Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive149

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

Noticeboard archives

Deletion of List of nontheists[edit]

An administrator should delete List of nontheists. Please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of nontheists (2nd nomination). Selective mergers to Lists of atheists are completed. Delete:

Thank you, RS1900 11:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Um, did you merge the above pages to sub-articles of Lists of atheists? (if yes please specify them) --PeaceNT (talk) 11:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
To be clearer, deletion might depend on the amount of merged materials, for copyright reasons. --PeaceNT (talk) 11:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes. I did merge the above pages to sub-articles of Lists of atheists. You can recheck. Please delete them. Thank you. --RS1900 11:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. I think you should note on the sub-articles' talk pages that you created the new pages after slitting content from Lists of atheists, though. (When I first examined them, I thought they were merged solely from the lists of nontheists, not the lists of atheists) --PeaceNT (talk) 12:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Trolling, racist comments of User:Xasha[edit]

He attacks the other by racist comments and personal attacks.ClaudiuLine (talk) 20:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Might you be able to post some diffs? Bstone (talk) 20:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Claudiuline is most likely a sock of User:Bonaparte and he is really harassing me (just check his latest contributions).Xasha (talk) 20:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
You are racist and you prove it againClaudiuLine (talk) 20:36, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Xasha[edit]

This user, recently warned and then blocked for making offensive remarks against me, has resumed his attacks. Here, here, here, here, here and here he goads and prods me, insinuating dark motives on my part. Let me elaborate: I noted at Template:Romanian historical regions that certain regions were part of Romania in 1941-44, which in fact they were. Now, how exactly the template should be constructed is open to interpretation. What is, however, completely unacceptable is that Xasha, despite his recent block and warning, and despite my pointing out to him repeatedly that he is violating AGF, CIV and NPA, accuses me of "trying to legitimize Operation Barbarossa" - the Nazi German invasion of the USSR, in which Romania's fascist wartime regime also took part. Obviously these are very serious, but also entirely baseless charges. I have asked Xasha to withdraw the charge, to comment on content rather than on the editor, to stop attempting to smear my good name, but all to no avail. It is not up to him to air his "impression" and "supposition" that I am "trying to legitimize Operation Barbarossa", but if I can't convince him of that through discussion, then it only remains to me to seek a more formal means of clearing my name. Biruitorul Talk 19:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The name of the section Racist comments is right, but there was a misprint. It is in fact, User:Biruitorul, under cover of extensive plain rhetorics who denies the existence of the Moldavian state, Moldavian language, Moldavian nation. Please, visit any of the talk pages related to Moldova edited by Biruitorul. For example[1] where open ethno-racist remarks are made by User:Biruitorul.--Moldopodotalk 20:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
OK, just note that your implications that I accused you of fascism or rehabilitation (?) are just the result of your gross failure to assume good faith. As for historical revisionism, your comment about Moldova's statality leaves no other interpretations.Xasha (talk) 19:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Please don't obscure the issue, don't "interpret" my edits in sinister ways, and things will be fine. Again: unacceptable to say that I am "trying to legitimize Operation Barbarossa", a charge that very clearly implies I am trying to put fascism and Ion Antonescu in a favourable light. Or, if it doesn't imply that (which I'm sure it does), then the best solution is always silence - not coming up with your own "impressions" and "suppositions" regarding my motives. Biruitorul Talk 20:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I was mistaken. It's not you who is trying to do it, it's the version of that template you created who does it. When a version edited by you is seriously flawed and biased, is my right to bring it to the community's attention.Xasha (talk) 20:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
You show you're racist. That's all that counts here. ClaudiuLine (talk) 20:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
When will be Xasha blocked? ClaudiuLine (talk) 19:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
A few minutes before you are... Please see WP:ANI#Arbitration enforcement on User:Xasha; both editors now blocked regarding this matter. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I have also found Xasha to be... less than the ideal contributor. He's constantly revert warring (see here and here in just the past couple of days); when I asked him to copyedit instead of reverting, he decided to go this way (notice what the source actually says). And I've only been back to en.wiki for a couple of days. --Gutza T T+ 20:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

  • I have also found Gutza less than the ideal contributor and a neutral adminsitrator. For example just one of the obvious edits where a total absence of objectvity is shown by User:Gutza[2] The proper formulation is that the Moldavian and Romanian have the same literaru form (meaning for example that on Wikipedia it's the same grammar rules, vocabularyn etc, but still two different officially and internationally recognied names). I would suggest to make sure topics on Eastern Europe be mediated/administered only by truly neutral administrators, those who do not support a strongly contested POV.--Moldopodotalk 19:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Was it just the echo, or did I just hear "ad homineeem, ad homineeem"? Echo, definitely. --Gutza T T+ 20:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Please, avoid editing articles related on Moldova being administrator with an editing agenda you have in mind (pushing through POV Romanian related propaganda)... No, it's not an echo, it's a totally thought message or warning if you will of some kind for you to be more attentive to your neutrality regarding your controversial edits on Moldova related articles. I have not seen the proof of your neutrality on this issue so far.--Moldopodotalk 20:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Mate, you seem to be treading on thin rope as it is, do you really need to aggravate everyone you encounter? This section is not about myself, and it's not even about yourself -- it's about Xasha. And it's a closed topic at that. And what you're doing is committing a fallacy (ad hominem, to be precise -- my argument is supported by diffs, not by my persona; I haven't even disclosed my status as an administrator above). And you're the last person entitled to warn anybody on neutrality, given that you're spewing derogatory, inflammatory and aggressive comments at almost everyone you happen to interact with. And I have the same right to edit as anyone else; and my edits were properly sourced, and I didn't threaten anyone with a block if they reverted my changes. And so on, but why bother. --Gutza T T+ 20:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Just drop it, your Romanian mate Biruitorul's technique to fill in the project talk pages with unsourced plain rhetorics does not convince me. Please provide a diff where you made a positive contribution on a Moldova-related article which was approved by the community, or at least provide one which was not reverted.--Moldopodotalk 22:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
That pesky "ad homineeem" echo again -- what shall I do, what shall I do? --Gutza T T+ 23:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
That pesky "ad homineeem" echo again - would that be an uncivility strictly punished by Wikipedia attentive administrators?--Moldopodotalk 10:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't see how could be construed as being uncivil -- but hey, feel free to ask for a second opinion. --Gutza T T+ 11:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
How about we all calm down. If you are feeling stressed, take a pillow and pound it. Everyone here has shown themselves to be rational human beings. Why can't we all just get along? Geoff Plourde (talk) 15:03, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

OTRS check needed[edit]

If any OTRS volunteers are monitoring this page, could they please look up the ticket # (2007121910001893) for Image:Paul Draper by Alan Bree at Gang of Pour.JPG and see what, if any, license is specified for that image? Thanks! Kelly hi! 16:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

OTRS was unsuccessful, no specific license was specified. I deleted the image. Garion96 (talk) 16:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! Kelly hi! 16:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Ultra-rapid Grawp?[edit]

Liekwtf? I'm having a hard time understanding this. See the contribs of these two: [3] [4] In the span of a minute, you-know-who manages to move an extreme amount of pages. Moreover, given that my bot is now almost as fast as it can technically get (wpEditToken is prefetched every few minutes so it can POST the block form immediately) and blocks within seconds of detecting suspicious behavior, it means that he moves 20+ pages in, what, 5 seconds (or less)? How's that even possible? Isn't there some global throttle, even for autoconfirmed accounts? Makes me wonder why he now hits only talk pages mostly (like sets of archives) - is the throttle somewhat more lenient in that namespace? Again, liekwtf? Миша13 19:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Uh, I can think of one way but beans and all. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 19:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
[ec] I can very, very easily perform several actions apparently at the same time by using tabbed browsing and access keys. It looks automated for a short burst, but is problematic for more than a few dozen edits at a time. EVula // talk // // 19:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't wonder how to do it technically - I could easily write a script that moves 10s of pages per second if only the software and bandwidth allowed for it - my question is, does our mediawiki allow such bursts? I surely remember a hard throttle for autoconfirmed being mentioned a while ago... Миша13 20:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
And if you're expecting to get blocked anyway, it doesn't matter if you can't sustain the edit rate. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 19:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Do we have a move throttle? Back in the day, Curps ran a bot that enforced one, much to SPUI's irritation IIRC. But I don't think we had one in the software itself. Are we now supposed to? Coz that would be A Good Thing. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS used to be a sweet boy 19:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Duh, IMO even one move per second would seriously compromise Grawp's efforts (without making it noticeable for legit users, even as fast as SPUI). Миша13 20:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

←And all pages are just as quickly moved back ;). Whether a stricter move throttle is enforced or not...the damage is always easily repaired. End of story.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 19:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, and unless the throttle is set to three or four, the system generally won't catch them before the admins do. EVula // talk // // 20:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposal[edit]

We are supposed to have a move throttle set at 8 moves in 60 seconds for autoconfirmed users, but if you check "move subpages if applicable", it moves all the subpages in a users userspace and counts them as one move. Now - let's get a consensus together so I can file a bug. I'd suggest a limit of 4 moves per minute for autoconfirmed users, giving admins and crats an exemption. Also, I'd suggest removing the "move subpages if applicable" check box. This could really limit these sort of attacks. Thoughts?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryan Postlethwaite (talkcontribs)

