Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive145

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Odd new account creations?[edit]

The user creation log bears looking at, for the new users added from 21:53 onwards ... two entries per new user. Not a normal pattern. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I've noticed the same issue on the RC feed and have alerted the system administrators. Nakon 22:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Fixed by brion. Nakon 22:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Tor node[edit]

Resolved

Could somebody please block User:140.247.60.83, confirmed Tor node? Thanks. Corvus cornixtalk 03:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

 Done Tiptoety talk 04:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Disgusting vandalism[edit]

Resolved: warned, not active, moving on

The IP User:96.245.92.31 has been severely vandilizing articals, replacing their content with some of the nastiest stuff I've ever seen. Just look at some of the edits they've made! It's sickening! I redid their edit on the Zenon page, but it was horrible!24.3.180.166 (talk) 05:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I left a warning on their talk page. Next time feel free to report blatant vandals at WP:AIV.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 05:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
They haven't edited in 3 hours. Any further action would be moot at this point. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
24.3, you ain't seen nothin' yet. Grandmasterka 08:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanos Papalexis[edit]

I'm sort of at a loss here...appears we have a WP:OWNership problem here. Everytime someone tags this article for its various problems User:Nemesisman removes the tags without actually doing any repair work. I stumbled on it yesterday and thought it sounded familiar, but didn't realize until this morning that I'd seen it at New Pages when it was first created. At this point he's removed tags 7 times. I welcomed them and warned them a month ago, and warned again today...Whats my next step? (Yeah, I know, SOFIXIT, what ELSE can be done, the guy obviously can write an article so how do we point him in the right direction) LegoTech·(t)·(c) 14:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Have I missed something? The article looks like an obvious db-bio candidate but, history doesn't seem to show one being added. I can't see any assertion of notability whatsoever. Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Results of the ill-founded Betacommand decision[edit]

Please see how well Betacommand is observing the recommendation/suggestion/whatever-the-heck-that-was, that the ArbCom did in the Betacommand case. Bellwether BC 01:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Oh, and here is how he deals with an administrator calling him on the carpet about such nonsense. Bellwether BC 01:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Have you contacted an admin about it? They still have the authority to deal with any disruptive incidents. Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I posted it here, so that the Arbcom could see the result of their (in)actions. And there's already an admin involved. Bellwether BC 02:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Post back here how this goes. RlevseTalk 21:03, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I told everyone that all the remedies are useless, but nobody listened. ArbCom is failing. --Kaypoh (talk) 11:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
No, the Arbitrary Committee is working normally. -- SEWilco (talk) 13:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Hmm. Was Kurt the first to use that phrase or is it spreading? The ArbCom do good work. Even if you disagree with them, or see their decisions as arbitrary, it would be very divisive to adopt such a dismissive nickname for them. Please focus on the decisions, not the contributors (the committee). Carcharoth (talk) 15:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I am referring to their "working". If more than pronouns are used then something more specific can be discussed. -- SEWilco (talk) 15:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
But if you use terms like that, you may discourage reform or you may discourage people from standing for election. You may also discourage sitting arbitrators. If you think something is failing, do you continue to knock it down, or do you try and support it and make constructive suggestions? Carcharoth (talk) 15:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

How are edits like that, irrespective of any AC decision, not block worthy as outright NPA violations? Lawrence Cohen § t/e 16:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Because I like to warn users before blocking them, even in serious cases like this. Any admin was free to overide that and issue a block, I just do things differently. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
And thats the right thing to do. And I love Beta, but these NPA violations are what... every other day? Every second day? If there is no sign of stopping, and no one is preventing him from attacking others, something is obviously broken. Why is anyone exempt from NPA? Lawrence Cohen § t/e 16:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
How many warnings does Beta need to get before being blocked? It's not like he hasn't been told that his behaviour is a problem. He has been told time and again, but apparently he doesn't change. I hate to make this comparison, but any other user would have been blocked a long time ago. AecisBrievenbus 16:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Because "Blocking or sanctioning Betacommand needs to be weighed against the generally productive and much needed work he brings to the project. He is honestly quite irreplacable…" [1] Mike R (talk) 16:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
No one gets exemptions to policy. No one. Any attempts to give anyone a free pass needs to be not just shot down, but executed. Anything that makes all editors not the same in this regard is incredibly disruptive and unfair. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 16:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
This discussion should be transferred to the noticeboard so the rest of the community can comment. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree. Everyone is subjected to policy. See WP:JAIL for my thoughts on exactly the same subject. Seems to sum this up well. RichardΩ612 Ɣ |ɸ *** 19:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
We need good editors, but only those good editors who are capable of working cooperatively on the project. Both halves are important. At the next one after this, I suggest short blocks, starting maybe at 1 hour, increasing in the usual way if needed. We dont need arb com for this--just the usual standards.DGG (talk) 19:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
One hour? I was thinking maybe start with a week or so. Shorter blocks have not worked. I have no confidence that longer ones will either, but at least it's something that hasn't been tried yet. Friday (talk) 19:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I suggested a week's block in the last thread on this (see my comments here); given Beta's lack of attention to any of the attention s/he's stirred up, I suggest a 10-day-block. TreasuryTagtc 19:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh good, a lynch mob. And TreasuryTag leading the call for a piano-wire hanging of the accused, as usual. Glad to see things don't change. ➨ REDVEЯS is now 40 per cent papier mâché 19:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I was the fourth of five editors calling for sanctions against a user who told another user to "grow a brain" - I don't call that leading a mob, I'm not sure what as usual refers to (other than the fact that you don't like my signature, Reddy) and it's reasonable that users are blocked for violating WP:CIV. And I hope you accept that the insults Beta used were violations of CIV. TreasuryTagtc 19:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
CIV is probably the most misused policy here, almost always applied to "things they said that I don't like". And I didn't say you were leading this lynch mob, just that you were the one in the lead handing out the piano wire. Ten days? Ten days? Shockingly punitive and you should be ashamed of yourself. ➨ REDVEЯS is now 40 per cent papier mâché 19:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Glad to see things don't change. You mean like certain editors being allowed to do whatever they wish, policy and ArbCom decisions be damned? Yep, nothings changed. - auburnpilot talk 19:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I guess one editor's "lynch mob" is another editor's "finally trying to actually do something about a problem that's been ongoing for a couple years." Friday (talk) 19:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Hey guys, we've already got a discussion about incivility going on; let's try not to add more incivility to it, if we can manage. -- Natalya 19:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes, β should have kept the high ground there, and he did not. I would prefer nobody got blocked over this, but if he gets blocked then so should those who baited and trolled him. Gimmetrow 19:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I seriously wonder why we still have an arbcom if they never come up with any decent remedies. All they seem to do these days is not look at the evidence and end up saying something like "please be nice". Practically all conflict solutions are de facto routed around the arbcom and resolved by the community (which is a basically good thing). dab (𒁳) 19:55, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

