an encyclopedia; people who join but do not contribute meaningfully to this goal potentially take time away from those who do. A review of his edits will show that he has not contributed to this goal; so yes, he has been acting against established policy. Various editors like iMatthew have been encouraging him to contribute, because the alternative is to block the account indefinitely. -- llywrch (talk) 21:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
So should any actions be taken? King iMatthew 2008 21:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I believe the problem is getting worse. King iMatthew 2008 00:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

IINAA, but I advise you, iMatthew, to let it be. I'm On Base is not yet making much of a contribution to the encyclopedia, but nor are his actions threatening it. Who knows; when he gets bored with his userpage navel-gazing, he might blossom into a useful editor. There's little except friction to be gained by continuing to keep him under the microscope. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

There's a pseudo-precedent for this: User:Nothing444, though Nothing was being a bit disruptive in addition to not contributing much to the encyclopedia. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 02:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Who's abusing WP:TALK ?[edit]

Following a suggestion at WQA, User:John Carter posted a thread, asking for comments re opening one or two User conduct RfCs, at Talk:Hogenakkal Falls where the conduct occurred. One of the subjects, User:Sarvagnya, blanked the post with an edit comment indicating that JC was abusing the Talk page. Another editor User:Wikiality123 then restored the post and added a comment, effectively saying that it is relevant. Sarvagnya removed the thread again citing WP:TALK. I restored the thread and added my own opinion. An editor I've never seen before (User:KNM) then blanked the thread a third time.

Can anyone figure this out?

  • Is it disruptive abusing WP:TALK to discuss user conduct on the Talk page of an article? What if the article is protected due to edit warring?
  • Is it okay to delete another editor's Talk page post when it's not directly related to improving the article? What if it's related to disruption of that same page? SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 22:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Article Talk pages are for article RFCs, not for user RFCs. There's a different process for that. Corvus cornixtalk 22:49, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
To clarify, John Carter wasn't attempting to host an RfC on the page, just discuss one with the various editors involved. I've added the diff above. All he said was "It has been suggested on the page for the extant wikiquette alert that user conduct RfCs be filed regarding the two parties named above. Comments?" So my question really comes down to: Is it inappropriate to announce or discuss an RfC on the article Talk page where the involved users are to be found? SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 23:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
My view (IINAA) is that it is in order to use an article talk page to discuss the possibility of a user RfC where the subject of the RfC has given rise to the RfC concern on that article. It is not in order - and clearly not in order - for such a discussion to be removed. Other editors may well question or disagree with the discussion, but have no mandate to remove the discussion. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Accountcreator usergroup enabled[edit]

Just a notice, further input on how/when of assigning, etc would be welcome here. SQLQuery me! 01:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

New BAG candidacy[edit]

This is a note that I have nominated myself for BAG. You can find the nomination, and voice your opinion, at Wikipedia talk:Bot Approvals Group#RFBAG: dihydrogen monoxide.

Cheers, dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 02:07, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Notice: ArbCom granting Sam Korn checkuser and oversight rights[edit]

Given that the Arbitration Committee has promised to inform the community when they intend to grant people checkuser and/or oversight rights, this is notice that there is currently a discussion ongoing to grant User:Sam Korn checkuser and oversight rights on the English Wikipedia.

He previously served as an Arbitrator, and was a checkuser and oversighter. However, when the identity confirmation system was implimented, he did not confirm his identity and voluntarily requested that his rights be removed. As such, they were not removed controversially. He has recently asked that we grant him his rights again, as soon as we recieve confirmation of his identity. At present, it seems the Committee will be granting him checkuser/oversight rights, since his rights were not removed controversially and he now wishes to have them back.

Any comments regarding this discussion may be sent posted here, or mailed to the Arbitration Committee private mailing list if privacy is preferred. Contact details for the Committee mailing list are here. Please set the subject of your e-mail to "Comments on granting rights to Sam Korn", to let us easier sort the comments together. Although the Committee will take any and all comments into consideration, please note that the final decision resides with us.

For the Arbitration Committee,

Deskana (talk) 21:36, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

As long as he did not abuse or misuse it, this decision is fine with me. Welcome back. <spam>For future reference you may like to post on Wikipedia:Community noticeboard for general notices like this</spam> Majorly (talk) 21:46, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Except that it's a redlink. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 02:32, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Template:Announcements/Community bulletin board was probably what he meant. It is transcluded at Wikipedia:Community Portal. Wikipedia:Community noticeboard was (briefly) the name for what became Wikipedia:Community sanction noticeboard (it got moved there). It then got turned from a redirect into a noticeboard by User:Al tally, but then got deleted after a brief amount of discussion. The deletion was probably an over-reaction, as the discussion hadn't really finish. The discussion should probably continue elsewhere. Also, there are now a lot of redlinks for Wikipedia:Community noticeboard, most of which should probably point at WP:CSN. Accordingly, I'm recreating it as a redirect to fix those redlinks. Carcharoth (talk) 08:27, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I restored the history, as the reason given for deletion wasn't really a reason. Carcharoth (talk) 08:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Right. I requested it to be deleted. Maybe I should use a new sig for my new identity? Al Tally a.k.a. Majorly 16:16, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
He's a good admin, and frequents #wikipedia-en-unblock on IRC a lot. He seems trustworthy, and the fact that he gave up the tools voluntarily says a fair bit in his favor. No argument here. Hersfold (t/a/c) 21:58, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Sam Korn is one of the few individuals that I can recall having a disagreement over interpretation of some policy - although I don't recall which one it was, since it was some time ago... This likely means that they are eminently suitable for CU and Oversight. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:34, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
I would definitely trust this user if he were to reacquire the tools. - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Since he has had them before, and had the rights removed in an uncontroversial manner, I don't see any reasons why not. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 00:40, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I would as well. For the record, I have an outstanding request for Oversight with ArbCom that I made some time ago. ++Lar: t/c 00:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
No objections, I don't see any reason to believe that he will misuse the privileges. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

No objections. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 02:32, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

No objections, and taking note of Lar's comment I think it is logical that checkusers who are admins on enwiki should have oversight as well. Looking at the list of checkusers, out of about 30 enwiki checkusers there are only four who don't have oversight. EdJohnston (talk) 02:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Wow! Well, I certainly trust you - you've an excellent reputation. Welcome :) - Alison 03:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Works for me. MBisanz talk 03:19, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I approve. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 08:20, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I trust him. <spam> Incidcentally, I would not mind the community also granting checkuser rights (in a manner agreed upon between the local wiki and the Foundation)[1]</spam> NonvocalScream (talk) 16:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

