Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive146

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

Noticeboard archives


Rollback help needed[edit]

I recently indef'd yet another sock of banned user Codyfinke (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log)--namely, CodySupermarketSweep (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log). I could use some help rolling back his edits--my clicking button is getting tired. Blueboy96 19:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

i've looked through some of the edits yet to be rolled back, and I know that as a matter of principle, we do not allow editing by blocked users, however some of the un-rolled-back edits; I can't see where some of them aren't improvements. I endorse the block, and agree it should stay, but do we need to rollback every edit, even those that are ultimately beneficial for the encyclopedia? 19:23, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
It's a question we've never really resolved: what do we do about good edits by bad people? Policy and practice say we revert - they are banned and leaving their edits up hardly discourages them. But what do we do where reverting is detrimental to the article in question? One suggestion, ludicrous on first glance, was to revert and then make the edits anyway. This works, but is insane. And it is "editing by proxy for a banned user". I can't see a good answer to this conundrum, but Wikipedia has assembled some of the finest minds in the entire world when it comes to collaborative editing... so someone here should know. I hope. ➨ REDVEЯS is now 40 per cent papier mâché 21:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
As Redvers said, it's a tricky issue. Personally, I'd say that if an edit is unquestionably beneficial, it should be allowed to stand; we should not cut off our nose to spite our face. However, if the validity of the edit isn't obvious, it's better to err on the side of caution; if the edit was really something that should've been made, someone else will eventually make it (or something equivalent) again. Some familiarity with the user in question is valuable here; users have been banned for a huge variety of reasons, ranging from using Wikipedia as a MySpace substitute to real-life stalking of other editors, and it's important to know which kind one is dealing with. (Specific users deliberately left unnamed; grep the list if you want examples.) For instance, if the reason the user in question has been banned is repeated insertion of hoaxes and subtle misinformation, it's probably a good idea to take even seemingly valid edits from them with a big grain of salt. Similarly, while in some cases a useful solution may be to revert the edits but note them on the article's talk page, for some banned users this will just serve as a form of validation. If in doubt, try to find someone who knows the history of the particular user in question and ask them (possibly off-wiki). —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 23:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
IMO, reverting an otherwise constructive edit simply because a banned user made it is illogical. Regardless of whether or not he/she was blocked, it doesn't change whether the edit was/was not constructive. J.delanoygabsadds 17:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
If I recall correctly, some trollish sockpuppets of banned users have deliberately performed "good" actions such as removing BLP violations, in an attempt to trap other editors who revert their edits on sight. No, I'm not going to provide specific diffs, because that's irrelevant to the point I'm trying to make. The bottom line is really pretty simple: You are responsible for your edits, including reverts and rollbacks. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 21:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Merge history[edit]

Could an admin please history merge User:Serviam/Velites into Velites. I've been working on it for a bit on my userpage, thanks :-)--Serviam (talk) 20:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Done. You may consider editing the article itself, or copy/paste the new content you wrote (no copyright problem, I guess, as the attribution would be to you anyway) with a summary resuming the whole copyediting done. - Nabla (talk) 22:49, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Thankyou. I wasn't comfortable editing the article itself as it was a complete rewrite, and I started with only one paragraph which would probably be reverted.--Serviam (talk) 19:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Buckman[edit]

Resolved: AfD already closed, admin already looked into it. -- Kesh

(talk) 21:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd like an admin to check the talk for this AfD. I'm not sure where else to take this. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 22:33, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

There may be some sock-puppetry at work there, but the first keep vote is User:Dhartung, who is most assuredly not a sockpuppet of anyone else. I don't see a need to bring this to AN/I, so I am going to close it as no action required. Horologium (talk) 22:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
I wasn't suggesting that Dhartung was a sockpuppeteer. And this isn't AN/I, it's AN. I've removed the resolved template. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 22:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Trees Rock[edit]

I've just issued a final warning to Trees Rock (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) for this joke edit. As I've issued multiple warnings to this user in the last couple of days [1], [2], [3] (albeit all in different areas), could someone else review this warning and let me know if you think I'm being too harsh, as I don't want it to look like I'm Wikistalking. (Consider this as express consent for any other admin to remove/reduce the warning). Thanks!iridescent 00:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

That was not a "joke edit". I ment it, but I withdrew it because I was instructed. Trees RockMyGoal 00:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
And How is my Signature a "disruptive edit" as soon as I got that comment I changed It. Trees RockMyGoal 00:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Are you really the right person to be badgering people about their signatures? John Reaves 01:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
At nearly 700 characters, Trees Rock's signature was a bit much. - auburnpilot talk 01:16, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
After having to deal with Trees Rock, I do not think he is purposefully being malicious; rather, his inexperience with the project shows through his glaring mistakes. I believe he is well meaning and just needs to learn the ropes, maybe visit WP:BEHAVE WP:LOP and then WP:ADOPT before doing anything else. --SharkfaceT/C 01:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Again, we run into a problem where I don't think this is bad faith, but regardless, highly disruptive. If Trees Rock doesn't think the diff in the RfA page is disruptive... then what more can we say? Irid was good to come here, and I hope other admins keep Tree on watch. Another obviously disruptive edit should resort in a short-term block, in an attempt to prevent more disruptive edits without a more serious reflection by the user. Gwynand | TalkContribs 01:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
While I hate to be the one who brings this up, even if Trees Rock was able to become properly acquainted with Wiki-policy, inherent problems, such as maturity, could come into play. --SharkfaceT/C 01:56, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
The warning may be a bit rough. But the user is regularly in borderline violation of WP:NOTMYSPACE, and other concerns have already been raised. In case of further disruption, a short block may be in order. Adoption and the like have shown to have little effect in cases of maturity concerns. As for the biggest signature contest, it's getting ridiculous. Cenarium (talk) 02:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
After reviewing this, I would agree that many of Trees Rock's edits seem very Myspacey and borderline disruptive. I support Iridescent's warnings, and would support a short block (to escalate if necessary) for continued disruption after this warning. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
According to Trees Rock's Talk page, he has retired as an editor. Corvus cornixtalk 21:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:RD/M vandalism[edit]

There's (probably bot-driven) IP vandalism/spam going on over at the Miscellaneous reference desk. It's from a large number of different IPs, but since they are either sock- or meatpuppets, an administrator might want to block them en masse. Angus Lepper(T, C, D) 18:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I think Friday and Atlant are taking care of them. Seraphim♥Whipp 18:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I've semi-protected the page for a few hours. If nobody does it before I do, I'll reset back to move=sysop before the protection expires. Looks like a spambot. - Rjd0060 (talk) 18:12, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Protection reset. - Rjd0060 (talk) 21:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Another spam attack. Only 1 IP (blocked), but judging on what happened earlier, they would probably just move to another, so I've protected WP:RD/M for two hours. Can someone reset the protection again when it expires? Thankee. Seraphim♥Whipp 22:33, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Something wrong with db-club and db-group templates[edit]


Something has gone wrong with template:Db-club and template:Db-group so that they read "This page may meet Wikipedia’s criteria for speedy deletion as an article about a real person that does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject", whereas they used to read "about a club or group". The last edit to both templates was on 4 April, but I think whatever has gone wrong is more recent than that and is deeper in the template system, because on clicking "edit" I see the words "a club or group" still there. It is causing confusion - I have seen a speedy for a club objected to because "it isn't about a person". JohnCD (talk) 21:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll take a look. Those two are formed through transclusions of the main {{db-a7}} template, so it is probably a problem with that one. RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ *** 21:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
It comes from this edit to db-bio. The question is: should we modify db-club so that it transcludes db-a7 again, or retarget db-bio to db-a7 ? Cenarium (talk) 21:50, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I went ahead and changed the template to transclude a7 again, changing db-bio would have wider-reaching consequences if people are now used to it redirecting to its current target. Also, double-transclusions have more impact on the server (yes, I know). After all, surely it doesn't matter what the template transcludes [in theory it won't be around for long] RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ *** 21:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I also prefer this option. It has already been discussed on the talk page by the way. Cenarium (talk) 22:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Please help with board and table game articles[edit]


Since Barneca is away, could an admin take a look here, and especially at the new message that I left there. I don't know if this qualifies as vandalism, but as Barneca has blocked a bunch of sock puppets, and this is a new one with the same editing behavior, I would much appreciate if an admin could have a look. Many thanks! --Craw-daddy | T | 22:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Blocked. -Chunky Rice (talk) 22:35, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Bad Old Ones tool - image deletion[edit]

After having used this tool Bad Old Ones tool for a bit, I did a test run and found out that it is giving many false "negatives" (images that are actually in use being shown as 'unused'). I've left a 'bug report' for the owner, and have informed DumbBOT to consider removing the tool from its generated new category pages (i.e. Category:Images with no fair use rationale as of 22 May 2008). Just a 'head's up' to others that may be using this tool. Other suggestions on preempting use until the bug is fixed would be greatly appreciated. SkierRMH (talk) 05:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