When dealing with editors whose excellent contributions are matched only by their difficulty dealing with other editors (Betacommand and Giano are the community's two most prominent examples), I like to weigh them on something I call the House test. That is to say, does the level of quality of a specific editor's contributions outweigh the negative effect said editor may have on community morale? What effect would that editor's absence have on the quality and continued building of the encyclopedia? Is that editor's focus something that any editor can do (such as categorization, image tagging, or other "chores") or is the editor's focus something less commonly found (DYK/GA/FA-level contributions on a continuous basis, expert in a subject, experience in a field)? We allow some editors to skirt the rules because they are positive forces overall, just as how Dr. Cuddy tolerates House's antics, Vicodin addiction and disrespect for rules because he saves lives that no one else can save. Similarly, we must balance Betacommand's willingness to delve into a darker section of Wikipedia policy against Betacommand's continued problems dealing with other editors in a civil manner. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 19:55, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with every word of this, Hemlock, including and and the. ➨ REDVEЯS is now 40 per cent papier mâché 19:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, of course; as I've long said, we would do well to evaluate everything we undertake with respect to any individual editor in the context of what the net effect on the project of that editor's presence (or of his/her involvement in a specific area of the project) is. It happens, though, that I think it (and have long thought it) to be clear that the net effect on the project of Beta's involvement is (at least in the absence of his being willing to recognize that the community are paramount and may require of him whatever level of civility they think appropriate or his being willing to comport his editing with those guidelines and standards for which a consensus of the community exists) negative—the benefits of his involvement are, IMHO, greatly overstated. What is not clear, I'd say, is where the community stand on the "net effect" question here, although I think it is fair to say that although those who think the net effect of Beta's presence to be negative remain steadfast in that belief, those long situated on the other side of the issue are steadily losing patience and rather rethinking the issue, such that a consensus on the broader issue might develop in the not-too-distant future. Joe 20:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't agree with any of this; House is a TV show and can be scripted. There is no acceptable reason for someone to continually be abrasive and act in ill-manner. No one is irreplacable on Wikipedia. To hold someone to a different standard because of pervceived need or want for participation is antithesis to the wiki idea. Keegantalk 20:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
While it is undeniably true that BC is not irreplaceable, we cannot and should not deny the effect an editor can have on the encyclopedia. What would Wikipedia look like if RickK or NYB were still active? To use examples from active editors, what would our articles on cricket and Vietnamese history look like without Blnguyen's excellent work? Would we be as comprehensive about Norse culture without Berig, or Chinese history without PericlesofAthens? The House test (and I only use House cause it'll stick in your mind better that way) isn't to establish different standards for different groups of people, but to give us something to assess how best to respond to a situation like the one Betacommand faces on a regular basis. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 21:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Now Hemlock Martinis, you know very well that the questions you pose are rhetorical and have no response available. Dragons flight's comment below more succinctly explain how I feel. Keegantalk 04:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
There are really two philosophical positions here. Hemlock has articulated one of them well: That we should accept Betacommand for who he is and weigh the good he does against the problems he creates in order to decide whether his work is net positive or negative here. The other philosophical extreme, is to argue that a just society depends on the even-handed enforcement of the rules for everyone. In other words, to ignore transgressions undermines the foundation of fairness for everyone and creates a situation where others feel entitled to ignore social norms. We don't allow great scientists or doctors to ignore traffic laws simply because we value their other contributions to society. Personally, I hail more from this second school thought. BC is still wrong for being grossly incivil irregardless of how much good he may also do.
The real problem, however, is that unlike traffic cops we don't have any effective tools for dealing with what are, in the grand scheme of things, small infractions. I'd love to see BC fined $10 every time he acts rudely towards others, but we don't have any mechanism for enforcing that. Basically the only tool we have is to block him (or not). I sympathisize with people here who think that a block is too harsh. It doesn't really fit the crime. We want him to be more controlled and more responsive to others. Blocking does litte, if anything, to accomplish that. That said, if the choice is between blocking BC for a short while, or admitting that there are no consequences for incivility, then I'd have to go with blocking. That follows from my belief that the maintenance of just and equitable social norms depends upon the reasonable expectation that those norms will be enforced. Others may disagree, but that's how I feel. Dragons flight (talk) 20:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree with your assessment of the double standard of remedies, but I disagree with how we respond to it. We can't punish BC, partly because policy forbids it and partly because you can't slap a digital wrist. I would be extremely troubled by blocking BC for incivility especially given the flexibility as to what incivility is. For example, telling someone they lack a brain and to shut up is relatively minor in my personal assessment of incivility. I haven't seen (and I admit I'm not familiar with BC's history) any evidence of stalking or harassment or anything else other than snide remarks and rude comebacks. It's distasteful for such an editor to act in such an immature manner, but we can't force him to grow up. That either leaves us with blocks and bans, or warnings and inaction. And in this case, I'd rather err on the side of keeping an editor than losing one. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 21:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I strongly suggest you, and others, look into his past in detail, it makes for invaluable reading. To cut a long story short, his behaviour as far as I see it and have been forced to read, is completely unchanged over a year to 18 months, despite 2 arbcoms, a desysopping and a failed application for re-sysopping. I am in no doubt as to the fact that beta knows exactly what the community is and is not willing to put up with regarding his behaviour, and that beta considers himself no longer part of the community per se, fully prepared to work outside it as long as his actions meet with his own personal standards of what is and isn't allowed. He has, with continual appeasement, developed his own standards regarding wp:civil etc, which, once you get into his mindset, are startlingly consistent (for which he can at least be commended), hence the complete lack of acknowledgement of any wrong doing for any infraction. Honestly, I challenge anyone to find an admission, at least without an accompanying caveat of two wrongs. Per his own personal policy framework, he believes he is acting in the interests of the community, justified due to their apparent failure to adequately protect him from attacks and people 'talking shit because they know nothing'. He is quite the creation. MickMacNee (talk) 22:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
What's really sad about that statement is that it's true. We do allow users to skirt any rule they want to as long as they are a net positive, because there are enough admins around here who think we can't live without them. The few times someone has the balls to say, "No, that's not right, we all play by the same rules or we don't play at all", it turns into a wheel-war. --Kbdank71 20:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Please take a deep breath before commenting — we don't need to cause even more drama and flame-throwing. Thank you, Maxim(talk) 19:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Asking the community to deal with Beta is like asking the African Union to deal with a diplomatic crisisAlleged personal attack removed after a warning from MSBisanz. Barring the usual staunch defenders, 99% of users just accept he is untouchable now, to pretend he is going to get blocked for anything non-capital nowadays is just pure fantasy. I pointed out a while back that reading the wording of the arbcom policy pages, remedies are actionable by administrators, and I pointed out bc's precise civility remedies. The silence was deafening. Since that case I'm aware of at least 4 cases of outright incivility from him. MickMacNee
    • Compare and contrast no less, the indefinite block I am threatened with for the above apparently unnacceptable statement. MickMacNee (talk) 23:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I found a quote from Jimbo Wales that might be appropriate to all who say he's invaluable to the project...I haven't had any dealings with him but all I ever see is complaints, RFCs, ArbCom, at some point well...here it is:

"I think we really need to much more strongly insist on a pleasant work environment and ask people quite firmly not to engage in that kind of sniping and confrontational behavior. We also need to be very careful about the general mindset of "Yeah, he's a jerk but he does good work". The problem is when people act like that, they cause a lot of extra headache for a lot of people and drive away good people who don't feel like dealing with it. Those are the unseen consequences that we need to keep in mind. --Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:51 5 February 2008

Something to think about. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 21:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Quite right. I, for one, as a supporter of a "net effect" standard, certainly don't mean to suggest that the unseen consequences should be discounted; it is perhaps for that reason that I have yet to encounter a case in which I found a user's good contributions to be so great as to offset the harms caused by his/her being broadly and often disruptively incivil or otherwise unwilling to behave in a fashion that tends toward the promotion of collaboration. I simply don't think it appropriate to consider a user's problematic behavior absolutely without reference or respect to his/her constructive behavior, at least not in those cases where the effects of that problematic behavior can be roughly quantified, such that the harms caused by that problematic behavior and likely to be caused where it persists might well be weighed against the benefits accrued and likely to continue to accrue should the user remain with the project. (In this instance, I think it relatively clear that because Beta's behavior has continued for some time, including after the community expressed its disapproval of much of his manner of communication, and has caused, at least AFAIK, a non-trivial number of editors to leave the project or to edit with reduced frequency, the negative effects of his participation cannot be surmounted, or even offset, by the positive substantive effects of much of his editing.) Joe 23:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
A more worrying cause for concern is his tendency to dismiss even people who extend him good faith in the technical aspect, that ask him neutral questions, namely the recent attempt to understand his assertion that because he uses a secret coding method, copyrighted to his employer (but shareble among trusted wikipedians), and that it is this that stops him from splitting his bot tasks, code that he is unwilling (or unable due to the unbelievable complexity and his view that the requester is an idiot and timewaster) to explain further beyond an apparently made up term. MickMacNee (talk) 23:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I myself am prepared to put up with β, but there are too many editors here who are not, and we need them too. To keep this one editor, how many are we willing to risk losing? I would not assume he'll forsake us even if we prove we mean it about NPA. I don't think that poorly of him. DGG (talk) 04:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

That Jimbo comment was his statement regarding his own blocking me "for being incivil" for a week (see here).. but BC can be uncivil all he wants, because, well, darn it, we just can't live without him and Wikipedia will fall into the abyss and be haunted by devil-smurfs for ever more.. </sarcasm>. - ALLSTAR echo 04:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

My essential problem with BC's behavior isn't even that he's not nice.. it's that he acts like a 15-year old. You cannot have an adult conversation with this person; he's simply not reasonable. He's unwilling or unable to collaborate in a meaningful fashion. And, since Wikipedia is inherently a collaborative project, where does this leave us? He's had plenty of time to start behaving reasonably, so it's now time to whack him with a cluestick until he either goes away or starts playing along. Friday (talk) 04:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Everyone here is replaceable. If someone is capable of writing a bot or bots that can do the same work, by all means, give it a shot. I have not had the "pleasure" of direct communications with Betacommand, but from the volumes of material preceeding this discussion, it's clear to me that it is only the bot that saved this person from a long block. The bot and Betacommand can be replaced. Maybe it's finally time to do so. DarkAudit (talk) 05:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

  • I dislike the equation X = a license to be rude. WP:NPA is policy; it applies to all of us. Yes, we can be lenient up to a point for temporary lapses, but no amount of useful work creates a permanent exemption from the consequences of habitual violation. DurovaCharge! 07:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to point out the negative effect of Betacommand's style of communication that you can't see from just one or two diffs: it makes people reluctant to get involved with certain areas of Wikipedia policy, because doing so could get them into a nasty confrontation with Betacommand. Most people would rather work on things where they don't get insults hurled at them on a regular basis. The people who do get involved are mainly the ones who are already in a conflict with Betacommand. (I suppose I'd include myself there.) This isn't a good thing, because it severely hinders reasonable discussion. It's very hard to un-polarize a discussion with Betacommand in it. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 08:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Based on the above, I believe that if Betacommand acts up in such a manner again, it needs to be posted here, and someone can block him for a week. I know I'd support that. He's also on a last warning still not to fuck around with his bot and use it to disrupt things to make a point. Neıl 10:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
    • And that is the problem, imo. BC does something, and we tell him that next time, he will be blocked. Next time, BC isn't blocked, but warned that he will be blocked next time. And again. And again. He gets away with disruption and incivility every time. AecisBrievenbus 11:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
      • The "other" final warning is for dicking around with his bot (ie, spamming a user who he'd argued with with a few hundred templates), where I warned BC if he did something like that again, he'd be blocked for at least a week. He hasn't done anything like that since. Neıl 12:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

User:I LIVE IN A HAT [edit]