This is a travesty. The Arbitrary Committee has no legitimate authority granting any sort of access of this type. This is properly the purview of the community at large. I urge everyone to do everything in their power to keep his use of these tools from having any practical effect. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 23:08, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

What the hell are you on about? Al Tally (talk) 23:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Kurt is having issues with reality (again). Raul654 (talk) 23:20, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I have no opinion in the matter, but there are people that feel that ArbCom doesn't have any legitimate authority. It's not limited to Kurt, here. —  scetoaux (T|C) 23:16, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I can sympathize with Kurt on this, but I am not at all certain why he is rolling Sam Korn into a policy problem. I would suggest, at least as informally as this thread indicates, that the community has no objection to Sam having these rights. Resolute 23:19, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Given that there have been no objections from anyone in the community, nor any objections from any Arbitrators, Sam Korn has been granted CheckUser and Oversight rights. For the Arbitration Committee, Deskana (talk) 19:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you meant "no objections except from Kurt" :) ++Lar: t/c 10:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
"No objections except for Kurt" is a redirect to "No objections". --Relata refero (disp.) 14:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Can we stop singling Kurt out, please? Deskana should apologise for the implicit snub that Kurt is not part of the community. I presume that was unintentional. Raul should apologise for what he said. And Lar and Relata refaro should think about what sort of culture they are promoting when they send the signal that it is OK to make fun of a single objector. I have no objection to Sam Korn being granted these rights, but that is only because I don't know Sam Korn well enough to judge whether he should be supported in this or not. I certainly don't have a problem with Kurt objecting. He is making the perfectly valid point (which others have also made) that some community input is desirable. I think that was the point of this thread, in case people have forgotten that? Carcharoth (talk) 15:57, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • It has been pointed out to me that Kurt insulted the Arbitration Committee by calling them the "Arbitrary Committee", thus my public remonstrance of those commenting on Kurt was unbalanced. I'm happy to set the record straight and say that Kurt should apologise for calling the Arbitration Committee the "Arbitrary Committee". Deskana has also confirmed that no slight of Kurt was intended. Carcharoth (talk) 17:46, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Kurt hasn't objected to Sam, he's objected to the idea that checkuser/oversight rights aren't given by the community, but rather a tiny group of individuals with no accountability to anyone. However, since Sam lost the rights voluntarily in good standing, it's hardly an issue. It could have been an issue though. I have had issues with promotions by ArbCom in the past but my concerns were brushed aside as unimportant. If there is a single objection the right should not be granted, as this is seriously something that needs everyone's support, and any opposition means that there are checkusers out there not trusted by the community. Al Tally (talk) 16:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
And while we're at it, the same should be true for the Arbitration Committee and Adminship, since we shouldn't have arbitrators or admins that aren't trusted by the community, either. --Conti| 16:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Admins can't see people's IPs. There's a big difference. Al Tally (talk) 16:54, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, the point I was trying to make was that you will find not one (1) person who will get no oppose whatsoever nowadays, no matter what it's about. Especially considering there are certain people *cough* who oppose people on principle alone. --Conti| 17:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually, RfAs do still passed unopposed. 21 in 2008 so far, and that is not even including the ones where there are no opposes and some neutrals. It might be interesting to see how many of the single-oppose RfAs are due to certain patterns. Of the five single-opposed RfAs this year (that's over four months worth of data), there was one single-oppose by Nick, one single-oppose by Appletrees, two single-opposes by Anwar, and one single-oppose by Kurt Weber. Carcharoth (talk) 17:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
And one single oppose by Iterator12n, not that I'm bitter. :-) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Ah, I was looking at the single-opposes with no neutrals. I searched for "/1/0". Carcharoth (talk) 17:46, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, I'm pleasantly surprised by the amount of unopposed RfAs. Still, an RfCheckuser would be an entirely different matter, since they'd gather much more attention, and therefore should probably be compared to RfBs instead. And the last unopposed RfB was in August 2004 (according to this). --Conti| 18:00, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • It's also been pointed out that we (the community) should consider thanking the arbitration committee for seeking our input on those that are appointed checkusers and oversighters. Do we approve of this and do we want them to continue doing this, is, I think, the simple question (I had been under the impression this was how it was normally done). Carcharoth (talk) 17:46, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
    • That'd be like thanking the Mafia for asking for your input as to whether or not they should put you to bed with the fishes...Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 02:56, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Hail benevolent totalitarians. By the way Carcharoth, I'd like them not to approve their buddies as oversighters and checkusers. Let the community decide. Monobi (talk) 03:05, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Question on User:Plate King's block[edit]

Recently User:Gb blocked Plate King for being a sockpuppet of User:Spotteddogsdotorg. I asked Gb for the proof. Then and (both Tor exit node) left identical message [2] [3] [4] saying there is a conspiracy behind their goals, which is "to get good Wikipedia editors to go away". They also claim that they have an admin account to help with their goals and actions. I might be a bit paranoid, but it seems fishy for a user to be going bluff and spend the time to type a small essay. I would like to hear opinions from the community. OhanaUnitedTalk page 03:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

There's definitely some weird sockpuppet thing going on at U.S. license plate articles (see, for example, the history of Vehicle registration plates of Georgia). The socks leap out at you from that history, and a lot of them are "attack" usernames regarding a "Bradley". I noticed this first a couple weekends ago, blocking at least one of them myself. Notice that some of the sockpuppets include mysterious addresses and phone numbers with their edit summaries, as seen in their contribution histories (example; another example). As of having an admin account -- a lot of persistent vandals and troublemakers claim that. If only they knew how little it would help them. Antandrus (talk) 03:51, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Quite a bit of the IP's statement rings false, as well as claiming to have an admin account they claim to have an "IP spoofer" which would presumably be a program to allow them to edit under someone else’s IP. This would only be possible with very skilled hacking of the victims ISP or Wikipedia itself which is a doubtable occurence. -Icewedge (talk) 03:55, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
No wonder Plate King looks familiar with wiki-markup. For reference purposes, the link to CU is Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Bolly Nickers OhanaUnitedTalk page 07:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

CAT:CSD backlog[edit]