This tool is designed for commons use, but it's not designed for use for orphaned fair use. It uses a Commons-only tool called checkusage to determine if it's orphaned or not. Using it from enwiki will not yield good results. Maxim(talk) 12:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
If that's the case, then it definitely shouldn't be on any of the image maintenance pages. It does have one option that should show images on a specific language wiki, but that apparently doesn't work as it's giving false reports. Also, it is stating that Image:X isn't used on any projects, which is clearly incorrect, as they're used here. I'll update my request with DumbBOT to reference this, and remove the use on the only maintenance pages. SkierRMH (talk) 15:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the link from the "template starters", which are the templates that contains the text that is initially put in the category on creation. These templates are linked from User:DumbBOT/CatCreate. I have not changed the categories that have already been created (please ask someone with popups or similar tools if this is really needed). Tizio 12:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Bromley Page - Can someone Please resolve this ??[edit]

user:Diamonddannyboy has been repeatedly adding Darren M Jackson to the Bromley page. Even though the source on the Darren M Jackson is unreliable and also for the following reasons.:

  • 1) The actual source on the Darren M Jackson page, seems to be unreliable as i can`t find this anywhere on the internet. **see below. As per WP:SPS
  • 2) I pointed out to the user that Darren M Jackson page doesn`t mention he came from Bromley, so he just added ``lived in the Borough of Bromley`` to the Darren M Jackson page as per edit [4]
  • 3) When i pointed out the fact being from the Borough of Bromley is actually totally different from the Bromley page, he changed the statement on the Darren M Jackson page to ``Live in Bromley, Kent``, again without changing a source or amending a source. As per edit [5]

In short the user has been repeatedly removing the citiation, (as per edits [6] [7] [8] [9]) , from the Bromley page without a reliable source, And the name should be struck from the Bromley page. **Please also consider the source is unreliable as it appears the source (which i still can`t find) is some sort of news letter as per the following website, which is definatly unreilable As per WP:SPS. (talk) 16:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Now moved too Requests for arbitration. Pls ignore.--Rockybiggs (talk) 12:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Request for assistance[edit]


This is probably not the ideal place to report this, but I don't know where else to do to it... I have noticed that Michael Shermer (talk · contribs) has recently edited the article Michael Shermer. I certainly don't see anything wrong with the edits themselves, which are not inconsistent with WP:COI. However, should the user be politely informed of these guidelines? Also, does the user need to verify his identity in some way, to protect against the possiblity of impersonation? Gnome de plume (talk) 19:15, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Consider opening a report at the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. There is no major problem but the article is like a resume, and needs shortening. Editors at COIN can advise on what to do. Leave a {{uw-coi}} notice on the editor's Talk page to make him aware of the guideline. EdJohnston (talk) 01:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
OK, I'll do that. Thank you for the suggestions - I wasn't aware of that noticeboard. Gnome de plume (talk) 11:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

User: Altenhofen[edit]

Altenhofen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

What is to be done about this user? Look at his talk page and recent contributions for reasons leading to this post. Something needs to be done here, and I'm not sure what. King iMatthew 2008 02:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

He's just being generally disruptive at this point. I say we drop one more warning on him, and tell him if he doesn't drop the matter, he should be blocked. 02:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I say he has been warned enough, and it is time to stop his disruption. Tiptoety talk 02:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, I just left a final warning at his talk page. We'll see where he goes with it. 02:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
User has history of vandalism, as seen here, here, and here. RC-0722 247.5/1 03:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
To see most of this user's attacks, please see this, this, calling East718 an idiot here, this, and nonsense here.--RyRy5 (talk wikify) 03:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, well, he still hasn't edited since I warned him. We will keep a close eye on him. If he fires up again, blazow... 03:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

"Honest Reporting" alert, criticising WP anti-wikilobby action[edit]

Thought people might want to know that the aggressive media-response alert site Honest Reporting has issued what it calls a communiqué, on the subject of WP's recent blocking of six users for wikilobbying:

Exposed - Anti-Israeli Subversion on Wikipedia

Given that the site claims 140,000 subscribers, a quick factual setting straight of the record on the piece's talkback page might be in order. Some of their readers do seem to take account of at least the first handful of comments there. Jheald (talk) 14:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The so-called "Honest Reporting" site appears to have some difficulty in understanding the difference between "subject" and "author". DuncanHill (talk) 14:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Sometimes you can ignore the rules, and sometimes you can not, if you want WP to have any integrity. Bearian (talk) 17:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
The cynic in me makes me wonder whether calling a website "Honest Reporting" is akin to a state calling itself a "Democratic Republic"... -- ChrisO (talk) 19:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
The point of Honest reporting is to *expose dishonesty* in the media. Wikipedia's editors are not maintaining objectivity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Amazing how reliably words like "honest", "truth" and "fairness" have the opposite of the usual meaning when used by zealots. Anti-Israeli bias my arse. I was reading the paper while waiting for a taxi the other day, there was a lengthy article by a Johann Hari discussing this kind of crap, The Independent, 8 May. "The former editor of Israel's leading newspaper, Ha'aretz, David Landau, calls the behaviour of these groups "nascent McCarthyism". Those responsible hold extreme positions of their own that place them way to the right of most Israelis." Anything other than uncritical adulation is unacceptable to these people, and we should wear their anger as a badge of pride, a sure sign that we are doing something right. Guy (Help!) 20:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
You can check what Honest Reporting has to say about Hari's reponse: ([10]). Because this is a matter of strong opinions, even the moderators should check their own. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I have no interest in what "Honest" Reporting have to say. It is wingnut drivel of the worst kind. Guy (Help!) 21:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
excellent point, one does not have to read something to have an opinion about it. yes, i understand your npov. quite revealingDavidg (talk) 05:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
More coverage here from the Jewish Week News: [11] -- ChrisO (talk) 23:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
And Gershom Gorenberg in the Atlantic Monthly here. His conclusion:

But the Wikipedia affair is a hint at the psychology of CAMERA's advocacy. It aims at defending the story it already knows by presenting only what is necessary to bolster that narrative. CAMERA's story is an un-nuanced, hard line version of Mideast history in which Israel can do no wrong. It's a narrative that disturbs many thinking supporters of Israel. When CAMERA fights for "accuracy," what it really wants is for the media -- or Wikipedia -- to promote that narrative. In defense of such "fair and factual reporting," it might even recruit some volunteers to misrepresent themselves in the Wikipedia wars. Let the reader beware.

It appears Gorenberg did some independent investigation of his own, as well, attempting to speak to CAMERA in Boston. There are some very apposite remarks about conflicting narratives, consensus and speaking in Wikipedia's voice as well. --Relata refero (disp.) 14:00, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Dr. Oboler and "Zionism on the Web"[edit]

I see that Dr. Oboler (cited in the HonestReporting link above) has also written on this subject in the Jerusalem Post's online edition ([12]), and his own Zionism on the Web project ([13]). I suspect his assertion (in the JP article) that "Electronic Intifada is ringing alarm bells, probably because those getting involved are Jews and supporters of Israel" will be met with less than universal approval.

The latter article is particularly interesting for its efforts to determine the real-life identity of User:Bangpound. I'm using the term "interesting" because there's currently a Wikipedia editor named User:Oboler who openly identifies Andre Oboler ([14]), and is actively participating in debates on this subject. I was under the impression that "outing" rival editors is something that we're not supposed to do.

I also find it interesting that Dr. Oboler once had a habit of adding "Zionism on the Web" links to sites that he visited ([15], [16]). Given that Wikipedia's article about the site was deleted as non-notable ([17]), some might be tempted to interpret this as spamming. Admittedly, these links were posted some time ago and there probably isn't anything that need be done about it now ... but it still strikes me as ironic under the circumstances. CJCurrie (talk) 03:49, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