I've block I LIVE IN A HAT because he's clearly an ED troll here to campaign for the website. Just a look through his contribs show he's only been editing Encyclopedia Dramatica and 4chan pages. A review would be appreciated. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd give serious consideration to deleting this image he uploaded a few minutes ago, too - while I agree a case could be made for including a screenshot to illustrate the article, this has clearly been selected for troll value (expand to full resolution and read it).iridescent 15:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Works for me. Sadly, his friends will be along soon to work on our shiny new article. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
It was an orphaned fair-use image, so I deleted it. Also, it gave me teh lulz. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 16:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Personally, I think we all knew this would happen. I think Krimpet made a good decision semi-protecting it, pre-emptive or not. I think though, that several editors will be watchlisting this article, so any content that is, well, out of line, so to speak, won't last too long, but, well, we will see as time passes, I suppose. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 16:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • No objections to the block from me. Acalamari 17:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I endorse the block. Bearian (talk) 17:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Non-admin comment - Block makes sense to me. I have the ED page watched, knowing that there is likely to be trolling/disruption. I have some ideas about what may happen, but I won't mention them here for WP:BEANS reasons. RichardΩ612 Ɣ |ɸ *** 18:09, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Note: I've protected the talk page and replaced it with {{indef}}.-Wafulz (talk) 18:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • No problem with the block. Hut 8.5 18:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Back comes the ED article, back come the ED trolls. Same ol' same ol'. I say we nuke the article, it took a few months last time but they went away aprt from their monthly deletion review. Guy (Help!) 20:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • We should once again nuke this useless article. The trolling level has already reached a fever pitch, including a request to unprotect it (which I almost immediately declined without elaboration), and a truly startling amount of edits in the few hours the article has existed in article space. I think we're better off without the ED trolls, who don't bother us much unless ED is being discussed. Horologium (talk) 23:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • And I say again, why is this useless, troll-attracting article still around? seicer | talk | contribs 02:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Because troll attraction is not a characteristic which is of relevance when considering whether an article should stay or go. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • If you do not want the article on Wikipedia, despite it meeting our relevant criteria for inclusion (WP:WEB), it's currently going through AFD. Participation there would be more productive. Neıl 11:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Note I have no opinion either way on the ED article but I do have a thought provoking question: Are trolls and rabble rousers the standards we base our content on? If so, Depictions of Muhammad, Don Murphy, and slew of other articles should not be here. If it meets the criteria we set forth for content, keep it, defend it like any other article we have. If it doesn't, nuke it and move on. spryde | talk 15:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit]

Please see Wikipedia:VPR#Wikipedia logo improvement for a discussion regarding improvement of the Wikipedia logo. I've uploaded a new version of the logo, and since this would be a major change, I'm guessing it would need wide consensus, so I'm posting a notices around. Please direct any comments to the Village pump discussion. Thanks. Equazcion /C 16:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

TFA move protection[edit]

As mentioned in a previous discussion on this board, I am no longer going to be move protecting the main page featured articles. It seems nobody has filled the role, and today's article has been moved by a vandal. Can I have an admin volunteer to fill this role? - auburnpilot talk 02:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd be willing to help out. seresin ( ¡? ) 02:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Is there a good reason we shouldn't indefinitely move protect all featured articles? Gimmetrow 02:44, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
You're asking the wrong question. You should be asking "Why should we indefinitely move protect all featured articles?" to which I would response "Why indefinite?" Move protecting while actually featured on the main page seems reasonable but doing so indefinitely does not. What am I missing or not understanding? --ElKevbo (talk) 02:56, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Because most FA moves are either vandalism, POV, or ill-thought forks. An article through FA usually has the appropriate name for its content. Gimmetrow 03:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I concur with Gimmetrow. Raul654 (talk) 21:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I understand what you're saying but I disagree. In any case, this doesn't seem to be the right place for this discussion. --ElKevbo (talk) 03:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Where is the right place? Gimmetrow 03:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
This is probably the best place. --ElKevbo (talk) 04:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Seresin. - auburnpilot talk 03:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and move protected all the current scheduled TFAs with the exception of Lion which was indefinitely sprotected from editing/moving. Hope that helps a bit :).¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 05:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Moves are only available to autoconfirmed users in Wikipedia by default, so the move protection status of lion was no different than any unprotected page. I've added move protection to the article. Graham87 12:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Solution[edit]

I discussed this with east718, and he worked out a simple script to run under his account to move-protect the day's FA for 24 hours and 2 minutes, starting at 23:59 UTC. Call it a bot if you wish, but it is a script to move protect the FA without anyone wondering why the FA redirects to Poop since someone went to pick up dinner. He's going to run it, and any criticism/suggestions are welcome here, at my talk page, or his. Keegantalk 05:43, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I was actually coming here to suggest that exactly that be done. This seems like an ideal task for a bot/script. Resolute 18:43, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Delete a redirect?[edit]

Resolved: Redirect deleted. MBisanz talk 21:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Halp, I stumbled on a Video Game stub named "Inside Moon" and found that the game is just called "Moon" so I moved the page but could someone delete the redirect? [2] It doesn't link anywhere. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 14:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Done. You can also request that by using {{db-author}}. Enjoy! - Nabla (talk) 14:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I thought about it, but wasn't sure since it was an article move type redirect? I wasn't sure if it needed more explaination...thank you for sorting it out :) LegoTech·(t)·(c) 15:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Probably {{db-r3}} would fit better. But if it fits to two deletion criteria... well.. delete :-) - Nabla (talk) 21:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Courtesy de-sysop of The undertow[edit]

Following inquiries from the Arbitration Committee, The undertow (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has requested that his sysop privileges be removed temporarily. Prior to any application to reinstate The_undertow's sysopship, the Arbitration Committee should be consulted.

For the Arbitration Committee.

James F. (talk) 20:44, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Just for the sake of clarity, is this resignation under controversial circumstances meaning an RfA is required, or is he free to regain them at any time after telling the committee? Ryan Postlethwaite 20:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
It is controversial, as the committee have to be consulted should he want resysopping. Al Tally (talk) 20:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
1. What did he do (did I miss some huge controversial thing)? 2. He has to tell ArbCom if someone wants to nominate him on RFA? FunPika 21:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
"did I miss some huge controversial thing" - yes, yes you did. See RFAR. Raul654 (talk) 21:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to mention that I have in the past protested Arbcom's claimed right to prevent a someone not a party to the case from nominating someone at RFA. (not that I intend to do so in this case) --Random832 (contribs) 04:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
What is a "courtesy de-sysop" if I might ask? And if it was done only with his agreement, does that mean when he changes his mind the Committee will direct stewards to restore his bit? Avruch T 20:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
My interpretation here, Avruch, is that The_undertow has consented to the desysopping, suggesting that it is not an involuntary removal of rights, but the loss of permissions remains under controversial circumstances. Although the removal of rights principle would usually endure in circumstances regarding administrator desysopping, the Committee has noted here that they should be a vital port of call in any proceedings to resysop. As an incidental note, The_undertow has blanked his user talk page, and had his user page deleted. Anthøny 21:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tango[edit]

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The Arbitration Committee finds that Tango (talk · contribs) has made a number of problematic blocks. It also states that Tango's administrative privileges are to be revoked, and may be reinstated at any time either through the usual means or by appeal to the Committee. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:15, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

