Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive158

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

Noticeboard archives


Inappropriate picture?[edit]

Resolved: Image deleted by Gwen Gale as lacking source/licensing info, possible copyvio. –xeno (talk) 14:14, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm the first to admit that I'm not the most knowledgeable admin when it comes to image policy, so maybe I'm missing something, but this image doesn't sit right with me. Of course Wikipedia isn't censored, and I don't doubt that the uploader took the picture, but I don't see any assertion that the model willingly posed for the picture. Again, I'm not the best with images, but given the nature of the image aren't there personality rights or something that we have to take into account? I could be completely wrong here, and if so please set me straight. :-) faithless (speak) 01:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe the personality rights policy you're looking for is commons:COM:PEOPLE. While we don't require written model releases or anything, images taken in public and images that are obviously posed and uploaded by an editor in good standing are generally viewed more favorably than images that were taken surreptitiously or in private settings and uploaded by an unknown quantity. See Commons:Deletion requests/Image:One Stop Piercing Shop 1.jpg for a recent example of this in action.
Of course, this only applies to identifiable people--images without a visible face or other obvious identifying features visible are generally only a concern if it becomes apparent that they were taken inappropriately (e.g. upskirt shots) or depict a minor in a sexual or otherwise inappropriate nature. And of course, we are generally willing to delete images if the model requests they be taken down. --jonny-mt 01:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
From the above link: Normally not OK - Nudes, underwear or swimsuit shots, unless obviously taken in a public place (unreasonable intrusion without consent). So since it's on a beach - I guess we're OK, yes? Follow up question, is having a nude photo appropriate in Bikini? People might not be expecting one. –xeno (talk) 01:59, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Should be all right here--I believe this picture is posed to boot. As far as nudity in Bikini goes, I've always been a big fan of nudity in the proper context, so if it's appropriate then I don't have any problems with it personally. --jonny-mt 02:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
(ec)This search (note - also NSFW unless you work in a strip club etc) shows a monokini generally to be a one piece bathing suit, so I'm not sure how much use a picture of a topless woman is in this context. Kevin (talk) 02:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
IMO, monokini should have its own article, and be forked from the bikini article. Bikini article can have bikinis and a monokini article can have monokinis and pictures of them. Makes sense to me. Not sure why it's part of one article. Enigma message 02:47, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
I suppose fair warning is given in the lead paragraph. =) –xeno (talk) 02:50, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't personally have a problem with this sort of picture in context, but a search with TinEye and some followup work with the Internet Archive shows that this picture is all over voyeur picture forums, and has been for coming up on two years. E.g. [1]. That makes it highly likely that this is not legitimately licensed under the GFDL. William Pietri (talk) 06:15, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
The fact that the uploader removed himself as author also lends credence to this. –xeno (talk) 12:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Yep, snap's ok for an article like bikini but the licensing info seems more than dodgy. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:59, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Tagged for speedy deletion as lacking permission from author for a non-fair use image. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:03, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
I've deleted the image as lacking source/licensing info, possible copyvio. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:07, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Protecting Children's Privacy[edit]

Could an administrator respond to the concerns in this thread [2]? There is personal information of minors in the thread above it. Could an administrator delete the age of specific young Wikipedians mentioned in the thread [3][4]? There may be others, but those were the ones I saw. Thanks. Ripberger (talk) 06:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't aware age was considered personal information. BJTalk 08:28, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Generally self-identifying as a minor is removed, due to the privacy concerns for the minor, see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Protecting children's privacy for more details. MBisanz talk 08:37, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
The ArbCom page says "children", not "minors". Some people need to read the ArbCom ruling more closely; it says to remove such information when "appropriate", not to blindly blank and be proud of ourselves for being "protective". —Kurykh 08:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Yawn. I don't think anybody seriously believes that a child disclosing their age is a threat to the child's safety. — Werdna • talk 09:03, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Age on it's own isn't great, IMO, but still isn't the end of the world. Age plus school/full name/location = Not Good™. It's just a matter of using common sense, folks - Alison 09:20, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
ER, Kurykh childen = minors (in a legal sense). KoshVorlon > rm -r WP:F.U.R 13:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't think ArbCom intended to force all admins to remove all references of age if the number happens to be <18. —Kurykh 18:01, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

POV in Indian articles[edit]

Hi there is an IP address probably from India which is wreaking havoc with some of the Bollywood articles. See his contributions. He persistently keeps adding POV to an article or glorifying an actor or film further than they or it actually is. It is a major nuisance for the editors on here who work on Indian cinema articles to have to keep reverting him day in day out just to maintain some sense of article neutrality. He has been warned many times and his persistence has resulted in edit conflicts on more than just a few articles. Could you please warn and/or block him and try to make him aware of wikipedias neutrality and why his edits which are intent on putting POV or glorifying the subject of the article unnecesarily may be construed as against policy and therefore vandalism. Its doing my nut it keeping track of him. User:Shshshsh (Shahid) raised my awarenss of it initially and other editors such as totalfilmi99 have to keep reverting him e.g here. Should he be blocked do you think? This is an exmaple of the kind of crap he keeps putting in articles ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 17:06, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Has been blocked by Tanthalas39 already. Bring it back if IP is still disruptive after 31 hour block. Cheers. lifebaka (talk - contribs) 17:23, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Will do. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 17:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Can anyone help at WP:SSP?[edit]

I know it looks daunting, but even a little bit can go a long way. We lost User:Shalom Yechiel and a few others who used to look at sockpuppet cases. Now it gets very little attention from admins, or anyone, actually. Enigma message 06:11, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I took care of 9 of them... Still 50+ left to deal with. SQLQuery me! 08:48, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Thank you kindly. Enigma message 09:40, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
I had a look there but was dissuaded by the lack of instructions. Is there anything non-admins can do there? SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 19:35, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
You do not have to be an administrator, although it helps. If you're not an administrator, you can look through the evidence and give your opinion, so that when an admin comes, there's less work for them to do. That's what User:Shalom Yechiel used to do, even though he wasn't an admin. Enigma message 19:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Location articles[edit]