Ryan's got it. A throttle exists (8 moves in 60s for autoconfirmed editors), but apparently the "move all subpages" checkbox allows you to move the subpages as a group regardless of the limit. Dragons flight (talk) 20:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Which is the lesser of the two evils - removing the checkbox or including the subpages in the throttle? ➨ ЯEDVEЯS used to be a sweet boy
I'd say removing the checkbox to be honest, it would be pointless including it in the throttle anyway if we reduced it, which I still think we need to do regardless. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Restricting it to sysops would be better than removing it. I am curious how often it gets used legitimately to move archives and the like. Dragons flight (talk) 20:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
When a bureaucrat renames a user, all the pages of the user are automatically moved to the new name. See for example [5]. This is fast, and likely at the maximum possible rate. Cenarium (talk) 00:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Must've neglected reading Signpost ops section and missed this new feature. Too lazy to check, but from Poet's comment above, I presume it works just as well when reverting the move? Even so, it leaves quite a messes to clean up after. How about give admins a checkbox to delete source redirects after move, eh? Миша13 20:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
The API can suppress redirects, but API editing is not yet enabled on en.wiki. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Then IMO it should be added to the human interface - this would really make cleanup as easy as one click. And even without subpage moves, it'd be a useful feature. Миша13 20:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I think we need Wikipedia:Page move reform, with two proposals (enable human use of the move-page-without-creating-redirect feature that admins nominally have but don't have a way to implement; and crank down the pagemove throttle a bit to some arbitrary level); and a bugzilla request to fix what is clearly a system bug (that moving all subpages counts as one move for the purposes of the pagemove throttle). Happymelon 20:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Just so long as admins don't leave that check box on all the time. Suppression of redirects when carrying out a move must only be done when cleaning up page move vandalism or sorting out problems with a page history. Might seem obvious, but given, ahem, recent misunderstandings over redirects, I thought it would be best to make this point. Carcharoth (talk) 21:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Couldn't agree more. Definitely a non-checked-by-default checkbox. Happymelon 21:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
but shouldnt it then be checked by default? the need to move the talk page occurs most of the time when one makes a move--the others are exceptions? DGG (talk) 23:36, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
This is an ancient bug, and a pretty controversial one, see bugzilla:1062. Brion's comments were that it will "never, ever be implemented." --MZMcBride (talk) 21:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Ouch! Happymelon 21:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Allowing it for all users and only for admins are two very different things. I think Brion could be convinced to the limited version. Миша13 22:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Could it not be implemented for users with rollback? It would seriously hamper vandal fighting if only admins could roll back large numbers of page moves at a time. Corvus cornixtalk 22:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Read the comments in the bugzilla thread; they do have a point: particulary when combined with the delete ability, it does have the potential to make things very difficult to find. anyone can still revert pagemove vandalism; it's just that admins can do it more efficiently, as usual. I expect the most Brion would be sold on would be a solution that still leaves a log entry. Having said that, surely it's possible to add an automatically-delete-the-redirect-straight-afterwards checkbox with javascript? Something in MediaWiki:Sysop.js?? Happymelon 07:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
In the interim, could someone recreate the work of Curps' bot? Namely, create a bot that will automatically block any user that moves more than (say) 3 distinct pages in a minute, place a message on their talk page informing them why they were blocked, and add them to a list for admins to review. Perhaps even auto-whitelist users with some arbitrary but high edit limit (say 2000 edits), and manually whitelist others as required; once whitelisted, the bot would let them move as many pages as they liked. In that environment, the "Grawp" vandals (come on, it isn't one person) would have a lot more trouble move-vandalising multiple pages. If the system can't or won't enforce this, it's certainly possible to do so via a bot. Neıl 09:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
No worries, I've been operating such a bot (sans the whitelist) since Oct '06. What I'd like is this auto-move spree not happen in the first place. Миша13 19:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

unlock request[edit]

Please allow people to write about Robert F. Kennedy. It is locked up. No reason to do that. Tack69 (talk) 17:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

It's only semi-protected. If you don't think it should be, the place to ask is WP:RFPP. Thanks. --Rodhullandemu 17:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Gah. Indefinite semi-protection for two years. Unprotected – this a wiki after all. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I thought Special:ProtectedPages showed pages sorted by length of protection? Why didn't this page show up at the top of that list? I sometimes knock a few off the top there and I don't remember seeing RFK. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I find that looking at what links to templates like Template:Pp-semi-template is a good way to find long protected articles. I found an article full protected for like six months for maybe 3 bad edits. Some strange protection out there. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Artificial sunlight[edit]

Resolved

This article looks borked. The code does not match what's being displayed. Reflist is on the bottom above the ELs, but it's showing up all weird. Can someone have a quick look? Bstone (talk) 18:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

New admin powers and FlaggedRevs (Stable versions)[edit]

Erik Moeller says:

As of today, the "FlaggedRevs" extension is available to any wiki community that wishes to use it. FlaggedRevs is a tool for patrolling changes, identifying high quality article versions, and changing the default version shown to unregistered users. It's highly configurable. As such, we're making it available in two configurations:

1) A minimally intrusive "patrolling" configuration; 2) Custom configurations per your request.

Who needs this feature and where can I see it?

Larger wiki communities will probably benefit more from the use of this feature than smaller ones. If you have problems keeping vandalism in check, and/or want to experiment with new ways to identify high quality content, you should look into this functionality.

You can see an English language demo installation of the feature at: http://en.labs.wikimedia.org/

The feature is in production use on the German Wikipedia: http://de.wikipedia.org/

The German Wikipedia uses a custom configuration where the most recent vandalism-patrolled version, if any, is shown to unregistered users. You can track the progress of their use of the patrolling feature here:

http://tools.wikimedia.de/~aka/cgi-bin/reviewcnt.cgi?lang=english

Patrolling Configuration

In the Patrolling Configuration, any user who has been registered for more than 21 days and has made at least 150 edits will be automatically given the permission to patrol changes for vandalism. Only changes made by users who are not permitted to patrol changes need to be patrolled.

In addition, sysops will be given the permission to flag versions of "featured articles" in accordance with existing nomination processes. (In other words, this gives you the ability to identify specific _versions_ of an article as "featured", rather than the article as a whole.) Finally, sysops will be permitted to define on a per-page basis that changes need to be patrolled before being visible to unregistered readers. This is an alternative to semi-protection; it doesn't make sense to use both on a given page.

The use of these features is subject to policies that your wiki community will need to develop. They should be used carefully until such a policy is in place.

To activate the patrolling configuration,

1) File a request on http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/ of type "enhancement", component "site request". You may need to create a BugZilla account to do this.

2) Title your request "Enable FlaggedRevs Patrolling Configuration on (my project name)".

3) Post a link to your BugZilla request to your project's "Village pump" and mailing list, if available.

If there are no objections on the BugZilla page, the request will be considered valid after 7 days. (It may still take a while longer to process it.)

Custom Configurations

The FlaggedRevs extension is highly flexible in its configuration. We are willing to accommodate custom requests. Since some configurations of FlaggedRevs could be considered highly disruptive, the requirements are somewhat higher.

1) Read about the configuration options at: http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:FlaggedRevs and experiment with the live demo at: http://en.labs.wikimedia.org/

2) Create a page in the "Project:" namespace (e.g. "Wikipedia:", "Wikibooks:") of your wiki community describing the configuration you want to use.

3) Create a BugZilla request as above, titled "Enable FlaggedRevs custom configuration on (my project name)" pointing to the proposal page you have created. Provide an English translation of all relevant information if possible - or we may not be able to help you.

4) Post a link to your proposal and to the BugZilla request to the various relevant channels of your wiki community, e.g. "village pump", mailing list.

If there are no objections within 14 days, your request will be considered valid. If there are objections, please try building consensus. If necessary, you can also resort to a poll (a very large majority, at least two thirds, is generally necessary).

Note that custom configurations will take longer to process, and might sit in the technical support queue for several weeks.

Our developers will _only_ look at the information attached to the BugZilla request, so please make sure that everything relevant is at least linked from there.

Translators needed

The user interface of the FlaggedRevs extension needs to be translated into as many languages as possible. The extension can be localized using translatewiki.net - please follow the instructions there to become a translator.

User interface developers needed

If you are a PHP developer with JavaScript/CSS experience, your help in improving the user interface experience (by improving the CSS or adding AJAX features) would be appreciated. Just check out a fresh copy of the MediaWiki code and the FlaggedRevs code and get started:

http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Subversion http://mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:FlaggedRevs

If you need committer access to our version control system, please e-mail <commitaccess at wikimedia dot org>, attaching your SSH key and desired username as per the above link.

-- Erik Möller Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation

(copied here by WAS 4.250 (talk))

It's surprisingly quiet. Is this being discussed elsewhere? Or is it a dead issue of sorts? I feel like I missed something! :) —Wknight94 (talk) 21:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I would suggest that quite a few admins aren't at all certain what this means; I myself have no such doubts - I don't understand what it is all about and am waiting for the illustrated version with BIG FRIENDLY (and short) WORDS before I think about considering the possibility of attempting to evaluate whether I should give it a try (under tuition). LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Flagged revisions? Moreschi (talk) (debate) 21:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I wish there were some way to turn on FlaggedRevs in the English Wikipedia to allow experimentation. The existing debate at WT:FLR appears to be non-terminating. This is a debate largely among people who have never used the feature. The German Wikipedia has used the feature (since early May) but their take is confusing, and the non-sighters are quite distressed about the apparent demotion. (Non-sighters need approval from a sighter for their edits to be visible outside). I wish we could adopt it here in such a way that no-one felt demoted. EdJohnston (talk) 22:02, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
You can experiment here. Set userrights to "reviewer" and practice. It's a test wiki designed to be vandalised. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 22:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

"Hypothetical" situation I need an opinion on...[edit]

Let's say there was a user that violated 3RR on an article. Additionally, the user appears to have a POV on the article in question, since he was a participant in the event in question on the article. I became involved in the situation by issuing a 3RR warning to the user, as well as another user in the revert war with him.