Sure could use some reinforcements. They're ganging up on us! bibliomaniac15 04:54, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm tinkering away, but there's a couple issues. First is that many of these articles are being tagged A7 when there is an assertation of notability. Or in some cases, such as this this one, the tag didn't even make sense. It was marked as promotional, though the company was bought out by the government sixty years ago. Waste of a speedy tag. Second is the number of resumé-type submissions. Those are easy to process, but have more fallout in terms of communication with the submitter. Just observations. Keegantalk 05:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Clarification on the Powell Duffryn link: it doesn't seem promotional to me. Seems like an actual history of the company. Keegantalk 05:51, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
That was me, sorry, tagged it for refs and the like instead. Apologies! LegoTech·(t)·(c) 06:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
No worries LegoTech, it's why I didn't single out an editor. That just happened to be the closest tab open of about six. Mistakes happen, there were just a plethora at CSD all at once. Keegantalk 06:55, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Probably me too :) I discovered that if you pick "earliest" on new page patrol, you get the stuff thats 30 days old. Which is kind of nice, gives it enough time to "soak" and be given a chance to find its feet....but it also means lots of tags of various flavors. I still consider myself a noob and try to read the articles and look at the policies when I'm not sure (like Music...I didn't know you weren't supposed to CSD odd!) Its definitely a learning experience. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 07:03, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
If you think about it, not CSDing an album by a notable band is not odd. It will likely have reputable reviews by reliable sources, and notability forthwith. Myspace and DIY albums are a different animal. But we digress, you're doing a good job. Keegantalk 07:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Gross incivility on the part of [Username removed][edit]

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

See this diff. In the diff he refers to User:Dtobias as a "troll" and tells him that he is "unwelcome here" and also completely removes a discussion I started on his talk page concerning his closure of an earlier ED deletion review. It's also worth noting that in his comments, he blatantly admits to closing the review simply because of a personal distaste of ED. In his closure summary, he cited "just, no" as one of the reasons (see Here. I've informed him of this thread and I'm even considering requesting that he be desysopped, not so much because of the personal attacks (he also stated that he did not trust me), but because he has blatantly admitted to misusing his authority as an admin.--Urban Rose 21:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

There's clearly an intensely personal dispute going on among a group of editors, and threads are being started here (see above) and at AN/I to pursue this. Probably if anyone uninvoved were to get involved (not a desirable task, I know, akin perhaps to the morning cleaning of the elephant house at the zoo), it should be to instruct all concerned to cease and desist, and to steer well clear of one another. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 21:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
This has already been discussed tangentially at ANI in the earlier thread by Atren. This is just mischief making. DanT is well able to look after himself and doesn't need UrbanRose to fight his battles. Spartaz Humbug! 21:32, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
More at WP:SPIDER. Raymond Arritt (talk) 21:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes, as Spartaz says, this has already been discussed. If Dan doesn't want to be called a troll, he might perhaps try not trolling me. His sensitivity to the slightest hint of insult combined with his fierce determination to allow links to offsite attacks however vile speak to me of gross hypocrisy, but as I explained on ANI I find Dan to be irrational so that could just as easily explain the yawning disconnect in the standards he aplpies to others and those he insists are applied to him. Guy (Help!) 21:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Guy, see my comment above. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 21:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I didn't just post this thread because of what Guy said to DanT. I also posted this because of Guy's first ignoring my post entirely, second because of Guy's blatant admission that he closed the ED deletion review because he personally dislikes the site, and third saying that he trusted Sceptre but not me (totally uncalled for) and fourth, removing my post on his talkpage altogether. This was about far more than him just calling DanT a troll.--Urban Rose 01:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
He didn't admit that, and it is, I feel, rather disingenuous to argue that he did. If I thought you were trolling, I'd probably remove your comment and ignore you myself. Honestly, Urban Rose, give this one up. Just one of more than fifty of your last edits has been concerning anything other than ED. Sam Korn (smoddy) 15:09, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


Honestly, didn't we just do this two months ago? I think that - barring _major_ MSM coverage that would make the lack of an article a real embarassment to Wikipedia (hint: the sourcing in the drafts in the last few versions comes nowhere close to that) ED DRVs should be limited to at most one per year, just to limit the drama. --Random832 (contribs) 14:35, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Which was my point exactly. We reviewed this quite recently, not long before the first of Rose's three or four attempts, and the answer was no plus a lot of sturm und drang. We reviewed it in February and had a lengthy debate in March, resulting in endorse no article, and much as I know the drama queens are insistent that we debate this again every single time there is a new passing mention in the press somewhere, I don't think it's a productive use of anyone else's time. Guy (Help!) 17:54, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  • We should put a 3-6 month break on this, if this current DRV (which should not be stopped, as many have weighed in) fails to show a consensus to recreate or relist in the end. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 18:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes, too many are of the thought that if a drv doesn't give you what you want, then do another drv. We need to have some sort of moratorium on all this. Wizardman 18:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Would there be any harm in a general limit on DRV? Any one article, no more than every 31 days? Lawrence Cohen § t/e 18:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I can see a potential harm if the article's subject becomes definitively notable not long after a DRV fails. Though perhaps this is a case where we could simply invoke {{WP:IAR]]. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 18:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

The DRV in question that this thread is about is Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_May_8#Encyclopedia_Dramatica, by the way. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 18:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


Resolved: Not created in userspace; copyvio deleted under WP:CSD#G12. KrakatoaKatie 07:05, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Can someone take a look at this? It appears that the article was created with the unref tag [[5]] but I can't tell if it was deleted and recreated or moved over from someone's userspace. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 06:33, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

You can find move and deletion logs by clicking 'view logs for this page' in the upper left corner of any article's history. In this case, it was not created in user space and moved, because there were no moves in the page log. Unfortunately, it was a screaming copyright infringement of a URL with the same name, so it was deleted under WP:CSD#G12. - KrakatoaKatie 07:05, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for that many history pages have I looked at and missed that link :) LegoTech·(t)·(c) 14:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I can't find the original for the copyvio - all I can find are mirror copies of the wikipedia article Sardar Vallabhbhai National Institute of Technology, Surat --Random832 (contribs) 16:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)nevermind --Random832 (contribs) 16:54, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


I was just wondering if there was a limit on the number of "pictures" an article can have, or is it free for a number of pictures to be uploaded. Buddha24 (talk) 08:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

There is no actual limit - see Wikipedia:MOS#Images for guidance on how to use them. A good rule to go by is that there should be more text than pictures. If there are many many relevant - and free - pictures, then a gallery tends to be added to the article. Neıl 08:35, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Rather than fill articles with galleries, it's generally better to add a link to the relevant Commons category. DurovaCharge! 09:18, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Forgot about that. Yes, that too, providing the images are on Commons. Neıl 10:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Also, if you're using fair use (copyrighted) images, you should use as few as are needed to get the point across. (And this probably should have gone to the Help Desk, but that's ok ;-) ) Hersfold (t/a/c) 15:24, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
en:Wikipedia's fair use rules are strict enough that I doubt they would support a gallery. DurovaCharge! 16:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually many articles already have gallery's on them. Mr. GreenHit Me UpUserboxes 16:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
If they're galleries of fair use images, they should almost certainly be removed. J Milburn (talk) 21:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
It's also worth pointing out that, from a purely stylistic viewpoint, articles with large numbers of images (even in galleries) can look ridiculous — see Fairlop Loop for a particularly sorry example, for instance.iridescent 21:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Dispute at List of electronic music genres[edit]