It's been pointed out on the prop decision talk page that his desysopping did not numerically pass. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 02:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. It seems 1.2 (Tango is suspended as an administrator for one month) has passed. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
It actually seems like 1.3 is the operative remedy passing in this case, because it passes as the clear preference and supercedes 1.2. I'd suggest not posting definitively about this here or elsewhere until its cleared up. Avruch T 02:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Maybe a 7 to 2 majority is not sufficient, but (1) it ought to be sufficient, and (2) the committee members agreed to close the case with remedy 1.3, i.e. Tango is desysopped, clearly stated on the Proposed Decision page. If this was an honest mistake, do correct it, but it looks kosher to me. Shalom (HelloPeace) 02:57, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Tango/Proposed_decision#Remedies It appears it we had a fuzzy math problem! Lawrence Cohen § t/e 03:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

The desysop has been done. John Vandenberg (chat) 04:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:AIV has a backlog[edit]

Resolved: empty as of 05:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC). MCB (talk)

Could somebody take a look at WP:AIV? Thanks. Corvus cornixtalk 02:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Erik Moller protection[edit]

Can I ask under what authority the Arbitration Committee has enacted a content decision, as seen at Erik Moller? Yes, I'm aware of the current hoo-ha, but this person is the 2nd in command of a major world-wide organization, and is so notable that there is no way they wouldn't pass AFD today without flying colors. That begs the question of where did the Arbcom authorize a content decision, which they have neither the power nor authority to do?

  • Please clarify when the AC gained this new power, and where did the community authorize that?
  • Please address the edit protected request at Talk:Erik Moller to redirect it to Erik Möller.

The protection is thus improper, as the AC has no guidance or endorsement from the community to make editorial decisions on content, and if User:David Gerard misspoke in the protection log, it needs to be at a minimum redirected if not unprotected, as protection is not used for content/editorial decisions. We need to be utterly transparent in the handling of this case and treat it like any other article, or the media will roast us alive. Thanks! Lawrence Cohen § t/e 23:17, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The Arbitration Committee granted itself the right to do whatever it wants on paedophilia-related issues a long time ago, purportedly to protect the reputation of Wikipedia. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 23:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
User behavior, yes, but content, negative. They simply can't do that, and they can't empower themselves to do so. As a body the AC has no editorial power over actual article content <link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:MarkS/XEB/live.css&action=raw&ctype=text/css&dontcountme=s">(obviously including redirects and images, and text), and no individual user, admin, arbiter, or otherwise, has binding editorial power over any content matter at any time--that is 101% community derived exclusively. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 23:42, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

User:^demon has redirected it. Thank you. My major concern is that given the very visibility of the current "situation", that we do anything article-related that is tied into the matter absolutely above-board and by our own accepted community-derived rules. Or, simply put, "by the book", so that the media has nothing to latch onto here from our end. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 23:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Fairly obviously, I'm not a sitting arbitrator and any such message is a suggestion to other admins of good sense and clue. As for your assertion that they have no power over content, that's actually not the case - David Gerard (talk) 00:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Where and when did the community grant the arbitration committee as a body, with their nominal authority, power over editorial matters? They are empowered wholly by us, and I don't recall seeing this detailed on their official page. They can only do what the community proscribes. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 00:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
The community didn't prescribe the Arbitration Committee the right to carry out a nineteen minute star chamber trial and then issue an indefinite block (not of one-year, as usual) to a user with over 7500 contributions for creating a userbox declaring a fondness for "young women" (and not even using it himself, or warring over it). But there was little objection to that. We've just slipped down the slope to content censorship, now. It's only a matter of time before we're invading ru.wikipedia to claim the server space that is rightfully ours. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 00:54, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Cool! Sounds like a fun game. All their server are belong to us. You don't happen to know an open-proxy sockpuppet army that could help us out with the invasion, do you? :-) -PetraSchelm (talk) 15:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I have no opinion on the Arbitration Committee doing behavioral sanctions, and the like, but I'm in general opposed to things not being transparent. What I am opposed to however is anything that attempts to usurp control of article content from the community. If the Foundation themselves can't step in to do what except in rare cases when legal issues are at play, to not risk their Safe Harbor/Section 230 protections, the Arbitration Committee or individual admins certainly have no authority to do so for deeply embarressing problems. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 03:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Does deliberately violating Godwin's Law in that manner mean you have no intention of putting forward a valid argument? John Nevard (talk) 18:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Have you ever actually, y'know, read about what Godwin's Law is? I'm getting plenty tired of people mentioning this meme where it doesn't apply. Neapolitan Sixth (talk) 18:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I am not making any assertions one way or the other, but I think we all have the right to know what the Arbitration Committee's powers are, where they are outlined, and how they are proscribed. It simply is not our way, otherwise. --David Shankbone 00:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Fight the powah! There's some history to read up on, as I'm sure you'd be insulted if people assumed you needed to be spoonfed - David Gerard (talk) 00:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I am not averse to spoonfeeding, can you help a brother out and say what you are trying to say? Arkon (talk) 00:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Indeed. The words "content" or "article" don't show up in the Arbitration page at all. The page in fact just details who was picked, why, where, how, and how Jimmy yielded all his authority over time to the AC, that leaves them... still with no editorial power over content. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 00:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Please note I did the move on a solely technical reason, and have no opinion on the article (or potential Arbitration) involving it. See my comments on the talk for clarification if need be. ^demon[omg plz] 00:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

As an update, Erik Moeller also now has an edit protected request; it was similarly protected by David Gerard. The Erik Möller article has now also been expanded, and is very heavily sourced--his notability is very clear and obvious. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 05:52, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

This comment is slightly tangential but I don't think we can say something as clear cut as "the Arbitration Committee cannot determine matters of content". It is certainly true that they have traditionally refused to determine such matters, but to say they are prohibited from doing so needs some explanation. If we look at Wikipedia:Arbitration policy#Scope, "4. The Committee will primarily investigate interpersonal disputes" the use of the word "primarily" suggests they can hear other matters. That said, "5. The Committee will hear or not hear disputes according to the wishes of the community, where there is a consensus" suggests that if there is a community consensus that the Arbitration Committee may not hear matters of content, they cannot do so. I'm not sure there has ever been such a discussion. These wiki-constitutional issues are not though I think what this discussion turns on. Whether ArbCom can or cannot determine this issue, it would I feel be unwise for them to do so here given Erik's status within the Foundation. WjBscribe 12:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
It would be unwise, but also they can still only do what the community deems to let them do at the end of the day. We let them do a lot, but if the community ever totally rejected something by the AC, the AC can't really do much about it, since they rely on the trust and faith of the community to empower them. They were once empowered by Jimbo, but now that Jimbo no longer owns Wikimedia and is just one board member, the AC derives all it's authority from us. They are not autonomous to do whatever they want. As you mention, though, it would be very unwise for them to try to start without asking the community's permission first. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 15:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
It should be pointed out that as editors themselves, the members of the Arbcom should have as much power to determine content as any other user, but no more than that. Saying "because Arbcom says" isn't an automatic pass on a content issue. As the collective-entity-known-as-Arbcom have always refrained from making any judgement on content issues, they cannot suddenly start to do so because it suits them to do so. Neıl 13:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't think they have, I think their name has been used because Gerard believes the pedophile rulings give them the power over all pedophile issues including content - a simple mistake. ViridaeTalk 23:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