Per an arbitration case, "[the user] may be banned for good cause from any article which he disrupts by tendentious or disruptive editing." This disruption was about a week ago, and as a result, the article in question is now fully-protected while a request for comment goes on on the article's talk page. If I had known about the remedy, I would have asked for a ban here for disruption of the article in question.

What should happen from here, now that I am aware of the remedy? Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 20:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Since some time has elapsed, I'm not convinced it'd be good to go ahead and look for an article ban. However it's probably sensible to tell them "Hey, your behavior here was bad, and if it continues I will ask for a ban." If we're very lucky the editor in question will start behaving and the ban won't be necessary. Friday (talk) 20:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Concur. Since the behavior stopped (for whatever reason), a topic ban would be punitive. That said, if further disruption occurs, some action may be necessary, and the user should be aware of that. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 20:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

policy on deliberately divulging others' personal information[edit]

Resolved

Case of nothing to see here, move along... Orderinchaos 08:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

  • [Cross-posted from Jimbo's talk page]
  • where is the policy on deliberately divulging others' personal information via email, in conversation with and about other Wikipedians? If there isn't a policy against it, there certainly should be. It... is disgusting. Potentially dangerous. Possibly illegal? I can't say. It is the lowest of the low...Imagine you have reason to want to hide your private info. Then imagine you and I become great and good friends, and you share that info with me privately. Then we have a falling out, and I email-spam everyone I know and say user:YourUsernameHere is really Phyllis Diller and lives at 123 Elm Street!! There should be on-wiki consequences, such as desysopping without need for process, and banning non-sysops from ever becoming a sysop anywhere on Wikipedia, Wikiquotes, Wikimedia, wiki-anything. Ling.Nut (talk) 04:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Is this by any chance related to this? If so, I don't think this is that great an idea due to wikidrama. GlobeGores (talk page | user page) 04:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
ecwithbelow Yes it is, already established on Jimbo's UserTalk :) <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 04:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
WP:OUTING is the appropriate policy page. How it applies to your exact scenario I am unsure. MBisanz talk 04:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't apply to this scenario, since it only applies to posting personal information, not providing it to one other person as happened here. I don't believe that there is any policy that would apply to divulging personal information about other editors via e-mail, nor should there be, probably. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Good point, but it is the closest we have to a policy. MBisanz talk 05:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

As Sarc... said, it doesn't apply to this situation because none of this happened on Wiki, per se. <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 04:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

NOr should there be? Really.. what kind of thinking is this??? Explain why there should be no policy. Ling.Nut (talk) 05:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Because it is happening OFF-Wiki. As far as I know, things that happen off-wiki carry no real consequences (except for the fact that the RFA was seen in a new light) If I am wrong on this, let me know.<3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 05:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
(ec) First, I think it's well-established that trying to regulate contributors' off-wiki activities is as undesirable as it is futile. Second, it's going to be very situational - it's impossible to say something like "disclosing another editor's identity via e-mail without that editor's consent is a policy violation," because it's very easy to imagine circumstances in which doing so would be appropriate and desirable (consider, for example, a novice editor who discovers that an editor is editing an article in which they have a serious and undeclared conflict of interest - does anybody think that that novice editor would be remiss in bringing this to the attention of a trusted experienced user for advice on how to proceed?). If I may quote Will Smith, "You're making a mountain out of a mole, Hil." Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
On a related note, it just started pouring out of nowhere. Enigma message 05:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

"Off-wiki privacy violations shall be dealt with particularly severely." (Wikipedia:Harassment#Off-wiki harassment, see that policy page for context). Ling.Nut (talk) 05:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Marking as resolved. The user whose information was disclosed has no interest in pursuing the matter, and had it not happened under the glare of a particularly off-the-rails RfA I seriously doubt anyone would have cared. The complainant is advised nicely to move on and find productive work to be getting on with. Orderinchaos 08:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

lack of clarity is a ticking bomb[edit]

I posted this in response to the question and JW's talk. Cross-posting here as the discussion ensued at this page instead.

To answer the original question, I don't think this is that complicated. Violating someone's trust, such as disclosing the private information, is the matter primarily of ethics, not policies. It is not, and has not become, a matter of policy for the same reason as the rules of ethics do not make it into laws, such as criminal or administrative codes, at least not directly.

Someone guilty of unethical conduct usually faces the ostracizing in the society and loss of trust of his peers but usually not direct legal consequences.

In some cases, the trust violation can bring real life consequences and the victim can pursue the grievances in RL courts of law. I can imagine that this may be possible if the person suffers a demonstrable damage by having his/her info whose privacy s/he could reasonably expect under circumstances violated.

If this is done by a Wikipedia editor (or even an admin) the Wikipedia or the WMF do not fit into all this. By far more important is taking the precaution that such info is not disseminated by the person acting on the foundation's behalf, that is by arbitrators, checkusers and whoever has access to the info protected by the legally binding privacy policy.

The (possibly deliberate) opacity of who has the checkuser access and the rules of handling such info is a ticking bomb. To this day there is no (that I am aware) document that Checkusers have to sign where their responsibilities as well as consequences of violating them are outlined. To this day, the process of giving the checkuser access remains murky. To this day, there is no even clarity on whether the checkuser is the policy issue, ArbCom issue or a foundation issue. It is made look like it is a little bit of all three and there is no way that I am alone in recognizing the grave dangers of this situation.

As for the original question and the incident that prompted it, violation of trust by the RfAdm candidate was an ethical issue, not a policy one. --Irpen 01:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Daliinyare[edit]

Odd case. This fellow has a long history of writing what appear to be articles on Somali clans...I think. They're so convoluted that I honestly don't know what he's writing about. They could be about individual sub-clans or individual members. Looking at the talk pages of some of his articles, other editors are a bit perplexed as well. It's clear he's editing in good faith, but he's inadvertently causing a cleanup problem. Would someone have a word with him? Thanks. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 06:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Followed up on. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 00:47, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

good source?[edit]

http://www.newsweek.com/id/139161?GT1=43002

"What If RFK Had Become President?"

This is a well written, seemingly neutral commentary. Is this suitable? It is a good source. But it is opinion. Please comment if excerpts are allowed or if they are prohibited because it is just one journalist's opinion. I need official administrator opinions. Tack69 (talk) 15:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

As it is opinion, a) don't treat it as fact, b) in the body of the article where used point out its an opinion (i.e., "so and so of Newsweek said"). But yes, as it comes from a reliable source it should be fine. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 15:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Admins aren't content judges any more than regular users, you want WP:RS/N. Mr.Z-man 16:02, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

So opinions from reliable sources are ok?

Admins are content judges. They can block people that they disagree with. Just see the different noticeboards. That's why I am asking for adminstrators' opinions. Tack69 (talk) 17:09, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

a lot of us tend to work at both places, but just in our roles as admins, we are not content judges, not more than any other experienced editors. Anyhow, you'll get the same response, a responsible expression of opinion from a responsible source can be used, but stated as their opinion, not their news reporting. DGG (talk) 19:18, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
In response to the above "Admins are content judges. They can block people that they disagree with", they could, but if I saw an administrator do that, I fill an ArbCom case because someone didn't read the blocking policy when they became an admin. — Moe ε 04:47, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

A small note[edit]

Lately there have been a spate of unblock requests with the reason given "x user has been editing fine under this new account of his and thus he should be unbanned".

Everyone who's been endorsing these unblocks is missing the point: these people are using a sock to evade their block, with is a very blatant violation of policy. By allowing these unblocks to contine, you are making a mockery of both process and policy. If someone wants to be unblocked, generally they need either to appeal to the arbcom or use the unblock template. I don't know when or why it became acceptable for blocked users to create a 'good hand' sock for such a matter. Jtrainor (talk) 00:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I've made your note smaller so that the section title is accurate. --Samuel Pepys (talk) 00:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Funny, but for me a bit hard to read now. Kevin (talk) 01:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
For clarity, are you referring to banned users, or indef blocked users? Kevin (talk) 02:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes. Jtrainor (talk) 02:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  1. Strong Support Obvious policy violations, there are appropriate venues for reviewing unbans. AN isn't one of those. This board is for coordinating activities and discussing admin functions. Then again, there is no longer anything that actually says "WHAT THIS IS FOR" at the top anymore, only what it's not. Has anyone else noticed that? Keegantalk 05:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Interviews with Board Candidates[edit]

I hope this is of sufficient general interest to warrant dropping a note here - and do feel free to mention this elsewhere in other suitable locations too if you'd like to!

As part of a 'Not The Wikipedia Weekly 'special', I've completed brief interviews with 8 of the 15 candidates for election to the board of trustees of the wikimedia foundation, and you can have a listen at this page; Wikipedia:NotTheWikipediaWeekly/Episode_18.

Personally, I'd like to see as much careful thought as possible going into these elections, and I'd like the 'turnout' to be as high as possible - it's a great thing to vote! If you agree, then feel free to point any or all of your wiki-friends in the direction of both this interview page - and the election pages over on meta (all helpfully linked to from the 'Not The Wikipedia Weekly project pages, of course!

thanks folks! - Privatemusings (talk) 06:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Meaty Weenies is Bsrboy - advice requested[edit]

This CU result has confirmed that Meaty Weenies (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · checkuser (log)) is the indefinitely blocked (or banned?) user Bsrboy (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · checkuser (log)), as well as the fact that he has at least twice logged out to vandalize. That's the bad side. On the other hand he has done rather a lot of useful work on articles like Plymouth (history) and Ivybridge (history).