For some reason all of the articles about cities and towns are coming out malformatted. Check out Tenafly, NJ, Newark, NJ, etc... I thought it might have something to do with the template but I check out Template:Infobox Settlement which are used in these articles and don't see anything wrong.--Jersey Devil (talk) 06:41, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any malformation. Fixed already? —Wknight94 (talk) 11:23, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
I still see it. Like the infoboxes for these articles are on the left and it brings down all the article content below it.--Jersey Devil (talk) 13:39, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Looks ok to me too. Try purging your cache. Synergy 13:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Did that and it still looked malformed. Then I just changed the skin and went back to the same articles and it looked fine. It seems that the articles only show up messed up for the "Modern" skin for some reason.--Jersey Devil (talk) 19:06, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, about 15 hours ago, the site was updated, and the Modern and Simple skins were broken in the process (bugzilla:14954). The issue has been fixed internally and will go live sometime soon-ish. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Alright, thanks for letting me know. I thought I was the only one that was seeing it and was crazy lol thanks I'll just keep a different skin until those skins get fixed.--Jersey Devil (talk) 19:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


Could someone please deal with this user. He is causing aggrovation and conflict all over the place, and has been for months now, in his relentless campaign to rid Wikipedia of British Isles. I'm concerned with GENUKI and similar articles, but his trolling is affecting a very wide area of this encyclopedia. Is there nothing than can be done to stop this user - apparently not, so far! (talk) 16:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

You might want to back your claim up with some diffs, as I'm not seeing what the problem is. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:15, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Just look at pretty much any article edit HighKing makes. All he ever does is remove "British Isles" from articles. This is getting out of hand, a look at his talk page archives shows this issue has been brought up with him time and time again. Chillum 16:18, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Has anyone notified the user of this thread? I don't see it on his talkpage. Perhaps there's some methodology here that is easily explained or workable? Keeper ǀ 76 16:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Nevermind, I just did. Cheers, Keeper ǀ 76 16:36, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Looking deeper, this does seem like a problem. Maybe a possible block is in order. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
I support a block at this point, perhaps 48 hours with a warning to stop or face longer blocks. Also, 82 did notify HighKing of this thread[5]. Chillum 16:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Oh and if you look in the archives of WP:AN and WP:ANI you will see that this issue has come up a few times in the past both as HighKing and his old name Bardcom. Chillum 16:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
My apologies, Chillum (and IP), I don't know how I didn't see that diff, sorry for the redundancy. The frequency of "issues" doesn't have anything to do with the current post from IP 82 or the subsequent notification, but I should've still seen that diff, it was my error for not. Stepping out. Keeper ǀ 76 16:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
In response specifically to the anon IP complainer above, the consensus on the GENUKI article was that because the primary source - the GENUKI website itself - described the top level as "Common to all of British Isles", then the article continued to use the term. The GENUKI website appears to have been updated and has corrected this anomalous usage. Since the consensus was to agree with the primary source, I've changed the article to now reflect "Common to all of the United Kingdom and Ireland". This has also been explained on the article Talk page. It's a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT or most likely WP:IVECHANGEDMYMINDABOUTAGREEINGTOUSETHEPRIMARYSOURCEASTHEWAYTODECIDETHIS.
In response specifically to the suggestion of a block, I have spent most of the day discussing with User:DdStretch some of the edits, and I've provided references for each. @Julian, you say there seems to be a problem - please take the time to look closer at my edits, and the discussions. Each edit is correcting an incorrect use of the term "British Isles", with references. This takes a lot of time on my account, and I do not edit any article that takes my fancy, but only those that are incorrect. If you follow my discussion with User:Ddstretch (an admin) today, you will see this. --HighKing (talk) 16:49, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Your reasons change as the situation changes, but the result is always the same, the removal of the term "British Isles". This speaks volumes to me. You seem to be on Wikipedia for one purpose only. Chillum 16:58, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
@Chillum, you have taken an interest in this for quiet some time, always making loose and foggy accusations and generally just adding to the background noise. Please be specific. What reasons have changed? What specific edits do you object to? Where did you discuss them? This speaks more to me as at least I can have a stab at responding to the accusations. --HighKing (talk) 17:04, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Sorry but there was no consensus on the GENUKI Talk page, you just left it alone in the face of contra arguments. But then, presumably not wanting to be defeated, you've come back for another go at getting rid of British Isles. You say you do not edit any article that takes your fancy - no, it appears that you look at articles linked to British Isles and then knock them off, one after another. (talk) 16:57, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Sorry but there was no consensus on the GENUKI Talk page, you just left it alone in the face of contra arguments. But then, presumably not wanting to be defeated, you've come back for another go at getting rid of British Isles. You say you do not edit any article that takes your fancy - no, it appears that you look at articles linked to British Isles and then knock them off, one after another. (talk) 16:57, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Check the article Talk page for the discussion and agreement. --HighKing (talk) 17:04, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Finally, there are a lot of British editors on Wikipedia that simply give a knee-jerk reaction when they see an accusation that someone is removing the term "British Isles" - I expect this reaction at this stage. The previous WP:AN and WP:ANI were rejected because it is seen as a content dispute. I respectfully request any admins looking at this to consider if this is a case of some editors over-reacting when they see this accusation, and not looking beyond this to see if my edits are making the encyclopedia better and more accurate. I am always civil, and always AGF, and always am happy to discuss and am very responsive. I always welcome collaboration on articles. Last night, I disagreed with User:CarterBar over some articles, and we agreed to take some time to think about it and we'd talk later today - the articles are remaining with the phrase "British Isles" in the meantime. If you check out my edits and comments and general behaviour over the past couple of days or longer, I believe you will see for yourselves that once again there appears to be an over-reaction taking place. Thank you. --HighKing (talk) 17:04, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
"I do not edit any article that takes my fancy, but only those that are incorrect" falsely alleges Bardcom. Challenge Cup was right until Bardcom went near it (source). He does not edit articles that are "incorrect", but ones he thinks are incorrect based on usually nothing more than his ill-informed opinion. EmpireForever (talk) 17:01, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
That's a different competition and a different cup. Your recent edits have now added incorrect facts to the article. You might want to revert yourself. (Kinda proves the theory that it's a lot easier to use the term "British Isles" incorrectly that correcting the articles after you...) Also, another SPA focused on my edits, the editor who brought the failed ANI. Checkuser anyone? --HighKing (talk) 17:14, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Wrong, as anyone with a basic knowledge of rugby league knows. There is only one rugby league Challenge Cup in the British Isles, see this for some information to show it is the correct one (source). My edit was right, yours was not. EmpireForever (talk) 17:27, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
For an account that seems to have only one purpose, I find it surprising you would be pointing out a SPA. Chillum 17:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Or maybe you only see what you set out to look for.... I've edited on many technology articles, on Irish articles, on local Dublin articles, on whiskey and sport related articles. And I've never denied my interest in housekeeping on the term British Isles either, but makes me an SPA in the same way that WMC is a global warming SPA. Different than EmpireForever. Checkuser anyone? :-) I think it would be enlightening... --HighKing (talk) 17:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Well I will be honest, I only checked your last dozen or so contribs each time you ended up on this noticeboard, about 3 or so times, and each time your edits were pretty much just that. If you are doing other things then I guess I would have to sift deeper to find them. Chillum 17:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough - most of the time attention is drawn only when activity on the subject is more than normal. BTW, it's pretty hard to put up with attitudes like this though. --HighKing (talk) 17:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
And this --HighKing (talk) 17:36, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Wow. And now it's gone all quiet again. Huh. The diffs above are pretty racist. Anybody want to do something about them? --HighKing (talk) 17:49, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