As the person who initiated the pedophile directive with the AC, I hope this invocation of the AC by David Gerard was unrelated to this ruling. I devised of the ruling to protect minors from pro-pedophile activity (and by extension, the project from disrepute), and not for any other reason. El_C 05:21, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

It has already been broadly used in the past to suppress accusations of pro-pedophile editing; I take it this was also not your intent? --Random832 (contribs) 14:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
My intent was to curtail pro-pedophile editing, so it would be a given. -El_C 11:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

SWATjester's statement at WP:RFAR[edit]

[edit]

Per WP:VPR#New logo, the replacement of the current logo seems to be non-controversial. As I was told at bugzilla:14137, in order to perform the replacement, the new image located currently at Image:WikiNew.png needs to be uploaded to Image:Wiki.png. I would do this myself but Image:Wiki.png is protected. Once this is done, the bugzilla ticket can be re-opened, and the devs will implement the change. If an admin could please perform the upload, I'll re-open the bugzilla ticket. Thanks. Equazcion /C 19:52, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Whaaaaa? This pic weighs in 105 KB, and our current logo is only 19. We can't replace it until it's optimised well. MaxSem(Han shot first!) 19:56, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I forgot to optimize. It seems User:Cryptic has done that now though (thanks Cryptic). The image weighs 23 kilograms, er, kilobytes now (teehee). If someone could now do the honors, I'd appreciate it, thanks. Equazcion /C 20:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Hold on, hold on - whilst I agree the image is better, can I suggest that this is premature? Have images been created for all the other languages? We can't have them being different. When this is done, I think it would be a good idea, but give everyone time to comment. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually, most of the other languages have already had their logos changed in this manner. I initially got the idea from the German Wikipedia. Equazcion /C 20:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Also note that the new logo cannot be in public domain, as the current logo is copyrighted.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Yeah ignore my license summary, I just wanted to get the thing uploaded. We'll of course keep the current summary that already appears at Image:Wiki.png. Equazcion /C 20:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
(ec) Most other languages already have smooth globes, and some (like German Wikipedia, whose globe we are now copying) have for years. It's EN that is a legacy. Dragons flight (talk) 20:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
^Yup. Equazcion /C 20:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Should be done, please check the licensing and what not. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Ryan, I've reopened the bugzilla ticket. Equazcion /C 20:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

This should also be an opportunity to also fix the invalid japanese (and there was one other language that also had a problem, I don't recall). It should be ウィ, not ワィ --Random832 (contribs) 20:52, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I dont think it will work that way, the logo issue in this case deals with the shades and layering of the entire image, which can be done post-original creation. I don't think the characters on the globe can be changed without the original rendering settings, which Nohat lost years ago. MBisanz talk 21:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I think it might be possible. We could do a new rendering of a simple sphere with the new correct symbols, then just take pieces of that and edit them into the present logo in 2-D. I'm not good with 3D rendering so this is beyond me, but just saying, I think it's possible. I don't think we need the entire original 3D source, necessarily. Equazcion /C 21:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I was referred to here (from Village pump). Why is this discussion taking place in AN? Anyway, I found this image [5] to be really nice and less intimating than the current one. It also shows there is a way to create something similar to the current logo from scratch. And, of course, if the logo were to be recreated, some erroneous scripts can be corrected once and for all. (I, though, concur with the argument that since Wikipedia contains errors always, that the logo contains errors is somehow fitting. But showing that we are ignorant of foreign scripts isn't terrible good, I think. Shouldn't we solicit more feedbacks from the community at large?) -- Taku (talk)
Err.....I thought all images had to be PD and not copyrighted:

Oh, I didn't mean to suggest we use it. As you can know from the above, the logo has to be copyrighted by the Wikimedia foundation. This is a different matter from the use of free images in Wikipedia. -- Taku (talk) 02:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

User-created images[edit]

Wikipedia encourages users to upload their own images. All user-created images must be licensed under a free license such as the GFDL and/or an acceptable Creative Commons license. They may also be released into the public domain, which removes all copyright and licensing restrictions. When licensing an image it is best practice to multi-license under both GFDL and a Creative Commons license.

F.U.R hurts Wikipedia 13:50, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

page protection?[edit]

Resolved

Same-sex marriage has the padlock icon and claims to be semi-protected, and as far as I can tell was semi-protected at the time that [6] this anon-IP edit was made. On the other hand, I can't see the protection event that would apply in the logs. Pseudomonas(talk) 22:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

it was protected on 15 May but the protection has now expired. I have removed the padlock. :) -- lucasbfr talk 22:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Ah, thanks. I'd assumed the icon automatically appeared & disappeared. Pseudomonas(talk) 22:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately not, we got a bot somewhere checking the articles once in a while to see if they are still protected and removing the icon if needed, but I don't know how often it is ran. -- lucasbfr talk 22:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
DumbBOT does that, and it's normally pretty quick from what I've seen of it. Acalamari 23:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Pianist ru[edit]

See this user's Pianist ru (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). He is being repeatedly disruptive and incivil, and use cyrillic very often, even when talking to non-Russian speakers. I see other input on what to do next. Someone else should respond to him this time. RlevseTalk 00:56, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

The user is being disruptive and abusive. I have watchlisted his talk page. It seems that he has been given another warning. If he does not clean up his act, I think yet another block is in order. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
It was my warning, I have noticed he was already blocked. Well, he had a valid point regarding the Abkhazian SSR, it is pitty he was blocked for arguing a valid position. On the other hand I am skeptical on the usability for English wikipedia. Of a user with {{User en-0}} on his user page, especially if the user is combative and inclines to swearing. On the third hand, call me paranoid, but for a new user with almost no English he knows to well our jargon and alphabet soup. He might be a sock. Requires monitoring anyway. I would shorten the block but it is up to the blocking administrator Alex Bakharev (talk) 02:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
On the other hand, there is a Russian language Wikipedia. If the person does not speak English well enough to make meaningful contributions here, they may certainly be welcome there... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:14, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Note: He is not currently blocked. RlevseTalk< /span> 03:25, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Hundreds of cut and paste moves[edit]