I'd appreciate some advice as to where the balance between these two sides of this teenager's presence here should lie. Do we just block him and lose any future useful contributions? Any comments appreciated. I'll let the user know of this discussion.  —SMALLJIM  12:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Indef means indef. Why should anyone get special treatment? Jtrainor (talk) 12:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
If that's the consensus here, then I'd have no problem with that. It's just that it's clear that he's not completely evil and perhaps we shouldn't use a sledgehammer when a gavel might do the job better.  —SMALLJIM  13:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I had no experience with the old account, but I noticed the new one a week or two ago. He acts just like a kid. Such editors are not useful to the project and should be shown the door. I'd idly wondered where he'd gotten his "gaming the system" experience, and I guess now we know. Friday (talk) 13:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
(ec) Operating good-hand/bad-hand accounts is one of the more destructive things that an editor can do here, and even this 'good' account has engaged in more than its fair share of borderline trolling. (Seriously, he was adding multiple copies of massively oversized images to the sandbox a couple days ago, as well as edit warring to keep a (low-res, large sized) goatse there. Had I been watching more closely at the time, this discussion would never have taken place.)
Given that he earned his last indef block for engaging in logged-out vandalism while maintaining a good-hand account, where is the evidence that this individual has learned anything? He took it upon himself to create a new account, and he used it for exactly the same childish behaviour that earned his first block. How many additional second chances are required for us to see a pattern? If he is a younger contributor, perhaps he can be invited to return in a couple of years — after he has a chance to mature. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  • He was the cause of a recent /16 rangeblock, and I've seen rather too much of his goatse in various places recently, while this account has been active. I've only now connected the two. I support a block unless there is an immediate convincing undertaking about his future conduct. -- zzuuzz (talk) 13:39, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I had no other choice. Please view this from my persceptive. My account as bsbroy has been blocked indefinately from editing and emailing. Its talk page has also been permenantly protected. I had two or three choices: Continue to contribute as an IP address (my IP range wasn't blocked); create a new account and continue to contribute; wait for a year or more and request unblock as an IP. At the moment I am deeply involved in improving the article on Plymouth to good article. If I was blocked I would not be able to continue my contributions. Meaty♠Weenies (talk) 15:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the issue is that you're back and editing. I think the issue is that you're back...and apparently doing the same thing that got your last account blocked. Some good work doesn't justify other repeated vandalism. Where does the need to vandalize fall into your list of choices? --OnoremDil 15:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
If I had such a list it would fall under my list of "fun things to do" choices, but because the list of choices would be insanely long I haven't made one. Meaty♠Weenies (talk) 15:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Why is this user being allowed to contribute here? They're a sock of an indef blocked user. Whatever activities they may or may not be involved in at this time are irrelevant, because the fact that they are editing in the first place is a violation of policy. Indefinite means just that: unless someone important agrees to let you off the hook, you are permabanned and may not evade your block in any way. Jtrainor (talk) 16:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Would you rather I didn't answer Onorem's question? Stupid question = stupid answer. 86.29.139.107 (talk) 16:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I blocked him indefinitely. He'd been acting like a 12-year-old with this account too, so it's no real loss. Friday (talk) 16:09, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
(ec - you beat me to it!) I was going to say to MW that that was exactly the sort of immature response I had hoped I wouldn't hear from him. He can ask to come back when he can convince the WP community that he understands what he's done wrong and is able to behave maturely all the time.  —SMALLJIM  16:28, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I understand what I've done wrong and I always have. Why have you blocked me to prevent me from discussing the matter? Maybe if the administratos at Wikipedia discussed things with users to ensure that they won't do it again these problems wouldn't arrise. Instead you blocked me? What is this achieving? To stop me from vandalising? I doubt it. Please let me engage in a discussion. 86.29.139.107 (talk) 16:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

This is the email I (Meaty Weenies) sent to Friday: "He'd been acting like a 12-year-old with this account too, so it's no real loss." It's no real loss? This makes me extremely angry. Since I've been on Wikipedia I have brought Ivybridge up to B class; created the assessment process of WikiProject Devon; assessed nearly 200 articles as part of WikiProject Devon; brought Ivybridge Communty College up to Start class; welcomed 30 new users to Wikipedia; reverted tonnes of vandalism; warned users who vandalise; reported persistent users who vandalise Wikipedia (all of my reports were successful); remained civil and helpful especially to AtheWeatherman; Starting to bring Plymouth up to GA class; semi protected the Inbetweeners to prevent persistant IP vandalism; Brought the Inbetweeners up to Start class; and received two barnstars. What do you think the chances are that I'd continue these contribution, if I wasn't blocked. Oh well it doesn't matter, because "it's no realy loss."

Yours sincerly, a very angry and upset bsrboy.

I also forget to mention my userboxes. I feel that Friday has targeted me, because of my age. By the way Friday your essay on ageism sickens me. 86.29.139.107 (talk) 16:38, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
It's not how old you are that lead me to the block. It's how old you act. Friday (talk) 16:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
In your opinion how old do I act? What is your age-acting minimum on Wikipedia? 25+? By the way do you still believe that "it's no real loss."? 86.29.139.107 (talk) 16:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I will just say that I am very grateful to Meaty Weenies for his work on Plymouth, and related articles. I also find some of the age-related comments by some editors offensive, particularly considering just how spectacularly crap Wikipedia is at controlling disruptive behaviour from certain admins and others of all ages. We do tolerate disruption from some editors because they contribute well in certain other areas, as anyone familiar with this board will well know. I do not feel that this situation has been at all well managed. DuncanHill (talk) 16:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, if anyone disagrees with the block and wants to undo it, go ahead. But, it'll be your job to watch him if you do. Before anyone considers this, take a look at his talk page. What led me to notice him was his "Tee hee hee, look at me, I said penis!" type contributions. This is an attention-seeker who spams shock site images around various places. I have no interest in enabling problem editors by subscribing to the notion that "We'll put up with trollish behavior because you mix in a few useful edits in there too." Friday (talk) 16:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Please don't call me names, you are violating WP:SPADE. All I've ever wanted from the start of my block on bsrboy was to have a second chance. I have never been given one, so I have had to hop from one account to the other. As a result I have missbehaved, becuae no one was checking up on me. If you want I can remove all innapropriate stuff from my userpage (I didn't have any on bsrboy or the vandal warrior). And feel free to do a checkuser on me whenever you want. With this new system in place it will allow me to continue my good contributions, but because of the checkuers and trust and whereabouts that I am a vandal I will not be vandalising Wikipedia. Therefore 100% good work from me. Please, a second chance is all that I ask. And still, Friday, do you believe that "it's no real loss."? 86.29.138.45 (talk) 17:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I've already seen how you use second chances. This one little edit tells me everything I need to know about your intentions here. And this is not an isolated incident. Friday (talk) 17:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
You're missing the point entirely here. No one has ever seen how I use second chances, because I've never been given one. That wasn't a second chance. What I'm on about is the chance for administrators to allow me to edit again with my history known and with acceptance. The other question still remains: "it's no real loss."? And also why in my reason for being blocked does it say "sock of a banned editor. has also been acting juvenile with this account too." acting juvenile? Please stop being so ageist Friday. 86.29.130.202 (talk) 17:33, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) User:Meaty Weenies was your second chance. I've been watching your contributions on and off since Bsrboy was blocked - many of the articles you've edited are on my watchlist. When my suspicions as to who you are were confirmed I started this discussion instead of just blocking you as I could have done. I hoped you would be able to convince us that your "good" side could win against your desire to vandalize. But you've totally failed at that - no contrition at all. Your contributions to this page were your third chance. I don't fully agree with Friday that "it's no real loss", but as he also said: it's not how old you are, it's how old you act.  —SMALLJIM  17:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Meaty Weenies isn't my second chance. I think I know what you're trying to get at, but I had User:The Vandal Warrior as my second account, therefore Meaty Weenies is my third anyway. I want a second chance with people knowing who I am. No one gave me a second chance i.e an administator didn't say "here you go, I'm giving you a second chance with this account". Please can you explain how I've failed at showing you my good side would win over the bad side and what does contrition mean? (I hope Friday comes along to answer my question "it's no real loss", as he appears to be avoiding it). 86.29.130.202 (talk) 18:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Just to be clear, when we say that your good side needs to win over your bad side, we don't mean that it is sufficient for you to have more constructive edits than destructive ones. We mean that you shouldn't make any deliberately damaging or disruptive edits. I note that you clearly understood that what you were doing was wrong – you went to the trouble of logging out for most of your vandalism – yet you went ahead and did it anyway. We expect all of our editors to show sufficient maturity that they don't ever deface any of the pages on this project, and that they will endeavour to make all of their edits helpful even in the absence of constant monitoring and supervision.
Given that your conduct as Meaty Weenies (and IP) would probably get you blocked or banned even without taking into account your previous behaviour, why do you believe that you should immediately receive a third chance, or that it would be helpful to your case for your new account to be an acknowledged sock?
Incidentally: contrition. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:38, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Since bsrboy has been blocked from Wikipedia I initially gave up on hope for Wikipedia and was angry. I had lost the trust of fellow wikipedians and because it was an indef blocked I realised that I will never gain it back. After some time I began editing again. Not massively, just bits here and there. Sometimes I would let my anger of the block boil over, which lead to vandalism. Still whilst being Meaty Weenies I had to rebuild trust again, but this time I was even more angry and upset. I tried to get back at my treatment by trying to get as close as inserting 2MB of goatse to templates for today's featured articles. At the moment I feel like I've had enough and I just want to start a complete fresh of building trust and then being demolished again. I would like to be open about who I am and build proper trust with Wikipedia. As a result I will not feel the need to seek revenge against Wikipedia. Although if you do checkusers on my, I will assume it as good faith and common sense. 86.29.130.202 (talk) 18:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