A block on User:HighKing is not necessary. When looking at his edits in detail you can see he does a bit of other stuff as well, but not much. What's needed here is something to stop him editing articles to remove the usage of British Isles. That's where all the aggravation is caused, and there's a lot of it. He really does cause a problem and it looks like it has been going on since about March. He must stop this provocative editing. (talk) 20:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Bardcom/HighKing's crusade against Britishness is continuing. He is removing sources that use British Isles, for no apparent reason. This really should be stopped. EmpireForever (talk) 23:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
You are edit-warring on many articles. You refuse to discuss on the article Talk page. You refuse to discuss on any Talk page. You're up to your maximum edits on several pages, and now you're trying to pull the wool over the eyes of people here. Also, comments referring to Irish as terrorists (and I hope you weren't aiming that at me personally) is frowned upon and deserves to get you a block. --HighKing (talk) 23:41, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
"You are edit-warring on many articles" - pot, meet kettle. At least my edits have reliable sources, the ones you remove because they contain British Isles. EmpireForever (talk) 23:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
  • NOTE: Both HighKing and EmpireForever have been blocked for edit warring over the addition and removal of the term "British Isles". Chillum 03:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Another sockpuppet[edit]

User:Rebafan11 is a known sockpuppet who continues to insert false info in articles. Please check into the edits this sockpupper has made. Steelbeard1 (talk) 21:57, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

A "known sockpuppet" in this case meaning: someone with a "suspected sockpuppet" tag on their user page, added by User:Neutralhomer. Hmm. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 00:26, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that User:Tanthalas39 has blocked this account. Steelbeard1 (talk) 02:30, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee motions for discretionary sanctions[edit]

The Arbitration Committee has rendered decisions passing two motions to apply discretionary sanctions remedies to three prior cases. Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the areas of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process.

The areas of conflicts have been defined as "articles which relate to pseudoscience, broadly interpreted" for the Martinphi-ScienceApologist and Pseudoscience cases, and as "articles which relate to Eastern Europe, broadly interpreted" for the Digwuren case.

The final text of the motions can be found at the case pages linked above.

— Coren (talk) for the Arbitration Committee, 14:18, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

"Eastern Europe, broadly interpreted" is an "area of conflict"? This means that anything associated with Eastern Europe is covered by the ruling? Everyking (talk) 08:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
That would be how I would interpret it, although I would apply a bit of common sense; an edit war over Anna Kournikova's bust size is not likely to be a nationalism-based dispute, although she is from Eastern Europe. Horologium (talk) 11:28, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Is it supposed to be applied only in cases where nationalism is involved? Everyking (talk) 11:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Nationalism was the underlying cause of the whole Digwuren case, and remedy 8 addresses that concern, although the arbcom did not use the incendiary term "nationalism". Horologium (talk) 13:06, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Broadly interpreted it would mean everything east of Switzerland and west of the Urals. Surely the committee can afford to tighten up the wording a bit. — CharlotteWebb 12:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Deleting images[edit]

Does any admin find that when they delete images and choose the "Reason for deletion" dropdown menu, they couldn't find most of the CSD criteria (e.g. CSD I8) but instead presented with a dropdown normally for deleting articles? OhanaUnitedTalk page 16:59, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd noticed that it's poorly equipped to handle deletions under CSD other than the general and article ones. I could add support for images in a jiffy, if you'd like. lifebaka (talk - contribs) 17:02, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
I've got my personal suggestions at User:Lifebaka/Sandbox#Image delete reasons, but some might be able to be left out or combined. Cheers. lifebaka (talk - contribs) 17:10, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
You can always add User:AuburnPilot/csd.js to your monobook. It's a copy of ^demon's old script and contains all of the speedy criteria. - auburnpilot talk 19:14, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Script works great, but... if the image has an existing talk page, the script fails to work. OhanaUnitedTalk page 03:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm all for adding more options to the list, but it should probably be put up for discussion at WP:VPP or somewhere else larger than here. Cheers. lifebaka (talk - contribs) 12:02, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
They were there, but removed like 1 or 2 days ago for some reason that I don't know. OhanaUnitedTalk page 14:30, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

List of articles I've created?[edit]


Quick question: is there a simple way of compiling a list of all the articles I've created? -- ChrisO (talk) 08:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Toolserver tool. --MZMcBride (talk) 08:27, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Also, in the future, questions like these should be directed to the help desk, which specializes in answering Wikipedia-related questions. « Gonzo fan2007 (talkcontribs) @ 08:28, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Transwiki to Wiktionary broken ?[edit]

Hi. Could someone please review this : WP:Editor assistance/Requests#Copying_to_Wiktionary and see if something is actually broken, or if we're just confused....or both :-) Thanks. CultureDrone (talk) 11:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Pinged the bot operator at wikt:User talk:Connel MacKenzie#w:User:CopyToWiktionaryBot (spiffy link). So, we'll get somewhere on it as soon as possible. Cheers. lifebaka (talk - contribs) 11:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Question - Ban for multiple sockpuppeteer?[edit]

Obama-related articles under article probation[edit]

Talk:Obama/Article_probation. Although this remedy should assist in taking effective action, whenever needed, it will still require uninvolved sysops to enforce them.