There's a user by the name of True Steppa who keeps adding something called funky house to the List of electronic music genres page. The thing has inadequate data, it's vague, and there's no mention of the subject. Also, this person keeps deleting an external link to electronic music. I am requesting this person gets blocked or prevented from editing the list of electronic music genres page. Fclass (talk) 16:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

The funky house thing seems to be notable enough for inclusion, if one considers that a Google News search gets 40 current hits right now. If you feel it's not notable, then I'd suggest an AFD, as I see a speedy deletion was already declined. The constant removal/replacement is more of a content dispute than vandalism or anything else, and should really be discussed on the article talk page to try and work it out there. As for the external link, it appears to be a user-submitted collection of information set on an ad-based format - a few of the definitions were actually our articles (see Chicago house on there, for example). I don't think it's really a good external link considering that. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:12, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I've warned both editors for 3rr; though they have both exceeded 3 reversions, I don't think a block is necessary if they are willing to discuss the matter. I do have a question, though - I see that one of the issues is over the inclusion of a link to, but I'm not seeing where that site is a reliable source or a relevant external link. Am I missing something? I concur that there is some evidence to suggest that Funky house exists as a music style, so an AfD would be appropriate in that instance. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 20:03, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
nb. Fclass (talk · contribs) opened a block request discussion on True Steppa at WP:ANI - which I closed as forum shopping, citing this discussion. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'll delete the link. The site is nit a very reliable source and it's mostly copied from Wikipedia. But, if True Steppa shows up again... Fclass (talk) 20:12, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

If True Steppa shows up again, what? Threats are certainly not going to be looked at in your favor Fclass, and I can say that without even looking at the dispute. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
for some reason I was also asked to help, tho it certainly is not my field. I agree about the link, but I also noticed Fclass has been warned about just this fighting over genres repeatedly before. DGG (talk) 20:49, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

A friendly reminder from WP:OP...[edit]

If you block an open proxy thats on the list to be checked at WP:OP, please mark it as blocked, so that those checking for proxies can see which proxies have been processed. Thanks! Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 19:35, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage:[edit]

Resolved: page up to date, user has been approved --Rodhullandemu 23:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I just added my name to the applicants' list there. I also noticed that User:Guerilla In Tha Mist did too more than a week ago, but no decision in either way has been yet made for him, while another user has already been approved. Since the page says If the list contains entries that are over 48 hours old, please mention this (nicely) at WP:AN, I thought I'd do so. Just wanted to let you know. --Do you know me?...then SHUT UP!!! Sarcasm is beauty 02:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

A reply from someone really wouldn't hurt... --Do you know me?...then SHUT UP!!! Sarcasm is beauty 03:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Image content guidelines[edit]

Please see Wikipedia:Image content guidelines for an attempt to start a guideline to consolidate and improve our guidelines on image content on Wikipedia. Please discuss at the talk page and help improve this new guideline, which was inspired by this and other recent image discussion controversies. Carcharoth (talk) 23:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Watch out for[edit]

I received an email from today, requesting an opinion on a draft of a Wikipedia article they wrote themselves. I responded explaining COI and so forth. I also did a little searching and found this and this. Strangely this person says User:Jéské Couriano referred him to me, as a "dependable administrator". I have absolutely no experience with Jeske and I'm not an administrator. In case anyone wants to read it, I've included the email here via {{hidden}}. I'm reporting this here because frankly it's weird and interesting, and also because the website in question apparently just went live a week ago, so heads-up regarding promo material. Email (click show)

Attention Equazcion:

I would like to post a non-biased article about my company on our new Wikipedia page and would like to have a quick review of me article before I post it. I was referred to you by REAL NAME AND EMAIL ADDRESS REDACTED as a dependable administrator.

Thank you,


Article: (“vah-ped”) is a privately-funded project established in 2007 by a group of communications professionals based in the Washington, D.C. metro area. The website was officially launched on May 1, 2008.

voped is an combination of web applications and an online video sharing forum that are based on video opinions. The word ‘voped’ stems from the combination of video and opinion editorial (op-ed).

voped web applications allow for video responses to articles and other published online content. The web applications are a share button and a widget that is populated with single point content in relation to the source of an individual voped share button.

Video opinions can be submitted to voped directly on the website or through voped’s share button (referred to as the “v-button”). Both the share button and filmstrip widget are intended for use by third-party users..

The following web applications are available for news and media outlets and other online content providers to add to their website.

The “v-button”: voped’s share button appears at the end of articles and other online content so video opinions can be submitted in direct response to that particular content or news story.

The Filmstrip is a widget intended for news outlets, blogs, and content providers to embed on their website to display video opinions that were submitted from their website.

The website has four main tabs:

News Responses are video opinions submitted to using the voped share button in response to particular content or a news story.

Commentaries are video opinions submitted right through the website.

News Stand houses links to several media outlets.

My Profile is where voped users choose/alter their user options.

Equazcion /C 23:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

My apologies, Equazcion, I thought you were an admin. Sorry. Yes, I did refer him to you as your name is one I commonly see; I was the one who originally deleted the article in userspace and blocked the Voped account. I have been in contact with him via email ever since, and have pointed him out to Wikipedia policies. If I erred in asking him to send the article to you in order to vet it, my apologies. -Jéské (v^_^v E pluribus unum) 08:53, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Not at all, no harm done. It just confused me a little. I've been directing this person to our policies as well. From my last communication with him, he didn't seem to be "getting it", and seems hell-bent on posting an article on his company. Guess we'll see. Thanks for the response. Equazcion /C 08:59, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

IP Exempt enabled for administrators on user rights[edit]

WP:IPEXEMPT and bug fixed. NonvocalScream (talk) 23:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Please note that details of how it should be granted, and what process is best, are still being finalized. There may be some changes during the first week. Please grant very cautiously and to a limited extent only for the first week, or until the policy beds in. FT2 (Talk | email) 00:07, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I just looked at the user rights management and saw another thing, what is accountcreator for? -MBK004 00:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
The accountcreator permission allows for user accounts to bypass the arbitrary account creation limit designed to prevent mass account creations. Nakon 00:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
There's a throttle put on non admins accounts to stop them making more than 6 new accounts a day, but this has been stopping users who help create accounts for new users. This removes that throttle. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Ahh, now I know. That's an area I've been far away from. -MBK004 00:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
How do we approve users for either of those new rights? Tiptoety talk 00:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
IP block exempt goes through the unblock mailing list. I'm guess ACC can just go on any admins talk page. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Now all we need is some way to restrict accounts from preforming a certain number of page moves a day. Tiptoety talk 00:39, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I need it now, but I'm thinking about doing some ACC work in the future...could a friendly passing admin give me accountcreator please? :) Thanks, dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 00:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