← I think the indef block is a good call. Seraphim♥Whipp 19:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Why? 86.29.130.202 (talk) 19:28, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
You don't have any respect for either the community or the encyclopedia. Seraphim♥Whipp 20:09, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
And why hasn't the ip been blocked yet? Seraphim♥Whipp 20:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
(twice edit conflicted)Way to comment on contributions not the contributor Seraphim Whip! I think his contributions at Plymouth and History of Plymouth do shew respect for the encyclopaedia, and his work for the Devon Wikiproject and his editor review shew respect for the community. There may well be problems with some of his edits, but to make such a sweepingly dismissive and derogatory statement about him as a person is just ignorant. DuncanHill (talk) 20:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Ha! Seems a bit hypocritical to poke someone about commenting on the contributor whilst simultaneously implying they are ignorant! My comments are well justified. He certainly has no respect for the community since he has many times edited despite the fact that he has been indefinitely blocked thus showing no respect for community norms or wishes. He has no respect for the encyclopedia because he vandalises it! You could have just asked me to elaborate without being rude. Seraphim♥Whipp 20:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Please be more civil here... I have helped a user as seen on his talk page: User talk:AtheWeatherman and I am commited to make sure he fits in well here, because I respect him. I respect Wikipedia and you can't argue with that based on my actions. 86.29.130.202 (talk) 20:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
My comment was directed at DuncanHill, who I hope will now see the basis of why I formed my opinion. Seraphim♥Whipp 21:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Okay, but keep it civil. 86.29.130.202 (talk) 21:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Because, whether you were given a second (and third) chance or not, you took them. But, rather than (or possibly in addition to) using those chances to be a productive editor, you wasted them by vandalizing. It doesn't matter if you accept that you have had your second chance, the fact is you have and you blew it. I would suggest that you stay away for a year and then request an unblock. Maybe by then you will have matured enough to not take out you frustration with juvenile vandalism. DCEdwards1966 20:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Also, this appears to be resolved, regardless of the subject continuing to try to argue his way out of the consequences of his actions. The IP should be blocked and the thread marked resolved. DCEdwards1966 20:28, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
(e/c)One problem, as I see it, is that he says he needs to have "another chance" because people didn't know who he was last time around. Reading between the lines, then, this is someone who will only behave when they feel that someone is looking over their shoulder. Another issue is that he says his vandalism is apparently an outlet for anger and resentment, partly due to being blocked in the past, but - whatever reason is cited - there is no sign of acceptance of responsibility for his own actions.
One possible solution would be for a mentor to oversee his edits, though given the history of IP vandalism, that would be very time-consuming. Another solution is, of course, a block. In this case (and at the risk of appearing to be ageist) a 6-12 month block (rather than indef) might be a good idea; this would give Bsrboy a chance to gain maturity and self-control. The usual caveats apply: non-admin, 2 pence, and so forth. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 20:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I most definately do, please don't make such assumptions about me. I respect all users who spend their free time to create encyclopedic articles without getting paid. Wikipedia is an amazing place and the fact that there is a website trying to improve human knowledge for free is what first interested me in getting involved in Wikipedia. I have respect for all the work that you have done to the community. I want to be unblocked, so that I can gain back the respect and trust of the Wikipedia community. (I've been edit conflicted 5 times for this!) 86.29.130.202 (talk) 20:19, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Please, I have done some horrible stuff and I accept responsibility for all of it. I respect Wikipedia and its contributers and I want to continue my good work here. I would much rather I wasn't blocked. I can prove to you all that I am mature. Please give me this chance to edit. I'll do anything you want: mentoring; regular checkuser blocks; adoption programme. Anything! Please, I am dedicated to learn and be a better person, just let me have this chance. 86.29.130.202 (talk) 20:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi. (I'm not an administrator)Just because someone is 12 (or acts like it) does not mean they cannot contribute to the encyclopedia. This user has written quite a lot of work around here, in fact. However, if their "childish" behaviour begins to become disruptive, this is not good for the encyclopedia. If disruptive/abusive sockpuppet users become unblocked, then they must use their chance wisely and should not do any vandalism. For now, I've put a sockpuppet tag on the user's page, but if anyone does not agree with this, they can remove it. This user has expressed that they actually want to help improve Wikipedia, but they should only be given the chance to if they do not commit disruptive actions or any blatant vandalism. Although I personally disagree with a lot of blocks, I'm going to leave it to the community to decide. Thanks. ~AH1(TCU) 21:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Seraphim♥Whipp has advised me not to edit here as it is block evading, so I will allow the community to discuss this matter. If any major decissions are made or you need an answer then please notify me on my talk page. 86.29.130.202 (talk) 21:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think we're done here. Thanks for all the comments. There's a clear consensus that he should remain blocked, and I think an indefinite block with the possibility of him making an application to be allowed back in about a year's time is appropriate.  —SMALLJIM  15:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Update for anyone that had been following along. Bsrboy has now been unblocked. User talk:Bsrboy indicates per IRC discussion. --OnoremDil 15:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
If someone wants to unblock him, he gets to use one account and one account only. I say, one time he uses another account (or logs off) for vandalism, the whole lot of them are indefinitely blocked. I'd also suggest a one-second block informing everyone of this notice. This is much more serious than what the block log looks like. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
It seems a little odd to me that despite reaching a consensus here on what to do with him, that can be overturned by "extensive and exhaustive discussion" on IRC, which I for one had no chance of contributing to, and may not even be able to read. I've asked the unblocking admin for an assurance that he took all factors into consideration.  —SMALLJIM  23:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Unblock[edit]

I can't support this unblock. It was only a few days ago checkuser confirmed Bsrboy continued using IPs to vandalise. After being blocked on April 11, he promised to stop editing for a month. Well, he broke that pledge and continued vandalising. If past evidence shows he can't stick to his promises, I can't see why he should be unblocked. If user:AGK was the only one who discussed the unblock, I support reblocking until a greater consensus is reached here. I find it hard to trust long-term serial vandals who treat Wikipedia like a game and break promises—especially one under a /16 rangeblock and who continue vandalising after being known to abuse accounts. Spellcast (talk) 08:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not greatly enthused about this either, since the discussion of the block was taking place here. However, AGK had the best intentions at heart and if he has confidence that this is a good move and is willing to reinstate the block if the terms are broken, that's good enough for me. Seraphim♥Whipp 09:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Amoruso[edit]

For slightly more that a month ago I requested a CU on Amoruso; Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Amoruso, which resulted in that User:Thatcher found 3 confirmed socks, which were "likely also Amoruso". User:Moreschi then blocked the socks indef., and blocked Amoruso for two months. Well, everything was nice and quiet (relatively speaking) on the Israel/Palestine-WP-front...until a couple of days ago, when I received an email from A<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Lupin/navpop.css&action=raw&ctype=text/css&dontcountme=s">moruso which I found extremely insulting. I went to his talk page, User talk:Amoruso, and find that he has written more in the same manner there. I did the stupid thing: answered him. (I do get upset when people call me I liar). And he accuses me of being behind the socks (FYI: I am in Scandinavia, Amoruso is, according to his User-page, in Jerusalem). Aaaaand he asks to get unblocked. Could some admin please take a look at his user-page, to review his unblock-request? Thank you. Regards, Huldra (talk) 20:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Notice that the relevant messages are at section User_talk:Amoruso#Sockpuppets.3F and not at the bottom of the page. The message that got Huldra fired up is this one --Enric Naval (talk) 22:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Huldra, he's still blocked for the rest of this month. Gave him one more warning because I'm in a very good mood. I posted a note on his page that if he wants to argue his block, he needs to use the unblock template and follow directions. Otherwise, anything else will result in an extension of the block. I'm watching his page now (add it to the list) and will keep track. If he continues, just a note a mention of his name on my talk page and I'll figure it out. I'll give User:Moreschi a head's up since he was the original blocker. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I have also received emails from Amoruso. He insists that he was not the puppetmaster in control of the other sock accounts, nor is this a case of meatpuppeting. In response to the "likely" checkuser result, he suggests that since there aren't many ISP providers in Israel, a mistake may have been made. All I can really suggest is for someone to contact Thatcher and ask how certain that "likely" was.

In my opinion Amoruso is lying through his teeth: the socks simply revert-warred on his behalf, picking up on his prior and current disputes. Coupled with the "likely" checkuser, IMO this makes sockpuppetry virtually certain, but I guess it can't hurt to ask Thatcher to clarify. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 12:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Thatcher has left some clarifications on Amorusos talk-page, and I have left some notes. Please take a look. Huldra (talk) 10:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Deletions[edit]

About two weeks ago the automatic reasons from the speedy deletion templates no longer appeared when a page was deleted, and the content of the article started to appear in the "other reasons" box. I don't know if that was agreed by consensus, but is there a script or something to stop it happening? It's not that much of a big deal, deletion just takes longer. :) Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 20:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Really? I thought that was covered by MediaWiki:Deletereason-dropdown, which looks fine...Someguy1221 (talk) 20:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I meant an automatic summary. It used to take the summary from the tag that was there (so if it was non-notable A7, that deletion reason will appear without having to click anything), so most of the time you wouldn't need to use the dropdown box (unless you change the reason). What's more irritating is having to delete the contents of the article from the "other reasons" box, which is difficult to do at fast pace on a laptop :). PeterSymonds (talk) 20:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Random832 is listed as the maintainer on MediaWiki:Sysop.js. I'll drop him a quick note - Alex Muller 20:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! I take it no one's getting the same problem then... PeterSymonds (talk) 20:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Still works for me. What's your browser configuration? I can try to debug it (I tested it on all major browsers before installing it) but I need to know where to start from. --Random832 (contribs) 01:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Mozilla Firefox latest edition. Under "options" and "content" (I assume that's what you mean by configuration?) All the boxes are ticked. I've never changed any of the settings; it just happened. I assumed it was a MediaWiki change and didn't think anything of it, but it's getting irritating. :) Just in case I didn't make myself clear, the dropdown box is still there and is working fine. But it used to display the reason for deletion automatically (e.g. if the article was tagged A7, the dropdown reason would automatically show A7). Also the content of the article didn't appear in the "other/additional reason" box which it now does. Just in case anyone thought that the dropdown box had gone completely. Thanks for your help! PeterSymonds (talk) 08:14, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