Individual uninvolved administrators are requested to intervene accordingly if and whenever concerns/issues are raised in relation to this area of editing (or certain users editing in this area). It is my understanding that this request has been echoed by several involved parties in this area, as well as members of the Arbitration Committee (in response to the recently rejected request for arbitration on this area). Thanks - Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

autoblock collateral damage[edit]



Can someone who knows how help with this? I'm not sure how fix that. This is the second time I've seen something like this. Can someone tell me how to fix it? J.delanoygabsadds 19:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

First make sure they are autoblocked and not blocked directly, and then just unblock the autoblock -
Block ID: 1003024 (ipblocklist • unblock)

^^^ –xeno (talk) 19:17, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks. J.delanoygabsadds 19:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[edit]

This IP address is registered to a government military organization and appears to have been making some POV edits recently, but I don't have the time to look any more into it. Can someone else investigate these edits? --Chris (talk) 19:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The POV edit been resolved in the usual way, other people came and changed it and yet other people changed it, I changed it a bit, and likely someone else has changed it again since. The other edits were to articles such as Desilu Productions, which doesn't strike me as being something a military based user is going to get too pointy about. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I have unblocked User:VigilancePrime.[edit]

It's either a coincidence or dissociative identity disorder[edit]

User:Viriditas brought me an interesting problem that has completely stumped me, so I wanted to get some outside opinions on how best to handle this (or if it needs handling at all). Basically, it seems likely that a minor sock farm has grown up around Talk:Father Damien, but rather than use the multiple accounts to push a POV/attack editors/stack deletion discussions/evade blocks/do all that other socky stuff that sockpuppets do, the farm appears to be arguing with itself. Extensively.

Viriditas' original post is here, and my attempt at a response is here. I'm not ruling out the possibility that it's simply a group of new editors with similar interests engaging in some intellectual discussion, but looking through their contributions I just can't help but feel that something is a little bit off. --jonny-mt 14:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Raising the signal to noise ratio is disruption in and of itself. –xeno (talk) 14:34, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
(Without looking in depth) If all they're doing is using the talk page, I'd ignore them until they get bored. Not doing any harm. —Giggy 14:35, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, apparently it's been going on for a while now. I think a note on the article talk page might be sufficient enough to reduce the noise ratio, but I agree that there's no need to start moving to blocks or anything just yet. Let's see if this gets any results.... --jonny-mt 07:08, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Problem uploading image / re-direct to this page[edit]

Clueless. I tried uploading an image as usual and was re-directed here. I was trying to add an additional album cover to this article Sophisticated Beggar. What's this all about? Stephenjh (talk) 21:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

All I can assume is that one of the upload pages was redirected here for some reason, but I can't find it. I may have misunderstood- could you explain in a little more detail? J Milburn (talk) 11:04, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Is removing CSD tags vandalism?[edit]

I'm completley uninvolved, but I'm just asking the question because I can see myself doing the same thing and I want to get a good answer so I know what to do in the future. I have AIV on my watchlist and I noticed [[9]] where User:Fieldday-sunday reported another editor, User:Sdav, for removing {{db-bio}} tags from a page. User:Sdav removed the tag from an article 4 times, User:Fieldday-sunday kept reverting, and User:Fieldday-sunday's Huggle finally reported User:Sdav to AIV. User:PeterSymonds removed the vandalism report with an edit summary "please stop. this is not blatant vandalism." [10]

Disregarding the fact that CSD was eventually declined by another admin, is removing CSD tags without comment, by the article creator, sufficient for a report to AIV? After all, the CSD tags state very clearly that the tag should not be removed by article creators, which User:Sdav did several times. If an article creator keeps removing the CSD tag, doesn't that force the issue to AfD (assuming an editor who removes CSD tags will also remove PROD tags)? Doesn't this just reward editors for removing the tags, since a trip to AfD means the original article gets to stay up for 5 more days?

I would appreciate thoughts from other Admins both to probe the question, and to make sure I personally do the "right thing" when I run into this situation. Thanks. Livitup (talk) 11:52, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I think when the author removes the tag it's vandalism, 'cuz it tells them they're not supposed to. When anyone else does it isn't, though. So, if the tag does actually apply, readd it and put a {{uw-speedy1}} (or higher) on the author's talk page. If they continuously ignore this, they should be blocked for it. Cheers. lifebaka (talk - contribs) 12:00, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
The only caveat I'd note is that the author is often not aware that removing the CSD tag on an article they wrote is technically vandalism, especially if they're new. So I'll usually give a mulligan for the first removal - "Hey, you can't remove that, use {{hangon}} instead, or explain why the article doesn't meet the criteria, etc..." or some such. If they pull it again, that's vandalism, and so on. WP:BITE should be minded, obviously, but only to a point. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 12:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
It is easiest to refer to the requirements for something to be WP:vandalism: is there a deliberate attempt to compromise (for which read: make worse) the encyclopedia? Clearly not in a good-faith removal of a CSD tag, even by the author. Not following instructions is not usually a wilful attempt to harm the project; assuming even that the small-type instruction got read at all in the mass of material and jargon now in CSD tags. So, tell them as UltraExactZZ says, to please not remove the tag anymore, and use hangon instead, etc. If they persist, then they can be blocked for repeatedly removing CSD tags despite being asked not to (i.e. for disrupting the CSD process). But not for vandalism, even so. However, it may be better to take the lower-impact approach and simply stick the article on AfD as that ends the issue. AfD is not a "reward", by any stretch, and sending someone's article there when they repeatedly object to other methods of deletion is usually just being reasonable to them as another human person — something which just might make them feel a bit better about their otherwise rather spiky intro to Wikipedia. (Of course, if the article itself is vandalism, then this is all rather obviously different). Splash - tk 12:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Removing CSD tags repeatedly is edit warring, not vandalism. Try not to WP:BITE. Splash's advice is also sound. Kusma (talk) 12:38, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Sigh. It's incidents like this which turns the "v" word into code for "I'm removing something that I disagree with". -- llywrch (talk) 19:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Not an admin but, my opinion is that removing the CSD tag from an article you created is disruptive behaviour at best and vandalism at worse (especially, if you've been previously warned that you shouldn't do it and you've been pointed in the direction of the proper process). The whole point of {{hangon}} is to give the author a chance to explain things. Deliberately ignoring the process is disruptive to the project as a whole. Yes, we shouldn't WP:BITE but, if you give someone the benefit of the doubt and try to help and they continously ignore this it undermines the project and the people working in good faith to help. We all make mistakes but, repeating the same "mistake" over and over again in most cases changes it from a mistake into a deliberate behaviour pattern. Just my two cents. And for transparency purposes I've recently been involved in this sort of case so have a "vested interested". Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

There is a progressive warning series for removing CSD tags - uw-speedy1 through uw-speedy4. Corvus cornixtalk 17:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with most of what has been said above, but I want to add that if the article creator blanks the page, one should not revert the edit. Instead one should see it as a good faith attempt to undo the damage he did, and replace the page with {{db-author}}, which will make clear to the author that page is being deleted as he requested. Jon513 (talk) 17:49, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Obviously not vandalism, not murder, and not terrorism. It's simply not following the rules. That may often be disruptive behavior, but sometimes it's an appropriate invocation of WP:IAR - a speedy nomination that is itself disruptive, or doesn't have a WP:SNOWBALL's chance in hell, is better off removed than going through unnecessary procedure. Wikidemo (talk) 19:22, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Pre-emptive request for administrative eyes on John Edwards[edit]