  • A lot of links (see linksearch). Is this the next candidate for User:JzG/unreliable sources? Guy (Help!) 21:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
    • I'm not able to conduct the linksearch for some reason, but I think it may be a viable addition one way or the other. CJCurrie (talk) 21:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I would welcome someone checking the links, they were mostly to copies of archived material related to academic boycotts in the UK. This particular set of materials is referenced in an academic paper by Prof Charles Small (Yale University) [18] (note I renamed the subdirectory when the boycotts came back for the second time, but the old link still works - also that link is to google so you can see the paper reference, else you need to pay to get access to the full text). It is also listed as a reference by the Jewish Virtual Library [19] who also acknowledge the use of copyrighted material (specifically photographs related to original research published at ZionismOnTheWeb) [20]. Other links are to pages with relevent original research including photographs and audio recordings of the counter boycott event. I believe there is an explicit provision to link to your own original research. Given I am posting under my own name, and I include the name in the link when it is material I wrote (rather than material I repost under fair use, or with explicit permission which I usually seek and get), I would have thought that was enough evidence of good faith on my part. I can't speak for the good faith of those above however.
If someone wishes to review whether Zionism On The Web is notable enough to be included (and wishes to write an article on it) that would also be welcome. I figured it was at the time and was told no, I think things have moved on a bit since then. Zionism On The Web has been given an award from the Jewish Agency, participated in the Global Forum to Combat Antisemitism (the premier event on the topic), you can see Zionism On The Web listed here... [21] but ignore the rest of my profile (someone messed up at their end), and has been mentioned a number of times in the press. The report on Antisemitism 2.0 published by the JCPA is cites all over the place, Zionism On The Web is listed there as well.
while I do thank you for the interest, references talking about editors and linking that to their identity and activites outside Wikipedia could be considered outing. Even when the editor like myself makes that particularly easy. Just a thought. Oboler (talk) 23:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Based on what is here, I'd say Zionism On The Web is notable enough for an article. I also think Oboler is making sincere efforts to be a productive wiki editor. RlevseTalk 23:34, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Regarding the first point, it may be worth noting that Zionism on the Web gets a grand total of zero hits on the Factiva search engine (the phrase "Zionism on the web" appears in one article, but in an unrelated context). This strikes me as a not insignificant point to consider when determining the site's notability.
Without commenting on anyone's behaviour, I might also note that several of Wikipedia's ZotW links were to simple reproductions of articles already available on other online sources, including the databanks of the Guardian and the Anti-Defamation League. While I'm certain these links increased ZotW's traffic rate, I have to wonder if they really added much value to our project. (Some other ZotW links were to original essays of (IMO) dubious encyclopedic merit. To be fair, there were also a few links to transcriptions of archival material ... but even these generally came with non-notable introductions and commentary.)
I almost wonder if this could be described as an instance of "spamming, in effect if not intent".
In any event, I have yet to see any evidence that materials printed on "Zionism on the Web" are inherently notable or encyclopedic, notwithstanding that the project may have received an occasional award, citation or invitation. If a more established source (like the Jewish Virtual Library) chooses to print their material, a link may be in order. Otherwise, I would say not.
Btw, (i) it's permitted to link to one's own original research, but only until strict conditions that do not appear to have been met in this instance, and (ii) it isn't "outing" if someone's identity is already a matter of public knowledge. Cheers, CJCurrie (talk) 04:43, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
The above actions, i.e. Dr. Oboler adding his website, seem to be trying to promote either the website, or its content or both. Thus, this may be a violation of conflict of interest.Bless sins (talk) 08:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
CJCurrie, If see my talk page you'll notice I started talking with Rlevse after he warned me off for providing the evidence of Bangpound's identity (in the ArbCom evidence page) after he had been outed in the press. By your definition this wasn't outing, but by Rlevse's it was. I don't know which of you is right but the explanations don't tally.
As to factiva, try searching for "andre oboler" and you will get two hits now [22] (mentions my name and Zionism On The Web - misformatted though) and [23] (article by me, Zionism On The Web not mentioned). There will soon be another one for this new article [24] (which includes Zionism On The Web). Factiva seems to miss this [25] which has my name but not Zionism On The Web and this [26] which has both my name and Zionism On The Web, not to mention [27] and [28] (both news articles mentioning me and Zionism On the Web). All this said, the information regarding the Antisemitism Conference is in my opinion the most "notable", a quick look at the program and who the other speakers were will explain why.
I maintain that the links are to good quality references, much of which may not be available else where. If people want to redirect links to the newspapers archives (where such items are archived and still available, and where I did not link them directly), please feel free. The edits are an improvement to Wikipedia, and they are there since 2005. That they are accepted for years by the community might suggest something both about Zionism On The Web as a source for material on this topic (see my comments on this in my earlier post) and on the value of the information to Wikipedia. Then there are the links to original materials and these too have been maintained. This is looking more like a witch hunt on the admin board than anything else. Oboler (talk) 12:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
My understanding is that these links are subject to our citation guidelines in WP:CITE#SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT, which are more fully explicated in Wikipedia:Convenience links#Existing policy and guidelines regarding convenience links. In general, we would have to make an independent determination of the reliability of your website. Wikipedia welcomes those who announce their affiliations and open it up for discussion, but in future I would suggest you exercise some caution in adding your own site as a reference. --Relata refero (disp.) 13:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Relata, thank you for the clarifications. I haven't added link to my site in articles on Wikipedia in some years. As mentioned above the 2005 academic boycotts were a topic for which Zionism On The Web was the leading resource. I'd suggest we are now also a leading resource on Web 2.0 issues affecting the Jewish community, but as predicted here Wikipedia:Convenience links#Existing policy and guidelines regarding convenience links, the best material is now published else where (academically or in the press) and then simply republished at the site. The discussion above has covered the issue of whether it is a notable enough site to have a listing (it currently doesn't have one), you've raised the issue of reliability. This was varified independently the Jewish Agency when they gave us an award, but I assume you mean independently by Wikipedia admins. If someone wants to go through the site that would be welcome.
Some of the material is originally published in the main stream media (written by myself or quoting me), some is peer reviewed academic work and published originally else where. Some it could be argued is self published, I've looked at Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources_.28online_and_paper.29 policy re: Self published work and in the case where it could be said to be self published, (e.g. excluding original source documents now out of copyright that I've reproduced), the material I believe meets the requirements of being from an expert who is published else where on the topic. Looking at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources it also says that "Items that are recommended in scholarly bibliographies are welcomed", my site is reference by the history teacher site [29] (itself referenced very positively in the NY Times - see their home page), it is also used as a reference at the Jewish Virtual Library [30] which is itself run by an academic and is in many scholarly bibliographies. I've just edited the Jewish Virtual Library page to add references for this (the article said it needed references). Zionism On The Web is also referenced by Library at the University of Southampton [31].
I hope this information is of help and that someone has the time to review it. Oboler (talk) 19:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Oboler: As mentioned above the 2005 academic boycotts were a topic for which Zionism On The Web was the leading resource. My response: That's not exactly right. I believe it would be more accurate to say that "Zionism of the Web" was used to convey the views of certain parties who were directly involved in the debates concerning a proposed academic boycott, most notably Dr. Oboler himself. It doesn't even come close to being a reliable source, though I see that this didn't prevent someone from referencing it several different Wikipedia pages related to the subject.
I might add that being referenced in a handful of academic sources does not make one an "established expert", and that none of the sources you've provided constitute "scholarly bibliographies" in the way that the term is normally used. CJCurrie (talk) 05:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Oboler: CJCurrie, If see my talk page you'll notice I started talking with Rlevse after he warned me off for providing the evidence of Bangpound's identity (in the ArbCom evidence page) after he had been outed in the press. By your definition this wasn't outing, but by Rlevse's it was. I don't know which of you is right but the explanations don't tally. My response: I believe the situation is a bit more complicated than that. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Bangpound's identity revealed in the press by Andre Oboler? This strikes me as somehow relevant.
Concerning Factiva, you might be interested to know that "Andre Oboler" actually gets eight hits, albeit that two of these are simple reproductions of a previously listed article (and one other is a letter to the editor). I'm not certain the JP piece will be showing up, though, as Factiva (wisely) distinguishes between that paper's print and online editions ... just as it omits the "Comment is Free" section of the Guardian's website from its archives.
I could add that the mere fact of attending a notable conference does not make someone inherently notable.
In any event, while it's possible that "Andre Oboler" may deserve his own article page, "Zionism on the Web" clearly does not, and its non-notable commentaries should not be used as authoritative statements for subjects covered in Wikipedia. I don't doubt that you've kept a careful record of your press clippings, but the handful of references you've provided cannot possibly justify the staggering number of external links that were added to WP in the last few years. CJCurrie (talk) 04:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
CJCurrie, you seem to have an axe to grind here. You also don't seem to have checked the information I provided above. The references to an academic library (The University of Southampton) is I believe EXACTLY what is meant by scholarly bibliographys (I say that as a scholar), you can argue about the other two but they are highly used resources on the topic designed for educational use - hence are peer reviewed by experts on the topic (in anycase these are additional to the university library listing). The Jerusalem Post does not publish things online that are not in the print edition - so give this new article a little time. The reason the other searches give things for my name but not Zionism On The Web is due to (a) a fault in one article (which inserts a huge space in the middle of the name), (b) because the Jewish Week (respected paper with a large circulation) isn't included in the database, and (c) because you need to search for the URL not the name (with spaces) if you want to catch the jpost articles - the address and not the name is used. These are technical short comings and ignoring them by running the wrong search then claiming there are no results is not helpful. As for the conference, I wasn't attending, I was speaking. That makes a huge difference given people speaking at this conference are (by definition) notable on the topic of antisemitism. You may want to ask an experts in the field to varify this. I spoke specifically on Zionism On The Web. I'm about to be interviewed by RAM FM (if anyone wants to listen online or is in the broadcast range)(... I have a feeling Factiva won't pick that up either - it is a quick tool, not a replacement for other research). All the best, Oboler (talk) 06:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
(i) You may believe that the University of Southampton's list is "EXACTLY what is meant by scholarly bibliographys [sic]", but you'd be mistaken. A bibliography is a list of books, articles, &c., usually published at the conclusion of a scholarly work. The University of Southampton page you've referenced is simply a list of websites that might be of use to scholars, and it doesn't even link to any particular articles. The fact that one (1) university has chosen to highlight ZotW in this manner (and I trust you would have informed me if there were any others) doesn't make ZotW a reliable source, nor does it provide much evidence of its notability.
(ii) I'm afraid that "highly used/for educational use" isn't quite the same as "peer reviewed". Consider Wikipedia.
(iii) Let me first respond to your specific comments regarding Factiva, and then make a more general remark. Specifics: a) I grant that "www.zionism" gets one (1) hit on Factiva, but this isn't the strongest possible evidence of its notability, b) The Jewish Week is a credible community-based journal, but it doesn't have a particularly large circulation, and one (1) further article here isn't much evidence of notability either, c) it turns out that Factiva doesn't cover the Jerusalem Post any longer, a development that I suspect neither of us was aware of until now, d) a search for "zionismontheweb" at the Jerusalem Post's website yields two (2) hits, both of which are articles written by Andre Oboler; in each case, Zionism on the Web is simply mentioned in passing. These two articles may be evidence of your notability, but not of your site's. General: Quibbling over these specifics misses the point. I'm not at all surprised that ZotW has received a few scattered references in the press, but this doesn't mean very much (and I find it instructive that none of the articles are about Zionism on the Web). Truth be told, I'm surprised that ZotW hasn't received more coverage, given the absurd number of links Wikipedia has provided to the site in recent years.
(iv) I took it for granted that you were speaking at the conference, and my previous comment stands. The conference may have been notable and may have featured many notable speakers, but that doesn't confer automatic notability on all presenters. Every academic conference I've been to has featured a diverse range of participants, but world-renowned to virtually unknown. Beyond which, (i) the fact that you spoke at this conference might be evidence of your own notability but it doesn't make you an "established expert" on anti-Semitism, (ii) I'm going to assume that you were invited as a representative of NGO Monitor, and not by virtue of the fact that you operate "Zionism on the Web". CJCurrie (talk) 07:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
(iv) I took it for granted that you were speaking at the conference, and my previous comment stands. The conference may have been notable and may have featured many notable speakers, but that doesn't confer automatic notability on all presenters. Every academic conference I've been to has featured a diverse range of participants, but world-renowned to virtually unknown. Beyond which, (i) the fact that you spoke at this conference might be evidence of your own notability but it doesn't make you an "established expert" on anti-Semitism, (ii) I'm going to assume that you were invited as a representative of NGO Monitor, and not by virtue of the fact that you operate "Zionism on the Web". CJCurrie (talk) 07:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
CJCurrie, I'm trying to be helpful in pointing out mistakes, but you came into this discussion with a conclusion (see above) then have tried to refute any evidence to the contrary. I had a quick look at your talk pages and see that you have some history of being involved in related disputes. You also keep mis-stating the facts about my editing (something you did from the start), I have explained myself and if you wish to continue maintaining bad faith that is you business. I maintain that most (read practically all) of my addition of links to Zionism On The Web were limited to the 2005 period when the boycotts were news (and I assert again that my site was the leading archive of material on this). To update Wikipedia on these matters required links. As my purpose in this discussion is answering questions to establish facts, and as yours seems to be something else, further discussion between us is I think no longer productive except to point out where you are making mistaken assumptions. I do however resent the bad faith assumptions and the attempt (on conceeding certain points) to raise the bar.
One wrong assumption is the capacity in which I attended the conference. I was there during a couple of days of annual leave and I was there speaking about Zionism On The Web. You'll note that Prof. Gerald Steinberg was also present and officially representing and speaking on NGO Monitor (so I was clearly not doing this). This was not purely an academic conference, it was a diplomatic event... which explains why notability should be treated differently in this case. As to expertise in the area, please see the press articles already refered to and the peer reviewed publication at [32] Please note the reference to Zionism On The Web in the text. Please also note the extensive review this item went through (with computer science, political science, and antisemitism experts). I was also introduced as CEO of Zionism On The Web (in addition to other positions I hold) in the radio interview earlier today [33], the actual interview can be heard here [34]. As for what is notable etc, I think neither you nor I are the right people to determin where that bar sits. Oboler (talk) 12:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
(i) What you define as "being helpful in pointing out mistakes" would be interpreted very differently by others. WP:CIVIL constrains me from elaborating on this point, but suffice it to say that I'm not convinced there's much point in carrying on this exchange either. If you seriously want to raise the calibre of discussion, I would request that you make an effort to engage with the concerns I've raised (as I've done for you).
(ii) Please read my comments more carefully. I've written that Wikipedia has provided an absurd number of links to ZotW over the last few years (and I stand by this), but I'm not arguing that you were personally responsible for adding all of them. I'm not "mis-stating the facts about your editing"; I'm indicating that some editors, yourself included, have linked excessively to a site of dubious encyclopedic merit.
(iii) ZotW may have been "the leading archive of material" on the proposed academic boycott in terms of quantity, but not in terms of comprehensiveness or notability (I'm not aware that it received a single mainstream press reference at the time). Andre Oboler was an active participant in these debates, after all, and it's hardly surprising that his website would convey a particular viewpoint on the matter.
(iv) I'll repeat that most of Wikipedia's links to ZotW regarding the proposed academic boycott were to non-notable essays, or reproductions of documents that were already available elsewhere. It's possible that you provided these links in good faith and without promotional intent, but the end result was still a situation that strongly resembles spamming.
(v) The conference agenda -- not the biography section, but the agenda -- identifies you as "Dr Andre Oboler: Legacy Heritage Fellow, NGO Monitor". You may have spoken about ZotW, but it doesn't seem that the conference organizers identified this as your most important project. I'll add again that your involvement in this conference doesn't make you inherently notable, nor does it grant you automatic "expert status" in discussions of anti-Semitism.
(vi) I'll end with a question: are you aware of any newspaper/journal articles, or academic sources, that discuss ZotW in any detail? CJCurrie (talk) 07:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Attempts to remove all links to Zionism on the Web seem a bit too opportunistic and ideological for my taste - a bit more of the "making political hay" out of the CAMERA case, which no doubt will be milked for every ounce of propaganda and editorial value possible. Jayjg (talk) 23:59, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Your aversion to ideological editing is hereby noted. Regarding your specific concern, I've already noted that ZotW's reproductions of archival primary sources (mostly the works of early Labour Zionists) may serve a valid function ... though, unfortunately, they tend to come with non-notable introductions and/or dubious commentary. CJCurrie (talk) 07:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
CJCurrie, you contradict yourself in various posts - others can see themself. There has also be a conflation of the issue of links, the notability of Zionism On The Web (re: creating a page or not), and attempts to attack me as an editor suggests a personal agenda. I don't know you, but you seem to have painted me as a target. When one attack doesn't work you move to another. I don't knwo how one is supposed to deal with this, but given this is already on the admin page advise (from others) will be welcome.
To make one correction and answer your question above... In (v) you fail to note that it also mentioned Zionism On The Web (why the ommission on your part?). That my employer wants to be associated with things I do outside of work is a matter for them and I, not for public debate. Its bad enough to make a wrong assumption, but to then defend it when it is an assumption about my life and I am here clarifying the matter is absurd (vi) I am aware of the references cited above, as are you. I don't believe there is a requirement for discussion of ZotW "in detail". The requirement is a non trivial mention. If it was your way I can generate a huge list of material that would need removal... and Wikipedia would be the poorer for its loss. Where an article has a substantive discussion about Zionism On The Web (as did the conference and the radio interview), or introduces me in relation to Zionism On The Web in a discussion of issues that Zionism On The Web deals with... that would I believe qualify as non trivial. See the Jewish week items for an example of this as well as the Jewish Chronicle item. That Jerusalem Post publish me on these topics it another indication. As we are both in agreement about ending this discussion between ourselves, I wish you good day. Oboler (talk) 14:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