Recently I commented on a discussion at deletion review concerning the page March 23, 2004 (Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 May 14#March 23, 2004). The discussion is currently ongoing but it's become apparent to me that the article in question and hundreds like it have been created through cut and paste moves which do not give any attribution to the original authors of the content - a violation of the terms of the GFDL license under which the content was released. I realise that facts cannot be copyrighted but the style, format and wording may well fall within the bounds of GFDL protection. Basically there was a pattern of taking a version of an article such as March 203 and then splitting off all of the sections into individual articles such as March 24, 2003 and then transcluding the split off articles back onto the main page for the month - (example diff). There is ongoing discussion about how the pages should be presented, whether the individual pages for each day should exist at all - irrespective of the GFDL issue - so maybe any action should be held off. Currently deleting or redirecting the individual articles would also destroy the main article for the month and even reverting them to their pre split-off state wouldn't be a complete solution as the individual sections have been worked on since the split. I don't know if any admin action is required at the moment (if G12 is discarded) but in the near future it seems like hundreds of deletions or history merges for the pages could be required. Sorry for the long post or if the issue has already been dealt with. Guest9999 (talk) 20:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I've been going through and replacing the transclusions in the month articles for 2004 (January 2004 throught March 2004 so far) with substitutions, then redirecting all the individual day pages. I haven't checked through the histories of the days themselves, but this does at least leave the content readable on the month pages. As far as I can tell, this is a workable solution regardless of where the original historys lie, since the histories remain intact in one place or the other. I'd suggest keeping the redirects even if they were copy-paste moves in the first place, because they're reasonable search terms. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 23:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Dang, I've got no idea what to do with April 2004. It doesn't transclude day pages like the others do, and the day pages are much more in depth than the month page is (see April 2, 2004 etc.). Could someone help me out with this month? --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 01:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Possibly revert to this version and then redirect the individual pages? Guest9999 (talk) 02:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
That worked, thanks. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 12:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

User: 68.9.124.254[edit]

Resolved: User has taken this to WP:AIV. PeterSymonds (talk) 11:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Could an administrator please have a look at this user. They have been continually removing the category from the List of 4Kids cast members article with no explanation (they may be right to do it, but a reason would be helpful). However, looking at their talk page, they've been continually warned for distuptive editing, and the last one was a 'you will be blocked'. Obviously, I can't do this, and it needs someone to review the situation before this is done. Thanks. CultureDrone (talk) 09:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Whoops _ I see I should have dropped this into WP:AIV - apologies in advance ! CultureDrone (talk) 09:55, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:PUI severely backlogged[edit]

PUI is backlogged by over a month. Can we get a couple of folks over to clean out the holding cells? (All it takes is verifying that there is no justification for keeping the image, and deleting it.) Stifle (talk) 13:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

CommonsHelper blocked[edit]

Just a heads-up that the upload bot for CommonsHelper has been blocked at Wikimedia Commons. Kelly hi! 14:55, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Another image improvement proposal[edit]

See Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Favicon improvement. Thanks. Equazcion /C 15:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Very well established hoax[edit]

Today, I was contacted suggesting that CSBC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and CSBC Life (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) were both total hoaxes. Upon checking Google and the external links listed, it indeed appears that I can find no mention of this bank. The sources provided by the image are dead and have never existed, nor have the official websites etc. etc.

I then contacted a Danish user, who also asserts that it does not exist. Before I delete this (very shortly), I would like to provide the opportunity for a couple of extra opinions from English Wikipedians just to make sure that we're all on the same page and not missing something, given this article has existed since September of last year. Furthermore, if consensus is that this is a hoax, we need to decide what if any action should be taken against Thrór (talk · contribs).

Cheers, Daniel (talk) 09:37, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

No objections to deletion...the URLs on the articles being down is just one of many issues here. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 09:44, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Definitely delete. As for Thrór (talk · contribs), I looked at his other contributions, and they seem to be fine. It baffles me then why he would create a hoax article. I suppose it's possible he didn't know it was a hoax, but that seems rather unlikely.--§hanel 09:49, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Apart from the one that links to the California Southern Baptist Convention. Sam Korn (smoddy) 09:49, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Heh, its revenue was said to be $700 billion, almost seven times that of the Bank of America, or a little less than the GDP of Canada. GG! El_C 09:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Heh, I missed that :) Thanks all. Daniel (talk) 09:54, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Deleted. Whilst we're on the subject, could someone cast an eye over 24 hours in a day? It's the bit about Ancient Egyptians and complex regular polyhedrons (or CR4P, as it's said to be) that's got my hoax-radar bleeping. GBT/C 09:51, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I prodded it and left a pointer at WT:WPM. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:07, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
It's now been unprodded and taken to AfD. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:38, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Dy93[edit]

Dy93 (talk · contribs) is apparently recreating already-deleted articles about a hoax soap opera. I'm no expert on Australian soap operas, so I can't tell if these are real or not, but other editors seem to think not. But what drew my attention to this user was the creation of Maggie Reynolds-Webbers with a db, hoax, and unsourced tag already on it, which indicates that Dy93 probably copied it from somewhere, though I can find no previous history of any such article with this title. Corvus cornixtalk 02:26, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah. I see what they did. They just copied over the content from Maggie reynolds-webbers. Corvus cornixtalk 02:28, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
They appear to be a sock of indef. banned User:Dylan93. Corvus cornixtalk 02:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, blocked, etc. Nakon 02:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Massive sockfarm or just a university class' project?[edit]

Maybe I was working in WP:SSP for too long and starting to get paranoid, but I think that many members in this task force share a striking similarity in their userpage design. Look at the task section and check out the 30 different members' userpage. They share a lot of things in common (too much in common in my opinion). Almost all have a very short userpage (few lines maximum), all have a link to their personal sandbox and most have a link towards the task force page. Some users mentioned that it's for an english course called ENG 102 at University of Kansas. I have tried to contact a user,User:Sld8719, and ask him about the nature of this project (I'm just picking him in random, because it would take a long period of time to contact all 30 members on that list), which he ignored me completely. Can someone enlighten me and see if this is a massive sockfarm or actually a class using Wikipedia to work on a class project?