I'd like to ask your help. Yes, you. There has been a debate at John Edwards on whether, and how, to include recent allegations of infidelity published in the National Enquirer. In response to edit-warring and WP:BLP concerns, I protected the page yesterday. The protection will expire tomorrow. This issue has some real-world visibility - for instance, has criticized our handling of the situation :0 This is a WP:BLP hotspot and I don't want to be making unilateral decisions. I'd like to ask any and all editors to participate at Talk:John Edwards, and any and all admins to watchlist the article, provide a sanity check, and help figure out what, if anything, needs to happen when the protection expires tomorrow. Relevant threads:

Please lend the issue some outside eyes. Thanks. MastCell Talk 17:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Thats not really what this page is for, AN is not a step in dispute resoultion or content choice. That said the McCain allagations made it into his campaing article, but only in passing due to the timing, poorly sourced allegations by the times, and massive backlash among other media. If it is a noteworthy and sourced allegation it should be mentioned, but the context and wording is the key issue. --AdultSwim (talk) 18:31, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Watchlisted. Will do any admin or non-admin stuff as necessary tomorrow when protection expires. Currently researching situation on talk page. lifebaka (talk - contribs) 18:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Struck my own earlier comments, as article is locked for dispute (an extrodinary measure in my book) and there are enough allegations to note that there are allegations a simple request for 'more eyes' is perfectly fine. Lets all read about oursleves. [11] --AdultSwim (talk) 18:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Fun stuff, fun stuff. I've barely scratched what I ought to read to get a full picture here, but my first blush thought would be to extend the protection for another week or so and wait to see if reliable sources pick up or debunk the sources. Cheers. lifebaka (talk - contribs) 19:08, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
That probably explains Wikipedia:Help desk#Never using your site again. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 19:30, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
That may not be a Bad Thing, to have editors who do not understand policy self-select themselves off the project because of their own misunderstanding. Makes it easier for the rest of us.
I have to say though that there does appear to be some progress on the talk page, which seems IMO to be moving in a reasonable direction. Perhaps an extension of the protection is not necessary. However, I note that after the original protection, several newish accounts appeared to argue in lieu of BLP policy, and there were very few editors who understood policy sticking around, perhaps because they thought as it was protected, they could move on to other things. I would not rule out a flurry of uninformed editing if the protection expires as currectly scheduled. So in any case a call to eyes is very prudent. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 20:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Exactly my thoughts. I think there is progress being made, and we'll see soon enough if more protection is warranted. A rapid influx of new users in response to off-site publicity is not always the best thing from a WP:BLP standpoint, and many experienced editors seem to have moved on. MastCell Talk 20:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
  • The established editors do appear to have reached consensus, it was implemented and the article unprotected. In the 10 hours since we've had 12 BLP violations or other forms of vandalism by IP editors and new accounts, with no useful contributions from such accounts. We haven't had any established editors warring over the apparent consensus, just a couple minor tweaks to it. So I've semi-protected the article. Established editors can still edit, and further administrative monitoring remains warranted. GRBerry 21:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

User requesting userpage deletion[edit]


A user is requesting deletion of a userpage. The userpage is under their real name, and they claim that it is not theirs, but... I'm not sure, actually. But they want it so that it doesn't show up as a Google hit on their name.

Their request is at User talk: I promised them I'd draw attention to it when it was made. This is in no way an endorsement of the request - just the execution of a promise. The request, I think, speaks for itself. Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:50, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I've deleted User:Herbert Elwood Gilliland III and the talk page per RTV, and protected the user's talk page owing to the disgusting incivility in the user's request. The IP is already blocked for 6 months from July 10th, the protection will expire around that time. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 19:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Removal of AfD tags[edit]

Resolved: Blocked and warned by ST47

User:Seventy3 is removing the AfD tags from Political society and State of society, despite having been informed in edit summaries that this does not prevent the AfD from going forward and placing warnings on the user's talk page. RJC Talk Contribs 19:10, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Blocked 24 hours, the user was ignoring warnings. I will review the users other contributions. Chillum 19:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
(ec)Oops, another admin got there first with a 31 hour block. Chillum 19:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
I blocked for 31, not realizing that someone else was on it. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 19:15, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Good job. Chillum 19:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Arabic Wikipedia[edit]

Resolved: blocked indef and talk page protected for repetition of the same behaviour --Rodhullandemu 01:02, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Please, any admin can take a look to the article nd its history, admin Rodhull, insists that's it's orignial study (look, at the article about the German Wikipedia, nd the Hebrew one) also, is the section about wikipedia blockings in Syria, not an original one? Regards. --Stayfi (talk) 19:48, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
This article is only a couple of days out of full protection while consensus was sought on the talk page for content proposed by Stayfi; no such consensus was forthcoming, let alone any sources. This is soapboxing about censorship and some dispute on ar:wiki. Stayfi added this content earlier, again unsourced, and I removed it with a final warning for disruption. Again, he is forum-shopping, as he was a week ago here. Anyone care to deal? --Rodhullandemu 20:04, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Rodhull, how can u define he sections, about characteristics, of German wikipedia nd the hebrew? many without any reference. Also, what do think about the blocking in Syria (not Too original to you) though it's simple to see, the facts of my writings.
Can u delete, unsourced facts form the articles (german wiki, hebrew, french...and the blocking in Syria?) I'll glad to put: need citation, rather than delete all my writings.
it's not a soap, they are facts (nd i'll be happy if u understand Arabic, to view what they wrote about the second gulf war).
As i told u, a consensus on this subject, is hard to get (We're talking about sensitivities here)

regards --Stayfi (talk) 20:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I've just created an ar wiki account (with the help of the unified loging system) and reviewed all of your edits there and the reason why you have been blocked there before coming here creating havoc. I must say that you are a disruptive user and if you don't stop your troubles I'll be obliged to block you indef here. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 20:28, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Fayssalf, besides my arabic wiki contributions, FOCUS on issues being brought here.
This a personal attack (havoc, disruptive, troubler) try to be more...polite, nd FOCUS on the english wiki.
If, u want a jew, as a defense to me, he can testify (a Jew who speak/Read arabic)
As any human, u've ur personal judgments, yes, we came from different backgrounds.