If there's no concrete action being sought here, let's all just move along here, this is all getting quite circular/repetitive.RlevseTalk 15:12, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


Why can't this be made a redirect to Jerusalem? Mallerd (talk) 20:41, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Because this is the English wikipedia. If you go to the Greek Wikipedia, I am sure they will be happy for your help. 21:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
The other option is to be bold and create the redirect yourself (although it would probably be deleted when spotted as being completely unneeded). ➨ REDVEЯS is now 40 per cent papier mâché 21:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
The problem is the article title is blacklisted. nneonneo talk 21:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
That's a horse of a different colour. Still, the subpoint stands: it would be deleted anyway as unneeded. ➨ REDVEЯS is now 40 per cent papier mâché 21:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Probably blacklisted due to the use of non-Latin characters in Grawp's arsenal. Corvus cornixtalk 21:47, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
So you're saying that the Hebrew or Arabic name shouldn't redirect to Jerusalem? Nonsense and you know it, it's not like I am adding a Korean name of Jerusalem or something, the Greek names have historical value. Mallerd (talk) 21:50, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Not nonsense, and I don't know it. Deep breath, please. ➨ REDVEЯS looks at danger and laughs his head off 22:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I added it and used {{R from alternative language}}. It's no big deal; redirects are cheap. Nihiltres{t.l} 22:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I doubt we need a grek language redirect to Jerusalem... is greek used as a local language in Jerusalem? If not I see no reason for it. We don't want redirects from every language, do we?. As in Paddo (from Dutch?), Muahahaha (??), Chữ Trung Quốc (??) also from this user - Nabla (talk) 12:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I think every soft drug should have a Dutch redirect, it is legal here. Many foreigners come and ask what is this and what is that etc etc. Chữ Trung Quốc is another name in Vietnamese for the Hanzi symbols. There is nothing wrong with redirects. You bunch of tyrants. Mallerd (talk) 15:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

That's us told.iridescent 15:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)



User informed of WP:NPOV.

i am trying to make subsatial improvement to the michael jackson page but am having issues there!