 Done Tiptoety talk 00:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh looks like me and Ryan edit conflicted on it, he is actually the one that gave it to you. :D Tiptoety talk 00:54, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks to Ryan (and Tip for trying!). dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 02:05, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

The addition of the ipblock-exempt user group also means that anonymizing proxies should be exclusively hard blocked now (which is more or less already currently done), as all constructive uses of such proxies should be channeled into IP block exemption. GracenotesT § 01:18, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Is the idea behind this to allow trusted non-admin users to edit from otherwise blocked IPs, such as Tor? Lawrence Cohen § t/e 01:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Tiptoety talk 01:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Ideally, though, we should strongly discourage ipb-exempt users from using Tor specifically - its widely distributed nature has the disadvantage of making disproving checkuser investigations less easy, as well as making it possible for a rogue node op (of which there are plenty) to hijack your account if you don't go through the HTTPS gateway. Better to go through one of the many more reputable HTTP-based proxies if at all possible. krimpet 01:36, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't mind seeing some sort of official statement from ArbCom on TOR and GWA, just so we know exactly where we stand - Alison 01:43, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
This is excellent news for checkusers, too. Note that ArbCom have already granted the first two exemptions to User:Exxolon (the first ever) and User:Deltasquared. This option really makes my day!! - Alison 01:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow, thats kind of cool. How does this benefit Checkusers, Alison? Also, we should put up a list of "recommended" proxies for these users, as well as some kind of something (WP: page) explaining "why" this is good for everyone/checkusers and what purpose it serves. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 01:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Because when applying hard rangeblocks, there's nothing more annoying than knowing that one or two editors will be caught as "collateral damage". Admins are normally blind to that, but range checking on checkuser shows it up. The two examples above are as a result of the "thousands of socks" vandal and were caught in the hardblock - Alison 01:53, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Quick comment for now.

IPEXEMPT means a user can bypass any IP block at all - only a block specifically on their username will affect them. There are two main situations it'll be most useful - constructive users who edit via a vandalism range or shared IP we would like to hard-block, and users who would like to edit anonymously via Tor or another hard-blocked open proxy.

The main risk area with IPEXEMPT is it is wiki pixie dust to avoid checkuser. So it's likely to be a highly desired flag by wiki-abusers for its WP:GHBH and WP:SOCK deniability potential. Fortunately most uses will not be for anonymous access, but for hard IP block bypassing.

Users who want IPEXEMPT to bypass a hard IP block on their usual IP, aren't a problem. They don't especially want to edit via proxies, it just happens IPEXEMPT would let them if they did. To keep it simple, the suggested policy is that a user in this position who just wants to use their normal connection but there's an IP block on it (schoolblock, vandalism, etc), can be given IPEXEMPT by any admin, but there's a condition they may not use it to edit via blocked proxies, or else it'll be removed. Logging may be needed to track when the right should be removed (ie, block ends), perhaps. Nothing much more. Making non-proxied use a condition means minimal scrutiny is needed and avoids loads of needless inquiry and such. It also means most requests don't need anything more than a quick check it's justified (ie, due to an IP block on their native IP), since the right will be removed if used to edit via a proxy. Easy.

Users who want IPEXEMPT to edit anonymously need more scrutiny. That's still being discussed. Main risk - Admins might quietly give the right to socks or friends on a pretext (send self email). We've had a few sock-admins and some abuse proxy access and unblock methods. This should be a rare request, and it requires a high level of trust of the user, and certainty of uninvolved admin scrutiny (IPEXEMPT is effectively an admin level tool). But yes -- if there is a bona fide need for anon proxy access by a non-admin, and sufficient trust, then to answer Lawrence Cohen's question, we now would have a way to let them do so.

Thats the quick comment version, anyway.

FT2 (Talk | email) 02:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. We definitely need to create a page listing recommended "good" anon proxies for people to use, then. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 02:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, FT2. This is excellent - Alison 04:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
....So, the only really trustworthy admins will be the ones who don't request it? ;~) LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:36, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
ipexempt comes with the bit already ;) Trustworthy admins are those who don't ask it for their sockpuppets :P -- lucasbfr talk 09:52, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Another email[edit]


I have a question that I would like to ask an admin via email. Any volunteers?--Urban Rose 03:46, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm open. « Gonzo fan2007 (talkcontribs) @ 03:47, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Sent.--Urban Rose 03:54, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Policy by proxy, one editor counting as 2 for consensus?[edit]

I'm baffled by this, where User:Hiding has apparently named User:Kim Bruning as his voice in policy discussion, and claims Kim now counts twice (???). Is this even remotely allowed? So if 100 editors name me their proxy I can roll into an RFA or AFD and wield supreme power? Lawrence Cohen § t/e 15:50, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:PRX would appear to have been rejected, so no they shouldn't be doing it. DuncanHill (talk) 15:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't think this comment was intended to be taken seriously, so don't panic. — CharlotteWebb 15:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Just because Hiding says it, doesn't make it so. I doubt anyone trying to judge consensus on anything will take this into account, so it's meaningless, and therefor harmless. --barneca (talk) 16:00, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Barneca is speaking for me as well, so his comment counts twice. In fact, he is also speaking for my 100 abusive sockpuppets, so his comment has the power of 102. Since his strength is as the strength of ten because his heart is pure, that makes his total score 1020. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:04, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

This is an intriguing situation indeed. I'm going to have to think very carefully before I respond. --Kim Bruning (talk) 16:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