Lovely. This is in Jbmurray (talk · contribs)'s territory, but I don't think he's around this week. If anyone needs it, be sure to refer this group to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-05-09/Dispatches. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Judging by the multiple references to English 102 at the Uinversity of Kansas, seems likely they're students on this course [7]. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 20:25, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Or is it this one? [8] OhanaUnitedTalk page 20:30, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm inclined to think that it is for the class ("I have created this account to fulfill the requirements of an assignment for my English class.", from the second member's userpage), and that it's possible that they got strict guidlines for creating an account and what to put on their userpage, perhaps even because if they are being evaluated for their work, their professor wants it a certain way. On the other hand, it could be a very elaborate group of sockpuppets... but my gut says it's more likely a class. Of course, my gut has absolutely no references, so really has not validity at all. One sort of odd thing though, if it's an English class, why are they all a part of the Environmental Record Task Force? That seems like sort of a specific topic for a 100 level English class. -- Natalya 20:55, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I'm not an admin but I thought I'd look into this for you. If you look at [9] you can see a note from User:Mcwabaunsee who is the classes teacher. Someone may want to contact them if there are questions (or if there is a better way to do this)? It seems the environmental interest comes from the teacher. Oboler (talk) 00:24, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

(outdent:) I just left a note on User talk:Mcwabaunsee. They don't look like socks to me. --jbmurray (talkcontribs) 04:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

It registered. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:12, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
The teacher's userboxes seem to fit pretty well. The user is from Kansas and teaches at an institution for higher level of education. (Side note: It was me who left the welcome message in that teacher's talk page 10 months ago *jaw drops*) OhanaUnitedTalk page 05:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

User seems to be stealing images and passing them off as their own.[edit]

Hello. I am not sure if this is the right place, but I suspect that User:Angela2109 is passing other people's photographs off as their own. Take Image:Clickorticket.jpg for example it can be found here (fullsized image here). Image:78adventurer.jpg appears to be a screen grab from a DVD.

Also suspect is that the images appear to come from several different cameras since the EXIF data is there see for example: Image:1971colt.jpg, Image:Lightning Storm.JPG, Image:Clickorticket.jpg, Image:RedOntdiplmtpltEDIT.jpg, Image:98Dodgeschoolbus.jpg, Image:1975MercMonarchG.jpg Image:1979Monarch.jpg, Image:85topaz.jpg, Image:1988 Dodge Van.jpg, Image:Datsun1979.jpg and when it is not there (or is) the date stamps seem to differ greatly see for example Image:84LYNX.jpg, Image:1977powerwagon.jpg, Image:RedOntdiplmtpltEDIT.jpg, Image:1978military.jpg

The stuff without the EXIF data (along with the stuff with it) appears to have been photographed over a wide geographical area ranging everywhere from Asia, the Pacific Northwest, Ontario, Florida, Pennsylvania, Germany, British Columbia, California, Illinois, New Jersey, etc.

They also attempted to pass of a photo of a Chevrolet as a Dodge Image:62Dodge.jpg see: [10] Given the resolution of many of their image images, like Image:1960townpanel.jpg, I suspect they obtained them from various websites.

The coup de grâce has to be Image:NYC1974.jpg which they claim is self-made, but they on their user page claim to be a "20 something photgrapher" - so unless they have a time machine, they could not have taken a photo of New York City in 1974.

I would doubt that any of the images that they have uploaded are in fact their own work. What is the next step? Should I leave it in the hands of an administrator? Die Profis - Die nächste Generation (talk) 00:55, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the report. I have blocked the user for massive copyright infringement. Nakon 01:02, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Glad to help. What should be done with the images now? Die Profis - Die nächste Generation (talk) 01:21, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Probably tag them as {{db-copyvio}} with an explanation of why you believe they are copyright violations. -- Kesh (talk) 04:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Fake article, sneaky tactics and probably not a newbie[edit]

Control The Nation With Discipline Tour, a brand new editer built this article in minutes which is suspictious enough. Myself and another editer who are up on all things Janet Jackson believe it to be fake. The sources dont support it. I believe it was built for the sole purpose of adding to Janet Jackson article. Additionally the user originally called it Control The Nation With Discipline. Someone requested that it be deleted so the "new" editer simply moved it by adding the word Tour to the end. He/She moved the article to avoid deletion. Also im not convinced this editer is a newbie. Thoughts are appreciated. --Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 04:31, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I warned them to stop. Lets see where this goes from here. I have my suspicions on who this is, but I am waiting to see what his response to the warning is. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:37, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanx Jayron. Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 04:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

What to do about Paul Vogel[edit]

I noticed that the date that shows when Paul Vogel gets unbanned is May 3, 2008. It is May 15, 2008. What should be done with this user page and this user's listing at Wikipedia:List of banned users? Jesse Viviano (talk) 05:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I also have noticed other expired bans at Wikipedia:List of banned users like User:Venki123 and am trying to remove them from this list as I see them. Jesse Viviano (talk) 05:25, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that Paul Vogel never edited under the account of the same name, it's a placeholder for ArbCom direction. So blocking/unblocking the account isn't really relative here. His ban has expired, he can contribute accounted or as and IP. He never registered or has the ability to access the Paul Vogel account. Keegantalk 06:23, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
If IPs or registered cause the same disruptions as the Paul Vogel accounts then they'll be blocked too. The problem is not the editor, it's the editing behavior. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[name removed] requesting suspension of bio for limited time period[edit]

Resolved: Article deleted for now by Rjd0060 per OTRS request. —Travistalk 01:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

What do we do about this? - Icewedge (talk) 00:06, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Mass removal of material from an article? I just rolled it back to the previous version. —Travistalk 00:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, that what I was thinking, but do we do anything about her request at all? - Icewedge (talk) 00:24, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
They reverted again. I'm not quite sure what to do. I would recommend having the user email OTRS (info-en at wikimedia dot org) with more information. - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
I have E-mailed the user with that advice. - Icewedge (talk) 00:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
And I left it on the users talk page, and I've undone the blanking for now. - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:46, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
It actually doesn't seem like too bad a request. If it can be verified that the user is who he says he is, I think we really should consider deleting the bio for a month - if this will affect his real life, and he's open to having it restored soon, it's not a big deal. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
(e/c) Just keep in mind that Wikipedia is not censored. If this is a genuine issue, blanking the page is clearly not the answer. —Travistalk 00:54, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Nope, but deleting the page as a courtesy may be. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:59, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
I've deleted the article per OTRS # 2008051810000246. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:04, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
I have removed the name from the heading of this section for users privacy. - Icewedge (talk) 01:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
You might want to also do the same for the diff provided in the first line of this section if this censorship is truly necessary. --ElKevbo (talk) 03:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
The diff is fine because the people who the information should be hidden from are not going to be combing through the archives of WP:AN randomly, she only wanted what could be picked up by Google dealt with. - Icewedge (talk) 07:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Possible sock[edit]

AdamNailor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) looks very much like a returnee, I am wondering if this is someone banned or sanctioned under a previous arbitration (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience). Guy (Help!) 07:46, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks likely given the editing patterns and articles that they are editing.