Here is the statement I have attempted I was advised to see "new friends" in order to make these changes

Block quote

hi i thought i could outline the main changes we have to make to micheals page

remove word child sexual abuse and replace wiht sharing a bed with a child to watch a film remove plastic surgery and replace with diagnosed with vitiligo and lupus, the latter of which is potentially lethal but is in remission in Jackson's case add "and he loves children and would never hurt one" "he is loved by millions of people the world over"

change "Jordan Chandler, the son of former Beverly Hills dentist Evan Chandler, represented by civil lawyer Larry Feldman, accused Jackson of child sexual abuse." into "made an allegation that michael hurt him but actually michael was lookin after jordy and he was a sick child that michael took pity on and who turned on michael like a snake as soon as michaelhad done him so much good."

change long term financial difficulty and heath concerns to say "he is a kind man"

this is the best i have to start but we can wrok on this and make better and more soon

thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by SDLexington (talkcontribs) 09:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, we're not going to let you make those changes. Sorry. Wikipedia works to a set of important rules: edits must be from a neutral point of view and supported by reliable sources. The text above is not neutral and is not supported by any sources. It appears to be your own views on the subject, something we also don't allow. ➨ REDVEЯS looks at danger and laughs his head off 09:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

This is why i am putting it on here i have been reuqired to find some new friends after a previous discussion with an old friend who has no time for micheal any more HE IS A KIND MAN this is not just my own views and why i want you to help me! SDLexington (talk) 10:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The above doesn't make sense. Please slowly and carefully explain what you want to happen using plain English, bearing in mind that we are not going to let you make the changes to the Michael Jackson article that you are requesting. ➨ REDVEЯS looks at danger and laughs his head off 10:11, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

what so you are just TOYING with me?? and you were never going to print it anyway and you laugh your head off at me I know i am not a experinced editor but I am keen and I dedicated to the cause of michael.

1. change long term financial difficulty and heath concerns to say "he is a kind man" —Preceding unsigned comment added by SDLexington (talkcontribs) 10:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

We're not going to do that. Is there anything else we can help you with today? ➨ REDVEЯS looks at danger and laughs his head off 10:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I believe that this is so far from being proper for this noticeboard that it should be marked as "Resolved - Question about article text insertion asked and answered". Gwynand | TalkContribs 13:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Also, both Redvers and I informed SDLex of policy and proper article talk procedure on his talk page. Gwynand | TalkContribs 13:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
SDLexington (talk · contribs) was inadvertently caught up in this sockpuppetry case involving a disruptive troll, but checkuser found them not to be related, despite the similarity. Just adding this info in case it helps everyone resolve their Michael Jackson issues a little faster. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Out of the selection of changes you want made,the only one I can see that isn't wildly POV is about him being diagnosed with vitiligo and lupus.If you can provide evidence from sources that this is indeed the case,I'm sure we would happily include this.The rest is far too biased to be able to be included.Sorry. :) Lemon martini (talk) 14:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


I have to go but there's something weird about this user. His first edit was labelling himself a sock of a banned user, he filled his talk page up with indef blocked templates, then started to tag articles with templates. Most of the templates have been appropriately placed, which is why I haven't just assumed "BLOCK HIM GRAGAGAGARHHH". Someone may want to keep an eye on his edits to see if he means well or not - I am going to the pub so can't do it. Ta. Neıl 17:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Blocked. Nakon 17:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Time to end the prohibition on biographies of people known for one event?[edit]

Murder of James Bulger is one example.

Who are we trying to kid? The article is on James Bulger. Adding "murder of" is wikilawyering to try to get James Bulger covered.

Why not delete the George W. Bush article and change it to "Pre-presidential life and presidential life of George W. Bush"? We are just creating episode titles like TV shows.

The debate should be whether a local murder is worthy of an encyclopedia, not banning people's names and wikilawying a compliant title.

BVande (talk) 19:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

There's actually a proposal for a guideline being considered at the moment that would address titling and content issues like this. Have a look at WP:N/CA for the proposal on criminal acts Fritzpoll (talk) 19:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
In any case, this sort of discussion would be better held at the village pump or on the relevant policy talk page. J Milburn (talk) 19:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Agree with J Mil. There has been so much discussion on this topic in other forums. There are certainly valid non-wikilawyering reasons for having "murder of ...." titles. Gwynand | TalkContribs 19:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • No thanks. Wikipedia is not a tabloid. Guy (Help!) 20:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • While I agree with JzG's no thanks. I do think there is plenty of tabloid material in en.wikipedia. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 05:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what Bvande is advocating here, exactly. I reviewed the article. It seems to be about a rather horrific crime. It includes biographical material on the victim, as well as on the two people convicted of the crime. It also includes information about the crime's impact on society (information about the press coverage, petition drives, and the like) and on the law (information about the Home Secretary's participation in the case and revision of the sentencing and the aftermath of that resulting in a prohibition on the Home Secretary changing minimum terms, and lots of other material). I do not see this article, even though it contains a lot of biographical material about the victim as primarily a biography of anyone. It IS covered by BLP policy, and it may be good to review it to see if there is material that could be removed (lessening damage to the victim and the victim's family, as well as to the perpetrators and their families) without impacting the article quality. But I don't see how this article is an example that demonstrates that we should change our approach in covering material such as this. Perhaps Bvande needs a different example. So I agree with JzG's "no thanks" as well as with Rocksanddirt's observation. ++Lar: t/c 14:29, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Lar. I am a little concerned about the length of the last section, which appears to detail absolutely every tabloid speculation ever about where Thomson and Venables now are (they're married, they're gay, they're Aussie, they're Irish, they're on cocaine, they have jobs, they're being supported by the government, etc etc).
Meanwhile, I had no idea it was so long ago. 1993! I could have sworn it was within the past decade. --Relata refero (disp.) 09:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Without commenting on the rest, I have to wonder just what a "local murder" is, and what sort of murder would not be "local". --Random832 (contribs) 17:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

There's no need to write or change a "policy" or "guideline" to permit this--just start doing it and convincing others to do it. The so-called "policies" and "guidelines" we have now aren't prescriptive. If what people are doing changes, they will be changed. You're trying to go about it backwards. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 20:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

In case you hadn't noticed...[edit]


Tim Vickers (talk) 20:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Archived discussion unrelated to administrative tasks.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

WP:RFAR#JzG. Excellent timing, I'm off on holiday in a few days and have a three month project at work which has suddenly been telescoped to one month due to external events. Guy (Help!) 12:28, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Meh, I wouldn't worry. They'll add it to that mistake of a Cla68 case which, since its scope requires everyone to substantially refight several previous ArbComs including Mantanmoreland, Durova, Jossi, and throws in the ID crowd as well, is extremey unlikely to ever get round to discussing you. --Relata refero (disp.) 14:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Don't forget that SlimVirgin's clique is also in the mix. --Dragon695 (talk) 12:56, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Maybe Guy could help us all by posting a timetable of when it would be convenient to him to have his behaviour scrutinized? DuncanHill (talk) 16:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
But apparently it's only JzG who makes inappropriate comments? I'd suggest that you strike that last comment, Mr. Hill. Horologium (talk) 16:49, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
I have never suggested that "it's only JzG who makes inappropriate comments". In answer to your suggestion, no. DuncanHill (talk) 16:55, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
The point I was making is that JzG is the subject of an Arbitration request due to alleged incivility, yet he is repeatedly subjected to "drive-by shootings" such as your first comment in this thread. If I was subjected to such behavior, I'd be a little testy, too. Horologium (talk) 17:02, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
The fact that he always seems to be "busy", "retired", "in Cannes", "on wikibreak", etc, when something like this comes up, yet his actual editing never slows down, could in fact be an issue the arbcom case should look at. If he really wants to spend some time on an actual wikibreak I'm sure the arbcom would be willing to suspend the case until he returns. --Random832 (contribs) 18:26, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
(ri) Ever heard of WP:AGF? I also wasn't aware that you spoke for Arbcomm. If I have any questions in future about Arbcomm I'll certainly come to you first. Cheers. •Jim62sch•dissera! 18:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
And to whom is that polite and insightful statement addressed? --Relata refero (disp.) 19:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
If you're talking to me - having opinions on what sort of behavior arbcom could or should be looking at does not require me to "speak for Arbcomm". --Random832 (contribs) 20:12, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Legal threat[edit]