BAG request: Bjweeks (BJ)[edit]

My request to join the BAG is here. Note for the AN: this is not an attempt to canvas, because of the obscure nature of where the discussion is held some feel that it is necessary to "advertise" on more widely read noticeboards. There is no consensus on if this should actually be done and if so where the messages should be left but I don't see any harm. BJTalk 07:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

User:SwirlBoy39 unban proposal[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. There's clearly a consensus to unban here, so SwirlBoy39 is free to edit per the restrictions set forth by Anthony. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Community, I'd like to approach you with a proposal to lift the ban currently in place on Bugman94, which was established early in 2007. Bugman has been editing as SwirlBoy39 for a month or so now, and has been doing an excellent job (contributions, log). I was approached by Bugman (neé SwirlBoy) on IRC around a week ago, who explained in full his previous history, and his strong desire to 'come clean' about his closet's skeletons (he's banned).

I noted that it was essential that he open himself up to the community, noting that he was banned, to which SwirlBoy agreed. I suggested that he allow me to propose that I mentor him, in exchange for having him unbanned from Wikipedia; a few days later, this proposal stands:

  1. The ban on Bugman94 (note, I can't seem to find the discussion which lead to his ban anywhere; I am assuming the ban was indeed approved by the community) is lifted, and ergo SwirlBoy would be permitted to edit Wikipedia (rather than be blocked from editing as a banned contributor);
  2. SwirlBoy is placed under community civility parole: any administrator may block him for up to one week if any of his edits are deemed to be incivil.
  3. SwirlBoy is enrolled in mentorship (he has already agreed on IRC that I be his mentor) indefinitely; my intention, if this proposal is approved by the Community, is to continue this until, in my opinion, it is no longer required.
  4. SwirlBoy agrees to use the account SwirlBoy39 (talk · contribs), and that account only, to facilitate full and open community scrutiny of his behaviour post-unbanning. As a matter of course, that would include not editing from the Bugman account.

SwirlBoy made some mistakes when he was banned over one year ago, but has certainly matured since then. He has a full and honest desire to contribute helpfully to the project, and I will do my best to guide him in his strivings to edit productively. The only thing required now is the Community's approval of this proposal.

Anthøny 21:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm certainly okay with this. I've certainly checkusered and blocked a number of Bugman94 socks in the past, almost all of the abusive sockery was six or seven months ago. SwirlBoy39 contacted me himself off-wiki to express his contrition and explained some of the background to why it happened. Given that, I'm certainly willing to allow him to be mentored, especially by someone like Anthony whom I greatly respect. I'd also like to point out that a number of the sock accounts that were attributed to Bugman96 were likely not him, but checkuser evidence is stale now anyway. So yes, endorse unban - Alison 23:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Also endorse. Been behaving well on Simple WP, and I think he's proven himself well. AGF and unban. Al Tally talk 23:33, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I remember this guy... well, why'd he do it? -Pilotguy contact tower 23:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Mixture of frustration, inexperience, and a lack of an experienced ear who would listen to him. I'll hopefully act as a experienced (sort of!) ear for him, and he's got 1/ a better outlook on the project; 2/ more experience + maturity; to serve him now. Things are looking up. Anthøny 23:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm not an admin but have encountered SwirlBoy39 on many other wiki's and IRC. Here I see absolutely no vandalism or abuse at any time. He has worked very well on the test wiki where he was a staffer until the community there decided to revoke that access based on his socks. SwirlBoy39 is also very active on the Simple English Wikipedia and has done nothing wrong. Ultimately what was done as Bugman94 is over and I've seen a complete turn around in Swirlboy39. I endorse unbanning SwirlBoy39. Alexfusco5 23:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Endorse an unbanning, per the restrictions he agreed to. As an aside, that signature really hurts. Enigma message 01:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I'd endorse an unbanning: I've only seen good things from him, and mentoring is fine. Acalamari 01:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I endorse an unbanning as he has done great work over on the Simple English Wikipedia. Nothing but good stuff has come from him over there. Cheers, Razorflame 02:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Endorse unban, agree that his contribs on Simple are good. J.delanoygabsanalyze 02:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I would be fine but there should a one-second block informing users of his past (either a link to a diff for this proposal or something). I doubt that it'll come up again but if admins don't know, they can't make an informed decision. I hate to compare because it's not the same but see the Meaty Weenies discussion. Honestly, though, here's to never having to look at his block log again, good luck editing. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Unban. I'm a user on Simple, and SwirlBoy is a very helpful editor there. FusionMix 21:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Unban. miranda 00:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you to all those who voted endorse. Your support means so much to me and shows me that I can be trusted. Thank you. A BIG to AGK for helping me through all this. I've tried before but I could've never done it without his gracious, friendly, loyal, and patient support. Thank you SO much! SwirlBoy39 23:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Move to unban[edit]

Pending a lack of objections, I'll be closing the discussion and implementing the unban within the next 12 hours. Regards, Anthøny 08:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

User:DemolitionMan[edit]

Please note a hidden IP address 124.124.0.1, has removed an indefinite block on the said user. Although i have reverted this, i thought I’d bring this to the administers attention.--Rockybiggs (talk) 10:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about a hidden IP address, it's registered to Mumbai, India. The revert was nice, and there's no more work that needs doing here. Cheers, Alex Muller 11:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Removal of MJ log please[edit]

The other day I was reading the logs on the MJ article, mainly out of bordem/interest. I noticed that a vandal had changed the title to that long stupid sentance. Anyway, i also read his edit summary which provides a link to some site. Naive as I am, I copy and pasted the link into the bar and pressed "go". To my horror (and I dont mean that lightly) I say something quite disgusting, worse yet I think it can give a virus because my computer didn't react well to it. Could you please get it removed, if a kid decides to view it they will be scared for life. The logs are here. I WOULD ADVISE ADMINS NOT TO VIEW THE SITE, BUT IF YOU DO TURN THE VOLUME RIGHT DOMN. Cheers. --— Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 16:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I've never been dumb enough to go there (no offense), but have always wondered what exactly the result would be. From what I understand, and I understand very little of anything tech-related, it exploits your browser in some way, opening an enormous number of popups, full of unimaginably disgusting images. Anyway, admins can't remove the log entry as far as I know; a developer would have to do it. - auburnpilot talk 17:03, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
In my defense I was expecting to see something funny, not sick, it really should be removed so if you could point me in the right direction ill take it their. Cheers. --— Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 17:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
WP:RFO is the page for this, but it's not something that would normally be oversighted. --Rodhullandemu 17:18, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Oversight doesnt do logs. for log removal you need a dev. βcommand 2 17:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Quick review requested[edit]

I'd be grateful if another administrator or experienced editor would review my decision on the 3RR noticeboard: here as it is not a clear case. Please leave any comments on the 3RR noticeboard rather than here. Thanks. CIreland (talk) 16:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Wikieditor222[edit]

After numerous warnings, continues to edit in userspace only. Should he be blocked, or warned again? iMatthew T.C. 01:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

It would have been courteous to notify User:Wikieditor222 of this discussion. Kevin (talk) 01:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Ignoring the 'not a social network' and 'not contributing to the improvement of the encyclopedia/project' arguments is there anything actually wrong with any of the edits he does make? --Samuel Pepys (talk) 01:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
No, but he is treating this as a Myspace website. iMatthew T.C. 01:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
And how does blocking him specifically help improve the encyclopedia... I've seen 1 warning which was phrased more as a suggestion. He is adopted, have you raised the issue with his sponsor? --Samuel Pepys (talk) 01:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Well that's why I said "Should he be blocked"? I'm not sure what the correct way to handle this would be, so I brought it here. iMatthew T.C. 01:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
While his mainspace edits are probably in good faith, I've found these items from just the past few days:
  • Speedy tagging a bio which clearly asserts notability [6] (someone actually gave him a vandal warning for this)
  • Speedy tagging a software article as patent nonsense when it is clearly not such and is in fact in proper English, albeit including technical terms [7]
  • Delinking for no reason to subjects which appear to me as viable potential articles, which is discouraged by WP:RED [8]
  • Suggesting that a well-sourced, mostly cruftfree article on a notable website be transwikied to a gaming wiki [9]
Note, I am an uninvolved observer who stumbled across his page after noticing the first CSD. Now, I wouldn't classify these edits as harmful necessarily and certainly not block worthy, but they aren't helpful or productive either. I'd say that he needs a mentor. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 02:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Looks like testing of TW, improper but not really 'evil'. --Samuel Pepys (talk) 02:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it's Twinkle as there are no edit summaries, he mistyped "nonsense" on the second diff showing it was a manual edit, and I don't believe TW can overwrite existing templates as in the last diff. As I already stated, I also don't think these edits are 'evil', but they aren't adding to the project either. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 03:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
The problem is that we have a user who has made ~550 edits, only 36 of which are to main space; 345 have been to userspace. We've topic banned editors from userspace before, but a strong encouragement to focus on articles without official enforcement should be the first step. If that's been done, and it appears it has, we should make it abundantly clear to Wikieditor222 that we are not a free webhost, we are not MySpace, and we are not a playground (he's had 20 signatures thus far, for God's sake). If he's unwilling to stop playing around in userspace, I'd suggest a temporary ban from editing userspace for 3-4 months. - auburnpilot talk 03:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I am in favour of a temporary ban from his userspace for a period of no more than four months. I mean, we have a page dedicated to grossly elongated signatures, awards for finding super secret pages (IMO, all of those should be wiped), and then there is this (see history).
This image upload was an obvious copyright violation of this.
And what's up with tagging a non-userpage as blocked? seicer | talk | contribs 04:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I also thought that userpage tag was strange, but it actually is a user who was blocked a few minutes before Wikieditor222 created the page. Why he decided to tag it is beyond me. Perhaps just patrolling the block log and trying to be helpful? Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 04:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Corrected. I should have ... actually checked the block log instead of just the log. *sigh* seicer | talk | contribs 04:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Please please please do not try to force myspacers to touch important things like articles. See Wikipedia:Social networking for what is (in my opinion) a best practice for dealing with such editors. Friday (talk) 19:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Speedy Delete[edit]