You think you have to think carefully before responding? You're only thinking for two; I'm evidently thinking for 1020 1021. The pressure, oh the pressure... Not that it isn't what I've always secretly wanted. --barneca (talk) 16:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Odd situation, yes, but it appears PRX and this idea have no popular support... Lawrence Cohen § t/e 16:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Doh. Does that mean that I'll now have to look up every page where e.g. User:Walton One commented and throw in a per Walton, only to have people tell me it's not a vote? Lame... Dorftrottel (ask) 16:14, May 7, 2008
  • Seems silly to say, but Barneca has captured my thoughts perfectly on this so. . .(no need for me to repeat). This strikes me as kind of funny, am I allowed to have an "anti"-proxi? That is, suppose there's an editor with whom I usually disagree. . . everytime they comment somewhere, the "consensus talliers" could add in my minus 1 !vote. But then we might need some kind of board to keep track of all the proxies and anti-proxies. . .seems complicated. Well anyway, agree with Barneca. Bemusedly, R. Baley (talk) 16:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  1. What would happen if you delegated proxy to me, and I delegated my proxy to you?
  2. More interestingly, what would happen if you delegated proxy to me, and I chose to have an ANTI-proxy to you? --barneca (talk) 16:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm sure it's all amusing. First of all, the proposal involved is "delegable proxy," though, in fact, because no special meaning was assigned to proxies by WP:PRX, which was just about how one would technically name a proxy, not about what would be done with the information, the proposer understood that, later, proxies might be considered delegable, because that creates certain very interesting possibilities; among them would be the "election" of a standing assembly or committee with purely voluntary representation, revocable at any time, and without any necessity for formal election process. But that was all deferred. The question in front of us with WP:PRX was *if* proxies are to be named, set aside what they *mean*, how would we do it? And because there was some level of consensus on *how*, WP:PRX was reasonably done. Those "rejecting" WP:PRX generally gave the reason for rejection as "we don't vote," but the proposal did not propose voting, unless naming a proxy is voting (it's unanimous voting, by definition, so it isn't what we normally think of as voting.) I think the fact that proxies *are* used for voting, such as in corporate environments, confused a lot of people, and no matter how many times it was said that WP:PRX wasn't about voting, the comments that it was rejected because we don't vote continued to this day, as we have seen. Hiding *did* make that claim. But so what? It doesn't matter at all if nobody pays attention to it. If a closing admin thinks it means something, then it means something. To him or her. And if not, not. WP:PRX made no changes at all to policy or procedure, it merely suggested a new procedure for experimental use that did not bind or prejudice anyone or any process.
Indeed, a more cogent object found recently has been that it wouldn't do anything at all. And that's correct, if nobody uses it. And the labor of naming a proxy is trivial, so ... what, exactly, is the problem?
Now, some specific questions were asked. What if A names B and B names A. We have a proxy loop. It means that, if we *were* counting proxies for voting, as an example, if either one of them participates in a discussion or decision, the comment or vote of either one stands for both, unless the other also votes, in which case they each stand only for themselves. Generally, proxies only represent in the absence of the one represented. So proxy "votes" are not a fixed quality settled on the proxy, so that Bruning would automatically have two "votes" in any situation. I won't describe how to do proxy expansions. Why bother when few are naming proxies? But it can be easily done.
There are a number of groups around the world working on web sites with automated delegable proxy, and many have thought that "proxy loops" were a problem, because if neither A nor B participate, they are both not represented, so these systems have sometimes tried to prohibit such loops. But it's shallow thinking, actually. If everyone names a proxy, there *must* be loops, and the only question is how large the loops are. My own conclusion, after working on this idea for about thirty years, has been that the matter should simply be left to the individuals involved. At most some systems might notify consenting members when they aren't represented in a debate or decision.
Nobody ever brought up the idea of an anti-proxy before. It's an oxymoron, actually. A proxy is a person, an intelligent actor, not a remote voter, not a rubber stamp. An anti-proxy is a kind of rubber stamp, an automated vote, and a thoroughly offensive one. I'd say that anyone can name such a proxy, but who is going to pay attention to it? Even a stopped clock is right twice a day, and automatically voting the opposite of someone else could be pretty foolish. So if someone tries to be foolish, we will politely ignore it, I'd say. Instead of naming an anti-proxy, just name a sensible user who would, when this really bad editor votes, counter it based on an intelligent decision, not an automatic rejection.
Delegable proxy, if enough editors use it and enough of the proxies named are active, would allow far more efficient participation in, say, AfDs. Entirely aside from any consideration of voting. And how that would happen ... hey, how much of Wikipedia could all of you have anticipated, sitting and thinking about it theoretically. Wiki theory and practice didn't develop until there were wikis, and only a few were able to anticipate how it would all work out in actuality. That's why I say, "Just do it!" If it doesn't work, no harm is done, except for the wikifuss created by people who try to crush harmless things when they don't understand them.
I.e., just do two things: first, start an assembly. But also do it in a way that, as it grows, it can manage the traffic and follow true deliberative process, where ideas are broken down and considered in detail before being rejected in toto, or blindly accepted. This has been done countless times, it is how real democracies work, it is known how to do it. And, no, you don't just call a meeting and everyone shows up and starts talking. A few people set up procedure that then allows larger numbers to participate without it becoming a mob scene. And, with delegable proxy and committee systems, (we call committees "pages") it becomes possible to have direct democracy *and* representative democracy at the same time. And every time I try to explain this, the words multiply. Just understand that I see a *lot* more than I can say. --Abd (talk) 15:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I think I would then file an RFAR against myself (then again, I did AFD an article I wrote once, giving myself a notification via Twinkle, and I MFD'd an AFD another time, so stranger things have happened...) Lawrence Cohen § t/e 16:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Then neither one of us would have to comment . . .no wait, that's not right. I know, we can make this all go away if one of us designates Kim as our anti-proxy, thus bringing her non-vote back to one -as if none of this had ever happened. :-) R. Baley (talk) 16:31, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest for others to be very careful as well. Hiding has put us all in a bit of an interesting situation with this declaration. If you just respond without thinking, you might find yourself shooting yourself in the foot. I'm not going to say more now, I'm really going to think about this for at least 24 hours. --Kim Bruning (talk) 16:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Are you seriously considering this viable, that your voice now carries Hiding's authority as well in discussions? Lawrence Cohen § t/e 16:31, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I was going to just comment for Lawrence not to take this seriously as no admin or editor will in any discussion needing consensus. However, I'm confused as to what Kim Bruning wants us to be careful about. I am not in an "interesting situation" from Hidings actions, I don't know who else here is. Gwynand | TalkContribs 16:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Sure, that's your choice. :-) I'd like to point out that this comment was made (by someone ~in support of the consensus model) in a discussion on the topic of terminating the consensus model, which was originally started by 2 arbcom members. So things are a little twisted, and I'm going to keep thinking. --Kim Bruning (talk) 16:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Does that mean Hiding is still thinking about it, thus negating his outright acceptance of it? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
LOL, please don't hurt my brain further than it is already hurting. ^^;; The simple diff is torn out of a very very twisty context. Hiding could actually be saying the opposite of what they're saying... or something. Argh... <goes to get paracetamol > --Kim Bruning (talk) 16:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC) things get twisted when people start to invoke the system they are attempting to overthrow ;-P OR I'm reading too much into it, and it's really just very simple. But... ok, I'm really going off to just think about this now and come up with a properly sane comment. Have a nice day!