Just a quick heads-up that I've issued a warning to (talk · contribs) regarding legal threats (the page about which the threats are being made is this AFD). If anyone gets any further threats from him (he's made three so far from this IP), be aware.iridescent 14:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Now blocked for 24hrs - don't want to block for longer as this will give him time to say his piece on the AFD before it closes, if he wants...iridescent 15:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
What a Bizarre AfD. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 15:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, perhaps the first time that interpol has been contacted to prevent an article deletion ;) --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
And people wondered why I stay away from AfD. I did like the Interpol comment, though. - auburnpilot talk 15:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
You think the AfD's weird, read the article itself. Makes me wish we still had WP:BJAODN.iridescent 15:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
We do. Anyway, this IP looks like a sock of Torratte (talk · contribs), who has already been blocked for disrupting the AfD. Hut 8.5 17:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
See also Carol Johnson (artist) and its AfD. Corvus cornixtalk 18:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Anon IP Making Edits On My Userpage, Posing As Me, And Posing As Another User on Talk Page[edit]

[35][36] Edits on My Talk Page [37] Signing using Cookie Monster name. [38] Changing Another Name to Cookie Monster

Erm...<3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 17:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

edits are over a day old, and there is no evidence (yet) that this is a single user-IP, so I don't see where a block will be effective at thiks point. Keep an eye open, and see if he returns... 21:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Today's TFA: To Protect or Not Protect[edit]

Weymouth...check the history. To protect or not protect?¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 22:59, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

That's some vandalism right there, leaning towards protect, but I'm not confident enough to make a final call. Articles should be protected in the cases of vandalism like this...but it is a TFA, and we should always be wary of protecting those. --Wikiacc () 23:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Judging by the page history, semi-protection seems like a good idea (not full protection).-Andrew c [talk] 23:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Sprotection now instated to expire at the end of the day.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 23:11, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Good call. Easily endorse this protection. Acalamari 23:12, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

RAS Syndrome AzaToth 23:15, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the alphabet soup (i.e. abbreviating "Today's Featured Article"), I was simultaneously writing this and patrolling Weymouth at the same time :P. Had to make it quick.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 23:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
You could have saved yourself a 'T' and been even quicker ;p --Stephen 01:49, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • The vandalism started again within 1 minute of the protection expiring -- I've protected again for 3 days. NawlinWiki (talk) 03:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

AIV backlogged[edit]

Resolved: Backlog cleared. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 23:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism is backlogged, and the backlog is growing. Any help appreciated. DuncanHill (talk) 23:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to all who helped. DuncanHill (talk) 23:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review[edit]


Could an administrator please provide the most recent non-vandalized revision of Reactions to the 2008 Sichuan earthquake for public observation at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 May 20#Reactions to the 2008 Sichuan earthquake? Thanks.   — C M B J   04:59, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but CMBJ, just look at the article's history and you can find this. --haha169 (talk) 05:03, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Super. I didn't realize that someone had already restored the article. Request dropped.   — C M B J   05:04, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Exceptional newcomer? User talk:Names of chief gods[edit]

User:Nneonneo brought this user to my attention, after the user nominated [39] [40] Nneonneo for adminship. The user was unsure of what to do, and asked for assistance. I looked at the RfA, and discovered a user who had a red-linked username was the nominator. This made me think that the user was new, and lo and behold, at that point the account was less than 18 hours old. I looked at the contrib count, and saw a count of 52 - the first of which was a CfD relist [41], and the user has been using edit summaries right from the beginning - not traits I'd expect to see in a newcomer. I'd like to assume good faith on this, but I'm not entirely sure that this account is a person's first, but that's just instinct. I'd like to have a few more people look at this, and see what they think if that's OK. :) Stwalkerstertalk ] 20:12, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

We did have a user sock-nom their own RfA last month. Might qualify for an RFCU if Nneonneo accepts it. MBisanz talk 20:15, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I declined it, in case you were wondering. nneonneo talk 20:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Dereks1x has been exceptionally active the last few hours... This could be him... Maybe Alison should add it to the list to check? 21:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
It seems likely that this user is in fact not a sock of nneonneo, and if this is the case, I would advise the opposers in the RfA to refactor their comments as a courtesy after this is all sorted out. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 22:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I think a better solution would be to delete the RfA and pretend it never happened - there's no reason to keep it. Keeping may also prejudice distant-future RfAs for this user as they'd have to indicate it was a 2nd. This happened in another similar case a year ago when someone nominated a very new (good faith) user for adminship without their permission. Orderinchaos 18:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Seeing as I'm currently sorting all mal-formed RFAs (from the old days before they categorized closed RFAs) and deleting ones like this where it was a mistaken nom, joke nom, etc, I've gone ahead and deleted it. MBisanz talk 19:59, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I recognize it as a sockpuppet for User:Names of gods, a SPA with a religious Truth to share, I think. I've blocked as such. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

A message from Willy[edit]

Supposedly a message from Willy at User:Willypx2. Not that there is a request for action there. -- SEWilco (talk) 18:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Not like anyone actually will listen to him or believe him. But I say give him a chance to prove himself. Rgoodermote  18:54, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
If we decided to unblock, is there some .js code that could limit his edits/restrict his pagemoves? MBisanz talk 19:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
(ec)More likely to be Dereks1x - it's his current MO. Nevertheless, if the account edits peacefully and non-abusively, it can carry on. But the account has put itself on notice. Added: Not currently blocked, so no unblock to decide. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS looks at danger and laughs his head off 19:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
The only thing so far that has been done wrong was the addition of a historical template on an essay..dumbly I rolled back to his edit....good faith. As for a script...well I think there is a discussion at the Village Pump which refers to something like that. Rgoodermote  19:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
There is a discussing at VP:Proposals about page moves, and I find it amusing that Willy actually commented on it. No objection to letting him edit for a bit, as he actually claims to be repentant (apologizing to editors and the community, swearing off further page move vandalism, etc), which contrasts him with our friend Derek. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 19:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't know whether it's relevant, but I declined an unblock request from User:Polly on Pills the other day, who most certainly is Willy. The user appears to be about. Sam Korn (smoddy) 19:54, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Problem is that Willy is right. There are copycats. He has become some sort of E-Legend among the Wikis and forums. Rgoodermote  20:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Why would a new user announce that they're Willy on Wheels and ask to be unblocked, unless they're looking for drama? If they were really interested in positive editing, they would just do it. Corvus cornixtalk 20:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

There was no unblock request. The user actually just admitted to being Willy on the userpage. Rgoodermote  20:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm of two minds on this. On the first hand, he professes to want to be a positive contributor. On the other hand, were that the case, he would have just created a new account and gone about his business. The fact that he professes that he is Willy on Wheels looks like a clear attention grabbing ploy "Hey, Look at ME!!!". Becoming a positive contributor involves simply contributing, not announcing your presence with fanfare... 21:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  • WP:DNFT naerii - talk 22:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
    • I agree, no action or response is required. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
      • WP:AGF - if he wants to get it off his chest, let him. If he now contributes productively, brilliant. Neıl 08:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

A message from Willy/Actions[edit]

I have taken the boiler plate off of his userpage (it is a red link, and people don't change with stigma attached) and placed a note on his talk page. I'll watch his contributions for the next few days until I hit the road. I take this as rough intent from the discussion above. I'll take it upon myself, if the community is willing, to offer limited mentorship. No harm in a chance here, maybe we gain some good articles. [42]. NonvocalScream (talk) 11:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed; I'll keep watch as well, as I'm sure many admins will. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 12:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Deny recognition[edit]

Anyone interested in denying recognition of this? Here is a user name that seems to provide comparison commentary just like this blocked user name. This account is a dopplerganger account. This should have been a dopplerganger account, but other action may be needed to prevent impersonation. Here is a copyright vio user page. (note: that the link is to the entire user name and not a subpage of a user). You might want to check these as well. GregManninLB (talk) 01:16, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I've put it up for MFD, and am looking at the rest of that. That isn't a user page, IP addresses aren't permitted to have subpages. Hersfold (t/a/c) 01:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I’m not aware that IP users are "not permitted" to have subpages, I don’t see a problem with it when the IP is static, and I don’t see anything related at WP:SP. Why delete these three with that rational, but leave 11 other subpages. (Saw it, request of Hu12 on the MFD)--Van helsing (talk) 12:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
The interview transcript is a sub page (protected) of User:SushiGeek, now known as User:One. The source has indeed a shiny “© 2007 Cable News Network LP, LLLP.” at the bottom of the page. --Van helsing (talk) 10:52, 21 May 2008 (UTC).