Regards. --Stayfi (talk) 20:49, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

The personnal atatck is the one you directed at ar wiki admins and editors when you stated that you better respect en wiki admins views (as they are not Arabs). What does that mean? And all this has nothing to do with what happened there anyway but your attitude here instead. Please behave and stop disrupting. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 20:59, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
First, ur not FOCUSING on the issue here.
Secondly, I was critical towards this arabic wiki (this version run by them)
I Hope, u met an azzidy nd a Palestinian Arab, who were banned for talking about peace in the middle east!
Regards --Stayfi (talk) 21:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Is there anything here that specifically concerns administrators of the English wikipedia? If not, I suggest that this discussion be closed. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:28, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

The only thing here that is admin-related is that I think a block might be in order if Stayfi brings this subject up on AN or ANI anymore. Three times in about a week is enough, and as I said in the last thread, it's forum shopping and it's disruptive. --barneca (talk) 21:35, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Barneca, it's not Forum shopping, it's a REQUEST to remove the ban on FACTS.
What can u do for my arguments above? if u don't want to be as disruptive.
Regards, David --Stayfi (talk) 21:47, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Sorry. There's no sign whatsoever that you'd be a good asset to Wikipedia. FACTS, remove ban, REQUEST, jew, palestinian, azzidy, sunni admins, arabic wikipedia, en admins, ar admins, frequent appearences on AN with less than 50 edits overall, Jimmy Wales talk page, using Wikipedia as a battleground, Focus, SPA, arguing with admins everywhere, forum shopping, suspected sockpuppet.... Is there anything positive? Frankly, no. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 00:14, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

What's our policy for protecting minors these days?[edit]

A new user, Ratzo (talk · contribs), has identified himself as a 12-year-old by giving his birth date and school on his user page. What's our current policy on things like that? I don't want to come down too heavy-handed on the kid, but this seems like a mistake to me. I know that policy proposals like WP:CHILD have failed to gain consensus, and I'm not trying to propose anything — I just wasn't sure what our standard operating procedure was on something like this. —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 21:38, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

No policy that I'm aware of. The paternal instinct in me says drop the guy a note and an admin can delete his user page, getting him to recreate it without the age/school thing. The rest of me says that as the greatest probability by some miles is that his revelation of his age etc. will have no repercussions (well unless he runs for RFA!) it's best left as is. Pedro :  Chat  21:45, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
I think standard procedure is removing the information, oversighting the page, and dropping the user a note. Not sure though... Calvin 1998 (t-c) 21:48, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
I've just removed one bit [12] as it was clearly defamatory. I don't really see that this is a level of personal information that needs oversight when simple deletion will do (how many of this editors friends are likely to be admins after all?). And again, it's not deeply revealing in all honesty (though as noted my fatherly instincts urge me otherwise). Pedro :  Chat  21:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Generally, when we see children, we should try to nudge them along to myspace or somewhere like that. They're unlikely to make themselves useful here, and having them be Somebody Else's Problem is good from our perspective. Friday (talk) 21:55, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
There is a chance that there aren't any friends of the kid that is an admin, but I hate saying it there is a chance that there could be an admin that will look at it and possibly use it maliciously. RFA isn't really a background check so we don't know if it would be used maliciously, and IMO, it is better not to take a chance. I feel oversight is best. <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 21:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
I've deleted his user page, with an invitation to recreate less the identifying bits. Kevin (talk) 00:04, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, folks. —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 00:15, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Persistent abuse by Kevin J[edit]

Kevin J has quite a history of improper, POV, unsourced, and hasty edits (see User talk:Kevin j) and has recently gone wild on the Bill Clinton article, with 20 edits of questionable quality (and with very angry edit-summary comments) in a two-hour period on July 29th. I am requesting administrator attention to this user and his abuse of the site, stretching back for months. Please note that on his talk page he is apparently very aggressive and unrepentant whenever he has been reprimanded, and does not seem to have changed his behavior at all since his first edits. -- Plushpuffin (talk) 18:22, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

-- You're just making my point for me. I said you had a history of disregarding NPOV and other annoying behavior, but in this specific incident I only said that your edits were of questionable quality - ie: it took you 20 edits to add five sentences to the article. Plushpuffin (talk) 22:47, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


On your keyboard, there is a key on the left side marked "Caps Lock". Is there a little glowing green light on it? If so, you should press the key and the "Shift" key so it goes off, as it appears that it's stuck.
Oh, and while I'm at it, you should avoid making nasty personal attacks -- all-caps or not -- like this and this. --Calton | Talk 23:29, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, looking at this page again I realize that I have probably posted this report in the wrong place. My apologies; I had a bunch of tabs open looking for the proper place and I think I must have just skipped over some of the rules. I am a casual editor with no experience with disputes (science fiction articles tend not result in flame wars) and I made a mistake. Regarding alternatives: I am not sure that dispute resolution will work with this person, as he is extremely abusive and confrontational. Would a more experienced user please look into Kevin J's behavior? -- Plushpuffin (talk) 03:40, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

No worries about the report. I left it a message on his talk page and will see what he does. Next time, follow the warning templates (particularly the assuming good faith ones and report him to WP:AIV. An admin there should take care of the problem. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


Resolved: Content dispute ➨ Ʀƹɗѵєɾϧ collects very sharp bread knives 07:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Badagnani always tried to add unnecessary Han tu to Vietnamese history related-articles (ex: [13], [14], [15]), it's not relevant. Some pages, it had been deleted and he reverted it. Please tell him to stop. (talk) 07:39, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Content dispute. Nothing for administrators to do here. Try discussing the issue with the editor in question. ➨ Ʀƹɗѵєɾϧ collects very sharp bread knives 07:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Weird flute sock-puppetry?[edit]

I've noticed some weird stale sock-puppetry (I think). Notice the timeline - Special:Contributions/Elkhart, Special:Contributions/Kurtgem, Special:Contributions/Ophelia85, Special:Contributions/Roastbeefaujus, plus some SPAs Special:Contributions/BrettCatalonia, Special:Contributions/Kristiansteenstrup, Special:Contributions/Quicksilver88, probably others (I got bored). I'm sure there are also edits on deleted articles like Andino Clarinets. Is this sort of thing normal? I assume this person is no longer active as they likely would have edited these articles more recently, it seems to be someone with some sort of flute-related bias, attempting to seem like many people to give the articles more validity. Or perhaps they forgot their passwords. Weird, no? ~ JohnnyMrNinja 08:32, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Blocked user requesting unblock[edit]