Hiding can call leader till his... well, let's just say I agree with Barneca. Although I'm wondering if I gave an ANTI-proxy to Kim, would it cancel out Hiding's proxy? Screw it, WP:TINP. --Kbdank71 16:45, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

You could do that, but you would likely end up rejecting consensus. The discussion where this occurred is long and twisty. :-P --Kim Bruning (talk) 16:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, so (theoretically), If I named Hiding as my proxy (which leads back to Kim), but also named Kbdank71 as my proxy, would I end time as we know it? : ) - jc37 21:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Reading this discussion is making my head hurt. Who's my proxy for that? UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 17:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry. Kim B already took a dose of paracetamol for you...Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
That's why each of them still has half a headache. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 18:37, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Good editors count for an infinite amount of people when they are correct. Bad editors are worthless. That is, consensus is defined by the strength of an argument, the quality, content, and context of the argument, not by the mere quantity of arguers. Only appeals to reason and evidence are sufficient for consensus. Appeals to popularity (often mistakenly referred to as "consensus"), tradition, bureaucracy, etc., are irrelevant. The fact that questions like this come up is silly. Lawrence sounds like he's accusing him of voting fraud. If Kim Bruning and Hiding are both hypothetically making the same bad argument, it doesn't really matter that they're both making that argument.   Zenwhat (talk) 04:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

  • To answer Lawrence's question, if 100 editors name me their proxy I can roll into an RFA or AFD and wield supreme power?, I'll pose one back. What do you seriously think? However, you seem to be misunderstanding the nature of the wiki here somewhat. You are free to try it. Consensus will determine whether it's a good model to be adopted. Obviously, having commented in this discussion I revoke my granting of proxy to Kim for this debate. You see how tiresome typing things like that will become? To answer the other question posed by Lawrence, "Is this even remotely allowed?", I would point Lawrence to WP:IAR. A fundamental part of the wiki is related to that great line from the movie Grease: "The rules are, there are no rules." obviously there are rules, but we find the rules by breaking them, breaking them even before we knew we had them. It's that kind of place. It tends to work too. Yes it is remotely allowed. Whether it is followed, indulged as eccentricity or thoroughly ignored are different matters. Largely, based on this debate, I would suggest the latter two. Hiding T 09:57, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Since it may have become relevant, here is how proxy assignments could be handled. First, very simple: there is a proxy table somewhere. To name a proxy, you add a line to it, naming the proxy, and you sign it. Most systems being set up suggest that proxies should be accepted to be effective, so the one accepting could sign it, or alternatively, delete it. But WP:PRX did it differently. For that, a proxy file was placed by a user in their user space. The file included templates that brought in the timestamp and verified the identity, in the file, of the one who created it, and when. Then the user went to a central proxy table and added a record transcluding the individual proxy file. It wasn't difficult to use, and you could change your proxy at any time by just changing the designation in your user proxy file. That was the process, more or less as suggested by Mangojuice and implemented by Sarsaparilla, though it was still a bit buggy, due to a bug in MediaWiki. I set up a somewhat simpler system that allowed the proxy table to reside anywhere, not just in one central place. Basic idea, though, was that the user has total control over the proxy assignment at all times, because it is in the user's space. And in my form, the central table could be anywhere, and there could be more than one of them; one could make up special tables with subsets of users whose proxies are transcluded. Who would want to do this? Well, one has to understand, first, the uses. Thinking of possible uses, one could, for example, decide only to look at proxies for users who have been registered for, say, a year. Or who have more than a certain number of edits. Or who are administrators. Who would make these choices? Someone who wants to understand and estimate a consensus for the subgroup selected. This is Wikipedia. Votes do not -- or should not -- control. Rather, they advise, and it is up to the person who is going to act to consider and weigh the advice. ArbComm has been seeking advice and some have proposed an Assembly. A system PRX could generate and estimate consensus on proposals, without elections. Have I gotten anyone's attention yet? This is a proposal to *preserve* the best parts of how we do things, while becoming more efficient, i.e., requiring everyone to look at every decision (something we never did, but then we have problems which arise when those who do look have been self-selected in a problematic way) or even to vote on members of an assembly, beyond the easist kind of vote: pick the person you trust most. It doesn't have to be perfect. --Abd (talk) 15:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Thinking about it - I've seen a few things where Ive disagreed with Kim, but he then persuaded me. I'd happily let him have my proxy VOTE (let's stop kidding ourselves, a bunch of stuff is pure and simple voting (and worse, it's voting with low turnout)). An anti-proxy vote might be handy for any prima facie anti !votes. The discussion about proxy shows how much importance some sections of WP attach to voting. Dan Beale-Cocks 13:56, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Serafin, or not Serafin - that is the question[edit]

The article Nicolaus Copernicus has a long-standing problem with endless socks of User:Serafin. Usually, they are easy enough to spot. However, there's been an edit today that could be him, but might not. User:Shpakovich, who started editing in January, made a "Copernius is Polish"-type edit earlier today. While this editor differs from the ususal pattern in that the account has other edits, some aspects of it seem suspicious - specifically:

Does this warrant a checkuser? --Ckatzchatspy 01:54, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Please see requests for checkuser. If you are not certain about that, you could go to suspected sockpuppets instead. Carcharoth (talk) 02:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks... I was actually hoping, though, to see if any other admins who have had more extensive dealings with either Serafin or Shpakovich in the past see a parallel here. (I don't want to block Shpakovich, or even suggest a link to Serafin, if someone who knows them better feels there's no connection.) --Ckatzchatspy 05:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I have had a lot of dealings with Serafin. In my opinion its is unlikely that User:Shpakovich is Serafin - this just isn't his/her editing pattern. Serafin is much more single-minded and uses highly-recognizable edit summaries and rarely strays beyond three core articles Copernicus, Recovered Territories and Bureaucracy. Serafin, by the way, edits from IPs associated with the University of Guelph, usually Johnston Hall, so if you do request a checkuser, you might ask the CU to see if any of the user's IPs resolve to there. Gwernol 12:17, 10 May 2008 (UTC)