Resolved: 02:14, 17 July 2007 Khoikhoi (Talk / contribs) blocked "Talyshli (Talk / contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (sockpuppet of banned user AdilBaguirov)

This user IS NOT BANNED. Hell, he isn't even a sockpuppet. Please fix his page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:16, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, he is banned and he is a sockuppet; please see his block-log here. TreasuryTagtc 09:35, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Request To Block IP Adress[edit]

Resolved: No action needed CWii(Talk|Contribs) 21:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

On some pages I have seen vandilism from an IP Adress from The Barrie Day Elementry School. I reviewed its logs and it has been typing nonsense and making personal attacks to people at the school. The talk page shows many warnings but only one block for one month or so. I think there needs to be a block for a year or better yet longer. I also think the school needs to have an email from a wikipedia admin. Thank You for your concern Plyhmrp (talk) 20:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC) Plyhmrp

A glance at the contribs shows that editing (and therefore vandalism) is sporadic. And some of the edits have been well-meaning, even if not perfect or even very good. On the basis that we attempt to encourage editing of Wikipedia (and on the slightly flawed basis that we have far worse IP addresses that we block sparingly), I'd be inclined to not block until there's evidence of prolonged abuse or nasty edits that would null the well-meaning stuff. ➨ REDVEЯS is now 40 per cent papier mâché 21:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing the logs but they reveal that more than half od the edits are random vandislim. That Ip Adress blanked one page and typed In comments like "I GET MONEY MANNY RULES" and they IP also says that people are so cool. There is also times where they typing gibberish and say hi. There have also been attacks to people who may be students. One of these edits to Rube Goldberg sayed "Willam Sucks" I assume Willam is part of that school. I think there needs to be more than one admin reviewing the logs like I did. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Plyhmrp (talkcontribs) 00:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

No. It's fine. No block needed. CWii(Talk|Contribs) 02:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

No It is not fine. This IP needs a month long block. This IP disrupts wikipedia and has achived lots of warnings and two blocks. We need to issue a short block to show that we will block them if they are disruptive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Plyhmrp (talkcontribs) 20:15, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

No edits now for 6 days. No edits for 6 days before that. No edits for 14 days before that. No edits for 6 days before that. And some - not all, not many, but some - of those edits were clearly well-meaning. This is the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. If we start throwing around month-long blocks of IP addresses probably used by dozens of people when there is no pressing reason for doing so then we're hardly fitting with our own motto. And Wikipedia policy doesn't allow for such blocks. Step One is to get a consensus to change a policy you don't agree with, not to demand that admins break the existing policy. ➨ REDVEЯS is now 40 per cent papier mâché 21:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
The editing is so sporadic that a block wouldn't have the desired effect. Blocks are preventative, not punitive, and there's little to gain from a month-block to a school IP that only rarely edits anyway. And a month isn't a short block -- Kesh (talk)

Ok maybe not A large block but can we get a banner that says to edit login. This might help things. I think a one day block may help. More than half of the edits are meaningless. Need more warnings.

Can you please stop already? No more of this. This is a school with sporadic vandalism. Go find something else to do. There isn't anything to do here. CWii(Talk|Contribs) 21:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Do not tell me what to do Cwii! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Plyhmrp (talkcontribs) 22:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Please Block Me![edit]


User referred to blocking policy and a helpful JS script NonvocalScream (talk) 16:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Could someone please block me. I have been suspected of sockpuppetry, and I know where it will go. Please block me indef (and in the block log, put Requested By User). Goodbye. SimsFanTalkCentre of OpsSign and Get Award 16:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Self-requested blocks are not permitted. Nakon 16:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Blocking is not needed here as you can simply stop editing. Here is the Policy along with a reference to a JS you can use at your pleasure. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 16:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
To be fair I have occasionally seen an editor receive a self-requested block for the purpose of impulse control, but certainly not for the reason of making a point like this user seems to want. Dcoetzee 20:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


User:RucasHost is most definately attempting to Soapbox around the wiki. You can check out his contributions and see what I mean. When I saw this diff [43], I just had to put it on the noticeboard. More people need to be aware of it. Hooper (talk) 21:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

User has not edited in 5 days. What admin action are you seeking? You posted to the user's talk page. Did negative behavior continue after your post? Have you tried to communicate further with the user since your last post? It's not exactly clear to me what the purpose of your post here at AN is (instead of ANI, or Wikiquette alerts, or RfC).-Andrew c [talk] 22:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Oddly and perhaps aptly, I find HooperBandP's contributions much more entertaining - he appears to be using wikipedia to promote his business interests. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Really? I've never once edited the Pepsi page, and thats how I make my contract money. Interesting conclusion. Hooper (talk) 00:15, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
You are Hooper Booking & Promotion; you did write the article on Paducahpalooza, one of your own events, as far as I can work out. And you have some promotional or other involvement with The Wish You Weres, whose article you wrote. I don't give a stuff how you make your "contract money", whatever that is. I do care that you're prepared to treat us as fools and suppose that we cannot trace a connection between your self-declared interests, and your promotion of those interests on wikipeda against policy such as WP:COI. You may argue that Hooper Booking & Promotion is not a business. Frankly, that would not surprise me. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I didn't argue against your deletion on most, even agreed. If out of my contributions that is all you're worried about, then I'm not concerned. But I am concerned about more subtle crusading which is why I brought User:RucasHost to attention here. Where as I have indeed edited articles which I'm obviously aware and more knowledgable about, I could care less if they exist or not. This user is going article to article in a subtle attempt to shift POV. I'm much more concerned about that. Hooper (talk) 14:42, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I note that you and User:RucasHost have banged heads in an AfD, and possibly other places. It is always as well, in all circumstances, to declare your interests lest people take the impression that you are trying to game the system. The example you provided a diff for was innocuous, though - amusing, even, given his user-page confession of faith ... to change "evolution" to "creation" in the context of a discussion of the Commonwealth. Rest assured that as much attention is being paid to RucasHost edits as to yours. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:30, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


Resolved: Backlog has been cleared. --Bongwarrior (talk) 23:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

There is currently a backlog at WP:AIV. SpencerT♦C 23:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Tor proxies[edit] (talk · contribs) and (talk · contribs) have apparently been determined to be Tor proxies. Could someone block them, please? Is there a notice board for Tor proxy requests? Corvus cornixtalk 21:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:OP down the corridor second on the left, though both of these are checking negative, probably because they are both dynamic. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:49, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
yeah, they were labeled by a bot, I don't know its reliability. Corvus cornixtalk 21:50, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Unblock vandalism...[edit]

Okay, I know that the requests for unblock category is filling up with random pages because of a vandal... something on one of the templates? ... but I'm insufficiently 133t to find where the vandalism is. Could someone 133t3r take a look at it? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Gone. -- zzuuzz (talk) 22:35, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

New law in Missouri (USA): administrators and editors should be aware of, penalties include prison[edit]

From Mo. lawmakers vote to bar Internet harassment

Don't think that this doesn't apply to you.

When you read the law and the state senate's commentary, it is more eyeopening. Conceivably incivility and blocking may be outlawed if the administrator or editor is particularly harsh or causes distress.

From Under this act, the definition of "harasses" is modified to include conduct directed at a specific person that serves no legitimate purpose, that would cause a reasonable person to be frightened or intimidated, as well as emotionally distressed. ....

FYI only. Keep on keeping on.....

In another topic, Warren Buffet expressed fear that an American city will be victim of a nuclear terrorist attack. Maybe not this year, maybe not in the next 5 years, but he thinks it will have within the next few decades. Buffet is NOT making a Wikipedia death threat or even a nuclear threat against anyone.

Police sometimes give advice on crime prevention. Prevent rape, robbery, or murder, they may advise. This, too, is NOT a death threat, rape threat, or robbery threat.

With that in mind, the following is NOT a death threat.

It is very possible that eventually there may be a murder related to something that happened in Wikipedia. Let's not let this happen!!! Prevent this by acting kindly and not being incivil. Too often, experienced users, inexperienced users, non-administrators, administrators are rude and cause flare ups in temper. Don't let this happen. Listen to what the other person has to say! Make blocks with care!

Just 2 public service announcements. Somehow, I think that there will be opposition even to these 2 basic public service announcements!? Olop 2 (talk) 06:33, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Would the admin who encouraged the above user to register this self-confessed block-evading account, please clarify the grounds on which the advice was given and/or confirm that the block evasion is within policy in some way? Thanks. Guy (Help!) 07:24, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
There are 137 active admins who fit the criteria Olop 2 describes. MBisanz talk 07:48, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Then all 137 admins must go to prison ;). Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 07:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

That admin told me that there is too much sock hysteria in WP and that if he unblocked me, he would have to pay for it. He said that it was ok to create a new account as long as I was not the person originally blocked as a sock, if I edited responsibly, and if I waited a few months before editing. Someone also mentioned that I should always use wifi, not my home internet, to prevent stalking. (This is wifi). Olop 2 (talk) 03:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Also, what happens in Missouri really doesn't apply to any of us, if that's what you're implying. Wikimedia's main servers are in Florida. Only Florida and U.S. law applies. Oh, and I wasn't that admin. Grandmasterka 07:54, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Shame (re the jurisdiction issue - not being "that admin"!) , I was hoping that US tax dollars might be deployed in having me attend some Missouri court. LessHeard vanU (talk) 08:23, 18 May 2008 (UTC) ps. I would hazard a guess that the original account was blocked for trolling.
      • Strictly speaking that's not true. As an individual, you are primarily subject to the laws prevailing in the jurisdiction that you happen to be residing in. As a corporation legally based in Florida, the WMF worries about Florida and US law, but you as an individual may be subject to a different set of laws. In rarer cases, you might also be subject to laws in the jursidiction of someone whom you are accused of harming. Dragons flight (talk) 09:55, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, Dragons flight is most correct. Criminal law is very different than civil law, and even civil law is different from country to country and from person-to-organisation to person-to-person. Given that the law discussed relates to criminal law, extradition is most certainly possible, unlike civil law where extradition naturally does not occur due to it being private law. As an aside, on the civil side of things, Dow Jones & Co. Inc. v Gutnick [2002] HCA 56 is certainly a most interesting case to read, especially given that the main principle is binding on all Australian courts except itself. Daniel (talk) 10:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear. Remind me to avoid Missouri. --Relata refero (disp.) 14:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