Mugaliens (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is requesting unblock. This user made some small edits to aviation related articles but his major obsession was with male skirt wearing, consuming significant time from multiple users in resisting some very determined POV-pushing, documented at locations such as User:Bardsandwarriors/MIS-debates and Wikipedia:AMA Requests for Assistance/Requests/November 2006/Mugaliens. He has also used sockpuppets, other accounts include Dr1819 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) and Man in a skirt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). Locus of dispute includes Male Unbifurcated Garment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Men's fashion freedom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Skirt and dress (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), High-heeled shoe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and the serially recreated and eventually Uncle G'd Men in skirts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) / Men's skirts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Men in skirts, (though note that I still think that article violates WP:UNDUE as we already have articles on kilt and Skirt#Male wear). I am strongly disinclined to unblock on the grounds that this user combined the most vexing features of WP:SOUP and WP:LAWYER. Guy (Help!) 22:55, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

He says he's given up on his agenda. Why not just unblock him and restrict him from editing anything remotely related to male unbifurcated garments? If he skirts the topic ban, he can be reblocked. MastCell Talk 23:21, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Guy, I think it's up to you, nobody knows this user the way you do (see my comment on Mugaliens' talkpage). In other words, don't unblock. Bishonen | talk 23:42, 30 July 2008 (UTC).
As I remember, the editing dispute over Male Unbifurcated Garment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was a rather pathetic attempt to engineer a change in fashion and society by declaring in an encyclopaedia article that both had changed and men now wore skirts. Not round here they don't and despite a very long attempt at original research and POV pushing it was clear that this user was not here to write an encyclopaedia describing the world as it is, rather as he hoped it would be. In other words, decline unblock. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

He's on his third unblock request already. I'm not seeing a consensus to unblock in this thread either. RlevseTalk 02:35, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Slap a second chance template on there and see what he does. -- Ned Scott 06:25, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, saying "whatever disagreements I had with whoever are with him" doesn't indicate he's learned a thing. I don't like giving people second chances when they haven't even acknowledged they did something wrong. Does that mean whoever he disagrees with next with just be with them? That's not the type of attitude I'd like to encourage. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:10, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
I can't unblock. There are too many worrisome little bits of behaviour even in the unblock thread on his talk page, things like breaking up posts with his comments, claiming he doesn't know what someone meant by agenda account, saying he hopes someone with "maturity" will unblock him (which carries the snarky hint that anyone who doesn't is childish). Moreover, he says most of the problem was with JzG (the blocking admin) and says nothing about his own behaviour, other than that he'll stay away from "fashion" topics. Why should he have to say he'll stay away from them? There's nothing untowards about adding sourced content to any article in a civil way whilst not edit warring over it and acknowledging consensus. Why can't he say he'll do this? He claims some expertise in engineering but gives not a hint he would use this expertise for anything other than his own unsourced assertions (given his contribution history, this is a meaningful worry). I'd wait until he starts acknowledging what went wrong to begin with. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:39, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
I think that's my biggest problem with this user as well - the continued assertion that the problem is with everyone else and not with him. Guy (Help!) 09:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
I suspect that No true scotsman would unblock this user. Neither would they be seen dead in a skirt, but that's a different matter. Oh well... SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 19:52, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Talk page comment removal[edit]

Resolved: The comments have been restored.--Father Goose (talk) 21:31, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I'd like some input on this. User:Wikiscribe removed some comments made by an IP editor at Talk:Generation Y as "soapboxing". I disagreed with Wikiscribe's action, but I have been reverted by him twice now in trying to restore the IP editor's comments. A different IP later posted angry comments about the removal[16] -- I presume this is the same user as the one Wikiscribe reverted earlier.

I felt the comments made by the IP were on-topic (even if I didn't agree with them) and should not have been removed. However, is Wikiscribe right on this issue?--Father Goose (talk) 04:12, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Why not talk to him first rather than come here? You didn't want to edit war (good decision) but you still could have discussed it at his talk page. Either way, if it's clearly a waste of effort, I'd say remove but if someone brings it up a second time, tell them that policy doesn't let anyone just use their personal opinions. It's not that complicated and you might get a good new editor (WP:BITE anyone?) Heck, a simple "do you have a source for that?" response probably would have put the whole thing to bed. I would hope next time that he at least posts something at the IP talk page so that they know the policy. If you want it there for some good reason, that's fine but bringing it up for no reason at all doesn't seem productive. Then again, if it's some nut who been constantly repeating the same complaints on the page, it's worth ignoring and removing. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:03, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
All I could have done on Wikiscribe's talk page is repeated the comments I made in my edit summaries. I do engage people in discussion whenever possible, but if an issue starts out completely polarized, as this one did, you have to seek outside help.
My point is essentially the same as yours: rather than reverting the IP, a simple "have a source for that?" would have been the least bite-y response. Maybe (s)he does have a source for it. The IP wasn't a nut, and had he placed his views in the article, I would have supported the revert. But by placing it on the talk page, he was trying to engage us in discussion about what the dates should be (which are very much up in the air), and I felt removing his comments was entirely inappropriate.
My goal was to keep the newbie from getting bitten. Since Wikiscribe is resisting that, I need the help of others to get the situation back on an even keel.--Father Goose (talk) 10:04, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
I have reverted again - there is no way you could assume good faith and call that soapboxing - obviously a suggestion to improve the article. ViridaeTalk 10:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree with FG and Viridae, This is simply a discussion of what the correct time span, & what to include in the article, no different from the usual run of comments there, which are mostly on this topic. The continual disputes about this are one of the problems with Generation Whatever articles comment, and I consider those deletions as improperly trying to carry out the discussion by deletion of other people's comments. But the reason to say something on the talk page is to serve -- if properly worded -- as advice and even a warning that such was out of place. But this editor discourages communication by immediately removing everything placed on his talk page.. Its his right to do this, but it dosn;'t help; maybe its time we decided otherwise. FG notified him of this discussion, and he immediately removed it. I just placed a warning about deleting other people's material from talk pages, and alerted him that deletion meant he had indeed seen the warning. DGG (talk) 17:01, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Move Rastafari movement to Rastafari[edit]

I know I could do this through "requested moves," but I hate having to navigate through Wikipedia's red tape when I can just directly ask admins.