Resolved

Because of the page I can't tag it, so will an admin delete User:StewieGriffin!/myfriendlywelcome.js (G7). StewieGriffin! • Talk 19:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Done. – Luna Santin (talk) 19:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Actually, user JS/CSS pages can be tagged for speedy deletion just like any other page. The speedy deletion template won't show up on the page itself, but the page still gets listed at CAT:CSD. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 22:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notability[edit]

There is an ongoing discussion about this guideline here. Most of you will be interested and should take a look.--Phoenix-wiki 20:14, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Conceivable suicide threat[edit]

I do not consider this all that credible, but I want to mention it before the page gets speedy deleted. [10] DGG (talk) 15:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah. I just deleted it. For the record, I looked at it for a moment and thought, nope, on balance I don't think any further action but delete. Oops. Pedro :  Chat  15:35, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
It's still visible to any admin who wants to look. I am relieved that your assessment confirms mine. DGG (talk) 15:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
What about the ip who created it? 15:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
82.110.157.18 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log). Based on the whois information and the content of the deleted article it looks like this is the subject of the article or someone who knows them. Hut 8.5 16:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
What was on the talk page? 69.140.152.55 (talk) 22:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
It's not necessary to make that public. Suffice to say that it was a short threat relating to the speedy deletion of the article. PeterSymonds (talk) 22:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Boardvote not mentioned in sitenotice[edit]

Just a heads up, discussion at MediaWiki talk:Sitenotice#Boardvote. Was thinking I should link this at the village pump, but couldn't decide which section to put it in, so defaulting to here instead. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Template:Nengo[edit]

I need to make an edit to Template:Nengo, a protected page. -- Taku (talk) 00:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Please add {{editprotected}} to the template talk page. Thanks —Travistalk 00:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Bolthouse Farms[edit]

Solidly sourced information on the Bolthouse Farms article is being repeatedly removed by Belem2005 (talk · contribs), particularly information regarding a botulism outbreak and information regarding the Bolthouse Foundation. The user has been reverted by various users and notified a few times on their talk page but they are unresponsive. An administrator stepping in would be helpful. :bloodofox: (talk) 00:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Random question[edit]

Resolved: My signature is now both readable and it doesn't grate on people's eyes. J.delanoygabsadds 05:14, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Someone said in a thread on ANI that "the signatures alone are giving me a headache". While I assumed that the person meant Xp54321's signature, I just wanted to know: is my signature too complicated? Am I annoying anyone? J.delanoygabsadds 13:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Not readable, thanks to my color blindness, and a tad long for my liking (but within the guidelines), but there are far, far worse about. The main problem is not usually the signature in isolation. It's when one huge green signature is next to a huge black-and-red one which is next to a bright orange one and so forth, then the page starts to look like MySpace or Geocities. Ugh. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS used to be a sweet boy 13:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I've had other people complain that they couldn't read my signature, but none of them will tell me what they can't read. What is it that is unreadable? J.delanoygabsadds 13:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
For me, it reads J     noygabsadds as the green "eats" the orange. And I didn't know until just now that it had a period in it. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS used to be a sweet boy 13:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Looks fine to me. :) PeterSymonds (talk) 13:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Even for me (not color blind), the contrast between the J.d and the ela is slightly harsh. The J.d slightly blends in to the background, and the ela part that is blinding. So in my head, I just call you noygabs. But that's just me. Although on the issue as a whole, I don't see the need for large garish signatures. Mahalo. --Ali'i 13:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Yea, I concur, it's difficult to read the yellow part, though when we are onto it, I have had my signature for years now, and none has complained, but is it ok in your eyes? AzaToth 13:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

It's hard to read as it hurts my eyes. The contrast gives me a headache. Wish I was joking. Bstone (talk) 14:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
The yellow-segueing-to-lime-green (everything from the J to the a, really) is kinda eye-burning, yeah. I mean, I can READ it, but I'd rather see something a little less...ouchy. (And thank you for even ASKING--the worst offenders wouldn't think to.)Gladys J Cortez 15:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Azatoth, your's is fine to me. Everyone else, I apologize for having such a signature as I do for so long. I had no idea it was unreadable, and I didn't think about the *FLASH* eye-burning part :S How is this? J.delanoygabsadds Can you see the dot OK? I tried to find a heavier dot, but there isn't anything that I could find that would be at the bottom, so I just bolded it. J.delanoygabsadds 15:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Couldn't you use a darker green and yellow? Just abuse the RGB format, which uses hexadecimal numbers:
  • J.Delanoy
  • J.Delanoy
  • J.Delanoy
  • J.Delanoy
  • J.Delanoy
  • J.Delanoy
  • J.Delanoy
  • J.Delanoy
  • J.Delanoy
  • J.Delanoy
  • J.Delanoy
  • J.Delanoy
  • J.Delanoy
  • J.Delanoy
  • J.Delanoy
  • J.Delanoy
  • J.Delanoy
  • J.Delanoy
Can the color blind people say which looks better? (sorry if the list hurts your eyes) --Enric Naval (talk) 16:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
J.Delanoy looks pretty good to me. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 17:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I guess I'll just go with this, J.delanoygabsadds. Is that OK? J.delanoygabsadds 17:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I think you should use that entire list as your signature. And make a lot of small, unimportant edits all over AN/I. ;-) Tan | 39 17:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
YESSSSS!!!!!! Than would be AWESOME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Too bad we're limited to 255 bytes... J.delanoygabsadds 17:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
If length is an issue, make yourself a javascript (to prevent others from changing) signature template in your userspace. --Dragon695 (talk) 17:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
What I meant was, if I used that whole list of J.delanoys for my signature, it would never fit. I wasn't serious. My present signature is just over 200 bytes, a little long, but not too bad. J.delanoygabsadds 17:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
The signature length limit was put in place for a reason. Let's not encourage people to bypass it, shall we? Mr.Z-man 23:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Also, transclusion of templates or user subpages within a signature isn't allowed. Ral315 (talk) 23:09, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
yeah, it says that right in the signature area. Even if I was allowed to do it, I still wouldn't have made such a long, annoying signature. IMO, the point of a custom signature is so that people can make themselves easily identifiable. They are not intended to be unreadable or to fill up entire pages with text. J.delanoygabsadds 23:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Punk Boi 8[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Resolved: Nathan emailed me privately and asked for this appeal to be withdrawn. Sarah 03:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Punk Boi 8 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · rfc · spi) has sent me a polite email identifying himself as a "community banned user" asking that I post an "appeal/request for unbanning" here.

He says, "...I have editied Simple English Wikipedia as Da Punk '95, where I have made 256 edits to the mainspace, and 131 to the Wikipedia namespace, and I am working on making more to the mainspace. The Sockpuppets I have been accussed of being are trolls, not myself. I would be happy to, if unbanned, be under a probation of any sort. I will not create any new page in the Wikipedia namespace for twelve months, and I will be happy to follow the Mentoring plan I should have followed."

User:Punk Boi 8 also says he would like to be unblocked to take part "in any AN discussion, with editing other pages grounds for instant re-blocking." Gwen Gale (talk) 01:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Oppose any unbanning before the term expires. The community's patience was exhausted a long time ago. Mentoring and restrictions were already tried and failed. The evidence of sockpuppetry was well documented by Daniel at the talk page of Whiteandnerdy111 (talk · contribs). -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 01:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose, he's no-where near ready yet to be a positive and non-disruptive member of the community. He still struggles to avoid causing problems at Simple, still seeks adminship desperately (something that got him into trouble last time here, June 2, 2008), and has not matured in any way from all outward appearances. The socking with Whiteandnerdy111 at the same time as assuring arbcom-l that he had not used alternate accounts is a nice cherry to add to the top of the cake. ArbCom rightly refused to unban him at least once (I'm confident he has filed two appeals, but I'm only 100% sure of one), and we should do the same. Mentoring, probation, everything failed. And I don't think enough has changed to make any of them work. Daniel (talk) 01:48, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose Problematic in a very long term sense, and not just at this venue. He socked until fairly recently and in one of his recent incarnations was highly disruptive at the ArbCom clerks' board. He made similar promises before and broke every last one of them. The way he turned on his good faith mentor when first banned (unexpectedly opening an RfC against him with simply awful claims in it - which got speedy deleted) is still one of the biggest slaps in the face I've seen here, and it would take a lot for me to reconsider. Orderinchaos 02:08, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Support unbanning. He's been a good editor on simple WP and should be given a chance here too. People change and grow. Seems some people still hold grudges which is sad. Al Tally talk 02:11, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Strongest possible oppose Absolutely not per Daniel, Orderinchaos and GogoDodo. The last sockpuppet he used while appealing to ArbCom, as Daniel noted above, showed he is still unable to reform, and was unable to stop the very behaviours that got him banned in the first place. We went out of our way to avoid banning him at the time and tried every possible option to avoid it but he was incapable of editing appropriately and while under a community imposed last chance mentorship which restricted him from contacting Ral (who he has repeatedly harassed over the Signpost with his sockpuppets as well) and from editing in the Wikipedia space due to his abuse of dispute resolution and RfA, he continually and repeatedly violated every condition. I do not believe there the Simple edits demonstrate a reform and the last known sockpuppet used here showed no improvement but simply resumed previous problem behaviours. Please, do not unban this user early. Sarah 02:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose - He has already abused our trust, and now he wants us to extend it to him again? I am all for WP:AGF, but not when the user we are extending it to abuses it. Every attempt at change has failed, why should we think this time will be any different? Tiptoety talk 02:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Once someone has demonstrated that their temperament is fundamentally incompatible with a collaborative project, we should no longer welcome them here. The less time spent trying to reform such people, the better. Friday (talk) 02:39, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Why are we wasting time with "editors" like this? seicer | talk | contribs 02:53, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose and extend block length to indef Another user socking to evade his block. No thanks. Jtrainor (talk) 03:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Pokrajac (talk · contribs)[edit]