There are many other reasons to avoid the State of Misery, this law is not even in the top ten... 17:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Yup, that was what I meant, but I was trying to be delicate. Relata refero (disp.) 19:43, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Cool; if this passes I'll be sure to check for Missouri IP headers on certain posts and incoming e-mails. :) DurovaCharge! 07:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Was anyone else expecting the post to end with "please forward this to everyone in your address book"? SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 14:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
The only COURT OF LAW I'll ever go to is the one in TRENTON, NEW JERSEY. Luigi30 (Taλk) 12:59, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't think Missouri has much of a chance of getting me, which means I can continue to abuse my blocking ability as well as hurting the feelings of emos whose band articles I delete. James086Talk | Email 13:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
It'll be a cold day in Hell before I recognize Missourah!. DuncanHill (talk) 13:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Here in Iowa some call Missouri the "Show me again, slowly" state. Raymond Arritt (talk) 15:18, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I'll hold off on what folks from my home state, your neighbor to the North, say about Iowa. Sometimes it's funny though! --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:26, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Hah. Next thing you know we'll be telling Sven and Ole jokes. Raymond Arritt (talk) 19:29, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I only just noticed this. I've seen some ridiculous threads here, but this one takes the prize.iridescent 19:27, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
To my surprise, Sven and Ole redirects to Ole and Lena. I'd never heard of Lena, only Sven. Anyhow those jokes are funny. I've always liked the "rented boat" joke here. Those idiots! --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Question, does this require a trial or can it be added to Arbcom remedies?--Cube lurker (talk) 01:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment#Votes on changing the assessment scale[edit]

Hi there. To get more input on whether the assesment scale should be changed, could users, both administrators and non-administrators head over there and comment on the propsals made. Thanks, D.M.N. (talk) 14:54, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

It's the same thing I asked about before. So, can I add something to {{watchlist-notice}} about this or not? Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 03:42, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


It has recently come to my attention that many users are dissatisfied with the level of abuse and inappropriate editing resulting from use of the anti-vandalism tool Huggle, and some would like to see its use discontinued. While I am reluctant to push for such a move, as I understand some people find it useful, it would seem that there is a significant problem which needs to be addressed.

I originally developed Huggle some 18 months ago for personal use. I made it more generally available four months ago in response to demand. Anyone who has developed software both for personal and more widespread use will appreciate that there is a significant difference between the two, and I spent a long time trying to make the software more suitable for general use, and even longer fixing bugs and implementing requested features. The nature of Huggle is such that it needs to make edits quickly and make many edits in a short space of time. While it does not require that the user work quickly, it allows them to work much more quickly than would otherwise be possible, and it would seem that some contributors do not take full care in doing so.

I would like all administrators to be aware that use of Huggle by a user can be prevented if necessary, and that they should not hesitate to do so in the event of abuse or inappropriate editing. Huggle requires a subpage in userspace named /huggle.css – for example, User:Gurch/huggle.css. This subpage does not contain a CSS stylesheet; rather, it is so named in order that only the user and administrators are able to edit it. Blanking and protecting this subpage prevents use of Huggle. Additionally, a list of all Huggle users may be found at Wikipedia:Huggle/Users; administrators may wish to use this list to evaluate the contributions of less experienced users.

If necessary, use of Huggle may be disabled completely, for all users, by blanking and protecting Wikipedia:Huggle/Config.

I would appreciate suggestions as to what should be done next – Gurch (talk) 17:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

As (I assume) the user who prompted this post; while I'm now persuaded Huggle shouldn't be disabled altogether, I do believe we need to be more willing to remove it from users if there's any misuse/abuse, and not to give repeated warnings before doing so; the speed at which it operates means a well-intentioned misuser (or an outright vandal) can do significant damage with it if it's not immediately taken away. To save reposting huge blocks of text, my full thoughts on the matter are here.iridescent 17:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
(EC with above) Don't blame the tools for the person... If a user is being a PITA with Huggle, they would be one without it. It doesn't make users "bad users"... it only makes the bad users more efficient. If a user is disruptive via Huggle, they should be dealt with just as if they had been disruptive without it. Many many editors use Huggle appropriately, and we shouldn't punish them just because some trolls have found a way to make themselves more of a problem... 17:27, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Agree with the above — in fact, a post like this informing others of how to disable it is probably the most effective thing that could've been done. Don't be afraid to remove it from anyone messing around Alex.Muller 17:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it should be discontinued (but I do think that this page should now be protected since Huggle depends on it!!!); removal is simple and should be used. TreasuryTagtc 17:37, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
The problem with protecting that page is that I then can't edit it. It's been only semi-protected for four months with no adverse effects, and indeed wasn't even linked to until today -- Gurchzilla (talk) 17:40, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, then, you should either remove the links (!) or be given adminship just for that! TreasuryTagtc 18:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
I think that anyone who abuses/misuses Huggle should have the ability revoked immediately, and possibly be blocked, depending on the severity of the abuse [e.g. someone who accidentally reverts some non-vandalism edits should have the privilege removed but not be blocked as long as it is a first offence, but someone who goes on a rampage, reverting and warning 100s of users, and then making false reports to AIV should be blocked]. We do the same for rollback, [in severe cases] admin tools and AWB, why not Huggle? RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ *** 17:52, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Huggle is an extremely clever piece of work by an extremely clever person who was nice enough to share it with the community. I for one am grateful for that. That said, it's extremely powerful and I think we should not hesitate to take the ability to use it away from those who maybe aren't quite ready for the power... with great power comes great responsibility and all that. So I support the general sense here that tightening down who can use it and making it easier to take away temporarily or permanently if needed is appropriate. ++Lar: t/c 22:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

If we could establish an administrator's reference page, listing the various automated and semi-automated editing tools such as Huggle, Twinkle, VandalProof, NPW, AWB, Rollback, etc, and how to disable them, I believe it would aid administrators in enforcing prompt sanctions proportionate to the type of abuse occurring. MBisanz talk 22:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
With regard to Huggle's main configuration page being full-protected, could we make an account for Gurch that is an administrator, but with the condition that he only uses it to edit the config page, if any other edits with the account show up, it would be immediately indef blocked? J.delanoygabsadds 22:37, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't think that is necessary. - Rjd0060 (talk) 23:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
If you think it needs to be fully protected, feel free to go ahead and do it. Just expect to be spammed with {{editprotected}} requests when I need to make configuration changes :) -- Gurchzilla (talk) 00:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Why don't you just move the config page to something like User:Gurch/huggle_master.css and make the existing page have Huggle redirect its request? That way, you could still edit it, and no one else could. J.delanoygabsadds 17:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion: Huggle is given a process similar to rollback. Users need to be screened beforehand and, possibly, must be recommended by an admin. Personally, I'd institute a stricter process for Huggle than for rollback, as a user without rollback (like myself) can still edit literally a hundred articles a minute with Huggle. --SharkfaceT/C 02:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Bah, since the general opinion regarding Twinkle was that if someone abuses it he must be blocked, I guess the same remedy can be done about Huggle (or *any* script for that matter). I don't necessarily agree, but there is no reason to hold people to a lesser standard for Huggle. Keep up the good work Gurch ;)-- lucasbfr talk 11:12, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Where Huggle has been used appropriately I am certain it has proven very beneficial, but where it has been abused... It is a powerful tool which in the wrong hands can create a great deal of damage, which means I am more concerned on the basis by which it is granted - perhaps there should be more checking, more detailed criteria for use, and even perhaps a more strictly qualified group enabled to grant user rights? I don't think removing Huggle generally is going to do anything that being more careful in its distribution wouldn't achieve. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I know that when I first started using Huggle, I made quite a few errors for about 3 or 4 days, as I was unaccustomed to such immense power. I have seen similar trends in a few other new Huggle users. I think that each new Huggle user should be put on probation for, say, a week. In that time, they would be cautioned to take it slow and learn the ropes. Too many mistakes in that time would mean that the user's Huggle privileges would be revoked and the user would have to wait a period of time before re-applying. I do not, however, think that Huggle should be removed from everyone completely. During peak vandalism times, Huggle can "filter" out most vandalism, and Twinkle users and people doing it "old-school" get the rest. Take Huggle out of the picture, and it is difficult to keep up with the vandals. J.delanoygabsadds 03:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

If use of Huggle is going to be restricted to those approved by a certain group of people, realistically that group of people would need to be the administrators (otherwise, anyone would be able to approve themselves). If so I need assurance that the administrators will respond to app