I would like to speak to an administrator via email concerning a dispute.--Urban Rose 00:36, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Then e-mail one...? --Deskana (talk) 00:37, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I think he'd like a volunteer. He did the same thing the other day and I got a very productive email off him, which I dealt with appropriately. Unfortunately I'm a little busy - is anyone else free to help Urban? Ryan Postlethwaite 00:38, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm a "she" actually. Just to let you know.--Urban Rose 00:40, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Oops, I do appologise. I hope I didn't cause any offence. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:42, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Feel free to mail me, but can't promise I can help...iridescent 00:43, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
"This user is interested in beauty." is a dead giveaway, although maybe not. MickMacNee (talk) 00:56, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm interested in beauty, but perhaps for different reasons than Urban Rose :-) Ryan Postlethwaite 01:04, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I've sent Iridescent an email so I'm marking this as resolved, okay?.--Urban Rose 01:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I think so, it's OK. TreasuryTagtc 13:14, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

User talk:FMGADMIN[edit]


I think this user breaks the Wikipedia:Username policy by adding "ADMIN" to his/her username. Should anything be done?--RyRy5 (talkReview) 01:44, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the context makes it clear that he claims to be an admin of FreeMafiaGame (FMG), not of Wikipedia. — CharlotteWebb 01:49, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Regardless. Its still misleading and inappropriate. The policy clearly prohibits this type of username. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 02:21, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Update. Its been reported at WP:UAA, which is where this should have gone in the first place. Marking as resolved. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 02:25, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. Cheers.--RyRy5 (talkReview) 03:42, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I see he's been blocked, adding insult to injury as I doubt anyone expected him to continue editing after the abrasive welcome. All in a day's work I guess. Blehhhh... — CharlotteWebb 11:14, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Usernames that need to be instantly blocked go to UAA. Otherwise it's better to take them to WP:RFCN, after discussion with the user. Don't forget that WP policies might be confusing to new editors, and that it's easy for a good faith editor to pick a "bad" username. We don't want to scare away good faith editors, eh? Dan Beale-Cocks 13:44, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


User:Steelbeard1 and I are having a dispute that User:Lar is attmepting to mediate at[[User:Lar#Problem editor. These are somewhat complex issues that need to be parsed one issue at a time but steelbeard1 is burying my comments under comments of his own designed to distract from my point. Can somebody please ask him t ostop and wait for Lar to read my comments. I will be happy to discuss all issues with him but Lar needs to read my imost recent responses before we continue and he is burying what Ihave said.--Dr who1975 (talk) 06:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Rest assured, Dr who1975, that Lar is experienced enough to figure out what is conversation and what is fluff. Trust your mediator to mediate, even if the other side is perceived as disruptive. Keegantalk 07:09, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
ok. I guess I should have more faith.--Dr who1975 (talk) 01:05, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

The disputes are about persons speculated to be running for public office or declined requests to run for public office who never become candidates for the public office in question. The consensus which developed is that sourced speculation is allowed in the body of articles, but is never allowed in candidates' lists because they were never candidates in the first place. The latest dispute involves speculation removed from candidates' lists but with most of the citations becoming dead links so they couldn't be verified before insertion in the body of articles. You can see what I mean at Talk:Louisiana's 6th congressional district special election, 2008. Dr. Who attempted to put clearly unsourced info on Ben Nevers in the body of the Louisiana's 1st congressional district special election, 2008 article which I deleted. The citation Dr. Who gave was from Nevers' official state senate web site which would never give out Nevers' congressional ambitions unless he gave it himself. Also, if you look at the User talk:Lar history page, you will see that Dr. Who had deleted then undeleted my rebuttal comments. Steelbeard1 (talk) 18:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Discussion is now underway at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referenda#ongoing elections and prominence given to candidates. Steelbeard1 (talk) 02:51, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

See Talk:United States Senate election in Mississippi, 2008. Dr. Who is now discriminating against me by complaining that I made a new comment concerning a merge proposal when another editor did the same thing before I did and Dr. Who did not complain about that editor. Whatever actions are taken against Dr. Who by Wikipedia higherups I'm in favor of. Steelbeard1 (talk) 21:35, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Very Abnormal Problem[edit]

I think this is the right place for this, if not please redirect me.

A friend of mine wrote a wikipedia article about me. He was just being ridiculous, knowing it would get deleted. However, he used full names of people, and made the article pretty racey. This is not a huge problem for me, however, my father found the article, and was not impressed. The article was deleted. However, google "cached" it. This means it took a "Snapshot" of the article in case it got deleted so that it could be viewed in case of deletion. My father googled my name, and thus got this article. So regardless of it's deletion, it is still there.

My proposal was to make another article about myself ONLY UNTIL it was "cached" by google, and then just get rid of it. The article can be blank or whatever, I don't really care. I just want the new cache to replace the old one to get this off of the internet.

Also, I first asked "faithlessthewonderboy" for help, and he was of great assistance in redirecting me and stuff. Give him a cookie or something, he's a nice guy.

That's the google cache of it.

As I am new to wiki, and know nothing of how my account works, please respond to me by writing to <removed>. I realize this is a bit of an inconvenience, but it would help me so much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Forrizzledog (talkcontribs) 04:28, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

If you have concerns about Google's caching, please contact them at [6]. Nakon 05:22, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Unless I'm mistaken, the cache should clear itself, since the page no longer exists. -- Ned Scott 07:18, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, that's correct. Although, as said above, you can contact Google and request that they remove the cached version, I'm fairly sure they'd be happy to help out. J Milburn (talk) 07:31, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Agree not a bad idea to contact them, as the cache may show up for quite a while. Jussen (talk) 07:45, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
It's up to you whether you contact Google or not, do what you think is best. If you which to remove the cache as quickly as possible, then it may be an idea to do so, but it will inevitably disappear before long. Lradrama 15:22, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

GFDL problem[edit]

Who Shot Mr. Burns? looks like a GFDL problem. If you look at this history snippet, two separate pages with greatly overlapping histories were both moved into this spot. As a result, you have a plethora of diffs like these where you jump back and forth between part 1 and part 2: [7] [8] [9] [10], etc., etc. I haven't determined how far back this goes but here are similar diffs from May 2007: [11] [12] [13]. Do we need to try and untangle these or just leave it alone now? —Wknight94 (talk) 15:24, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

As long as all the material in the article was added by edits in the past and there are no current copy-paste issues in the article, this is just an ugly merge that doesn't need anything. MBisanz talk 15:30, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I understood that merges like this were not supposed to be done. Notice WP:SPLICE#Requests which cannot be fulfilled where various admins refuse to do merges with overlapping histories. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:39, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
AFAIK this is the only way to properly merge two pages, where the cotent of the final revision reflects material from both prior pages. In the future we will have the Merge feature, but right now I think this method of overlapping histories is the only way. MBisanz talk 15:42, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
(I meant WP:SPLICE#Requests which cannot be fulfilled in my last message - so repaired...) Another thing to read is WP:HM#A troublesome case which recommends skipping the history merge and simply adding a note to the talk page. —