This user is reverting English-language naming of tennis player biographies and names despite being informed about Wikipedia policy concerning those names. The relevant diffs showing his or her edits are here: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13. This user's rather incivil posts to my discussion page can be found here. Tennis expert (talk) 17:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

First of all, all Serbs, (also Croats, Bosniaks...) in this encyclopedia are listed whit original names whit Serbian (Croatian) latin letters š, đ, č, ć, and ž. There is no reason that tennis players be exeption. If somebody want double standards, I can't "fight" against strog inequitably power. --Pockey (talk) 20:10, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

New instances of this user's disruptive editing: 14, 15, 16. Tennis expert (talk) 20:44, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Nothing illiterately. --Pockey (talk) 21:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Disruptive edit #17. Tennis expert (talk) 05:03, 31 May 2008 (UTC) And #18 --HJensen, talk 21:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Seems to me that if all of the appropriate redirects are available, it will be a matter of indifference to most of our readers which spelling holds the actual article. - Jmabel | Talk 15:56, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps. But that's not established Wikipedia policy. What we're talking about here is a user who has been informed of the policy, has a personal disagreement with it, and is disruptively editing based on those personal feelings. Tennis expert (talk) 17:05, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
This is not only my disagreement. Everyone who knows what is correct spelling of Serbian names can not accept this so called policy. Have you consulted Serbian and Croatian speaking users when you decided to make double standards about tennis players? Almost all people whit those leters in this encyclopedia are listed correctly and some so called proficients of Serbo-Croatian language can't tell over night what we must do whit tennis players. I will always be high-class user of this Wikipedia, and i will always correcting illiterately names. --Pockey (talk) 00:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Hm, I can see now that User:Tennis expert have produced big number of edit wars all over Wikipedia, because he think he is a lecturer of Serbian and Czech languages. Similar situation we have on article Radek Štěpánek, where he can't be tolerate for standardised Czech language. --Pockey (talk) 00:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Same thing whit article Daniela Hantuchová. This user speaks Slovak as well! :) --Pockey (talk) 01:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

More disruptive edits by User:Pokrajac: 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24. Tennis expert (talk) 04:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I would like to give my full support for User:Pokrajac and other users with brain on the right place and with the feeling of the common sense. This so-called "policy" is nothing else than a silent consensus reached by several like-minded users of WPP Tennis, their "consensus" goes against the common sense and the Wikipedia precedence and general consensus policies. Their fresh ruthless policies should be changed and reverted back, otherwise we will have double standards here. - Darwinek (talk) 07:56, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I apologize for my brain apparently being misplaced lately, for having no conception of common sense, and for imposing "fresh ruthless policies." By the way, why did you say in response to the arguments that Redux made on your discussion page "I see your points" if those arguments were full of double standards and represent a mere "silent consensus reached by several like-minded users of WPP Tennis"? I have noted with interest your reversion of three renames of tennis articles after your dialogue with Redux: 1, 2, 3. Tennis expert (talk) 08:24, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
All should be moved back to their proper names. Several stubborn users can't stop the whole community and the common sense of decent Wikipedianz. - Darwinek (talk) 09:05, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I really don't understand why you're calling me "stubborn." What have I done to deserve being called names? That's very un-administrator of you. Tennis expert (talk) 09:22, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I am sorry but if you don't see a problem with calling user "disruptive" for correcting article titles and report him for that at WP:AN/I, it is sad. This is no more, no less than a content dispute and should be dealt with as such. There would be 500 threads each day here if everyone would be dropping in with similar "issues" as you do. --Darwinek (talk) 09:41, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
This was the exact procedure that Redux said should be followed: make reports to this noticeboard. If you have a problem with that, maybe you should talk to him and direct your name calling (e.g., stubborn, brain in the wrong place, no common sense, ruthless, disruptive, lacking decency, double standards imposing) in his direction. Besides, I thought you were supposed to avoid this kind of thing. Tennis expert (talk) 09:52, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
My civility parole ended two months ago, my record is clear now, therefore I say to you, "No comment, this discussion is completely useless. I quit." - Darwinek (talk) 10:06, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Agreed with Darwinek - although he should be aware Tennis expert is not the party at fault here, I've established after a conversation with him that he was not part of the original disputes nor was he aware of them. The articles should not be moved, just as we don't rename places because poor Anglos (of which I am proudly one, by the way) can't read foreign characters, and in general we don't name biographies, we shouldn't be creating a culture of exceptionalism where one WikiProject decides to violate norms elsewhere in the encyclopaedia for no apparent reason but that some other organisation thinks it necessary to drop diacritics. Orderinchaos 10:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
So, it will be the usual "respect for native culture" argument that should guide naming on the English wikipedia? Not English spelling. What is the point here? Everytime consensus is reached about moving names to their English spelling, some days goes and then some natives round of their friends and start reverting. Are we just going to accept that? Just because East Europeans are more sensitive to this issue than, say, Scandinavian? (ps: what on earth does "i will always correcting illiterately names"?).--HJensen, talk 21:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

There has been a long-standing consensus, or at least practice, to use original spelling for names in languages which use the Čatin alphabet and don't have English names (this has nothing to do with things like Vienna, or Spain, or John Paul II - all of those do have actual English names). For whatever reason, it's sports article editors which occasionally start these renaming-to-diacriticless-version campaigns. The last time I followed this, it was hockey, this time it's tennis. There are three coherent arguments for dropping diacritics for tennis players that I have managed to discern, but they are all misguided:

  • One claim is that diacritics make it hard for English speakers to find articles. This is a particularly bad argument, since we do have redirects.
  • Another is that tennis players are registered with WTA or ATP by their "Anglicised" (i.e. simplified) spelling. Accepting this as a valid argument leads to ridiculous conclusions - a young tennis player who hasn't turned professional, would have his names spelled with diacritics, and when he goes professional we should move the article. Obviously a bad idea.
  • The apparently strongest argument is that tennis players are most often referred to by the simplified spelling of their names in English language sources. While that may be true, it tells are more about the nature of those sources than about tennis players' names. Most sources for tennis players are newspapers, and newspapers tend to spell all non-English names without diacritics. OTOH, dictionaries and encyclopedias tend to use diacritics where appropriate. So in this case, "follow common usage" applied properly means "use diacritics".

The argument for using original spelling is really simple. There is nothing special about the names of sportspeople. There is no justification for using a different convention for tennis players, as opposed to writers or politicians or scientists. If we had a consensus to drop diacritics from all names, it would be entirely appropriate to do so for tennis players. But since UTF-8 titles were introduced by the developers because we wanted diacritics in titles, that sounds unlikely. Zocky | picture popups 12:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

More disruptive behavior by Pokrajac here. This is on the Djokovic page hwere consensus for the English spelling has been reached after a long, long discussion. Now this user unilaterally acts against consensus. --HJensen, talk 19:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Zocky: (1) Why do you think the websites of both players' associations for professional tennis (the Women's Tennis Association and the Association of Tennis Professionals) omit diacritics? Neither are newspapers. Both are international organizations. What makes their usage unreliable but general purpose dictionaries and encyclopedias reliable for purposes of tennis biographies on English Wikipedia? (2) An amateur tennis player is unlikely to be sufficiently notable to have a Wikipedia article. And even if he or she were, there's nothing wrong with changing the name of the article when it becomes appropriate to do so. Otherwise, Wikipedia would never include unmarried women lest they get married at some point in the future and agree to take their husband's name. (3) Why is the usage of the International Tennis Federation, the official international governing body of tennis, irrelevant? See, e.g., the biographies of "Novak Djokovic" and "Jelena Jankovic". (4) Why is the usage of the official website of the French Open (Roland Garros) irrelevant? For example, it uses "Djokovic," "Ivanovic," and "Jankovic". (5) Why is the usage of the official website of the Olympic Games irrelevant? See, e.g., names of "Nicolas Massu" and "Fernando Gonzalez". (6) Why is the usage of the International Tennis Hall of Fame irrelevant. See, e.g., the biography of "Martina Navratilova" (7) The reason that diacritics should not be used in tennis biographies on English Wikipedia is not because they are "special." Instead, diacritics are not used in the most reliable and official sources of English-language tennis information, from newspapers to websites to official tennis organizations, and THAT is why they should not be used on English Wikipedia.

What's really upsetting to me are edit summaries like