Could someone move Rastafari movement to Rastafari? "Rastafari movement" is a bit superfluous. "Rastafarianism" is better but tends to be offensive and, in the past, consensus determined that it was an inappropriate label. Simply "Rastafari" seems to be enough and isn't likely to draw controversy.   Zenwhat (talk) 16:32, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

  • To ratid. Ahem. Guy (Help!) 16:45, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
  • The admins tell you to go to RFM. We hate having to do work ourselves when you can do it for us. --Golbez (talk) 21:45, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Unresolved AfD[edit]

Resolved: Closed as no consensus. — Scientizzle 18:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

So I just noticed that the AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Logic as a Positive Science was never closed. It was started on July 5 and is clearly expired, but no ruling was made on it, and nothing happened. I'm not sure if I should reinsert it into the AfD list, or if someone should just deal with this now. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 16:34, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Empty edit page at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Athletes[edit]

When I try to add an entry to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Athletes, I get an empty edit box.The non-edit page looks normal, though. --Eastmain (talk) 17:22, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I had this problem yesterday (with ANI ). How long has it lasted for you? I could edit ANI again within a half-hour.--chaser - t 17:24, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, still a problem. Can others see that page?--chaser - t 23:16, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Using &action=raw confirms ([17]) that the MediaWiki thinks the page is blank, even though the history clearly shows there should be 302 bytes. Null edit and purge already tried. Calvin 1998 (t-c) 23:24, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Fixed it!--chaser - t 23:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

More input requested[edit]

Discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Large amount of Rangeblocks by Raul654 has stalled without resolution. The issue is whether its appropriate to use rangeblocks for ~six months to deal with long-term disruption.--chaser - t 23:06, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

User:HBC AIV helperbot3 acting up[edit]

Please stop it It's removing useful info on an AIV report.Justin (koavf)TCM☯ 00:06, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

The IP was blocked and the bot removed the related comment. What am I missing? - auburnpilot talk 00:38, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Thats what it is programed to do, no? Tiptoety talk 00:42, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and the report appears that it would have a proper home here. —Travistalk 00:58, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Rollback is currently down[edit]

Resolved: After much begging and pleading the Developers decided to show mercy and restore rollback. KnightLago (talk) 03:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Just a note that rollback is currently dysfunctional due to a bug that makes the URL not have the required &from= parameter. Coupled with the fact that vandalism is actually quite high right now... thought I'd leave a note here. Calvin 1998 (t-c) 00:51, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Bug 14997, btw. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 00:52, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
    • One more quicky regards this, while Rollback is down, I have upped Vandalism information template to DEFCON1 to keep everyone on their toes to spot and revert as quickly as possible. Incidentally, some users in #wikipedia-en on IRC are getting rollback working through Twinkle, but not manually. Thor Malmjursson (talk) 00:59, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Twinkle doesn't use rollback, that's why it's working. Apparently it's already fixed in SVN, but I'm not seeing the results... Calvin 1998 (t-c) 01:01, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Per WP:BEANS, maybe we should keep this quiet. Heh. Enigma message 01:03, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


There's a redlink here for the archive section (and other stuff); seems Maxim deleted a few pages and is now on Wikibreak. Anyone want to take a look through the deleted content and try and clean things up so one of our most viewed portals doesn't start off with redlinks? —Giggy 09:54, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Nothing interesting has been deleted, there just isn't any content for a daily featured bio. The archive link was just a redirect (now updated to point to the correct spot). Kusma (talk) 10:05, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
If somebody creates featured bio snippets for August, just undo this edit to change to daily instead of monthly updating again. Kusma (talk) 10:07, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Kusma and DrK. It's always a shame when these things happen. I'd suggest the portal be moved over to {{random portal component}} to prevent such instances in the future (poke my talk if you need any help with it). —Giggy 10:18, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Nanshu and 2channel attacks again[edit]

I've noticed that editors deeply associated with 2channel, Japanese biggest internet forum resume their systematic meat/sockpuppetry again. I predict this same disruption would repeat again because Checkuser system does not hold info more than 4 months and they know it and discuss about it.

Among them, User:Nanshu, being deeply associated with the Korean bashing forum also falsely accused me of abusing RFCU system to ANI to to evade much attention to them. I found his plot on one of 2channal pages. After this, Nanshu scarcely appeared to Wikipedia. Anyway, whatever article he has edited has been strongly opposed by Korean editors because of his tendency of exaggerating and distorting information to minimize Korean culture and history.[20] His view is always same as follows. Korea had been a tributary state of China but luckily saved and modernized by Japanese colonial rule. "Koreans always cook up with new theories to make themselves superior than Japan regardless of their Inferiority". He claims that Korean influence on ancient Japanese history is minor, so removes such information. Whoever objects to his tilted point of view, he accuses them of doing vandalism, even thought those accusation are actually content disputes cuased by him[21][22][23] This can be recently seen at Talk:Kangnido and Talk:Yeongeunmun Gate. At Kangnido, he deliberately has repeatedly removed Korean geographer's credit in the lead and claims it as a mere Mongol's copy or tried to merge the article into other articles.

He also frequently makes personal attacks against me like "harmful to Wikepedia", "useless hard worker"[24], "doing things in unconstructive ways", "nuisance" and "obstruct" of Wikepedia[25], because I don't agree with his crooked point of views. Also his edit on Yeongeunmun Gate has been disputed by several editors, and 2channel people ridicule the gate and article as a symbol of Korea's humiliating diplomacy. So I put {{NPOV}} tag and he has tried to remove it as calling me "vandal" as his usual.[26][27] He also accused me of not improving the article. On the other hand, I have a lot of interests aside from Korean history, and he disappeared so often. Therefore, I don't feel urgent to edit Yeongeunmun Gate. He suddenly reappears again today and make a threat of accusing me again. I think this user's behaviors are totally not acceptable in Wikipedia. Earlier his such behaviors were watched and pointed by several admins too. He also creates articles by hearsay to denounce Korea such as Samurang which has been up for AFD. I believe his reappearance is just as same as the last case. Japanese editors are recently being blocked for their violation of policies, so try to remove their common enemy like me out of Wikipedia. They consult about how effectively to remove me like RFC or Arbcom files. They regard Wikipedia as places for their political propagandas or battlefield. Unlike Nanshu's accusation of "useless harmful editor", during their absent time, I've created or edited many "useful articles", so got more than 10 DYKs. Therefore, I believe their disruptive behaviors make editors unable to article in a peaceful and constructive way.

Moreover, they said they would move their forum to other places, but still retain the bashing forum within 2channel. According to their page, their meatpuppetry plots are evident. They still stalk me and other editors and record every move related to Korean history or Japanese, Chinese history. You can find my name mentioned there so many times, including even today and yesterday's my activities[28][29]2channel meatpuppeting 1

Japan-Korea related articles are really necessary to being brought from more adminins' attentions. Thanks--Caspian blue (talk) 01:17, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I also implemented Yeongeunmun Gate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch |