Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive172

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

Noticeboard archives


Speedy closing an RFA?[edit]

Sorry, I don't know the precise procedures for speedy closing an RFA per WP:SNOW. See Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Programmer888, since Programmer888 (talk · contribs) clearly isn't ready. Do we just use {{rfaf}} and {{rfab}} with an edit summary, notify the editor, and call it a day? --ZimZalaBim talk 14:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't look like Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Programmer888 has actually been opened (added to WP:RFA), so I don't think there's any need to do something with that particular page. The best thing to do would probably be to message the user on their talk page. Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 14:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Photos of battle damaged Buffalo MPCVs[edit]

Someone has posted photos of battle damaged Buffalo mine protected vehicles. [[Here]] The US Military strictly prohibits photos of battle damaged vehicles being posted on the internet. These photos can be used by anti-coalition forces to build better weapons to defeat these vehicles. Please remove the photos and once.

Thank you

Cycloneveteran (talk) 15:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I think the solution is to find a photo of one that isn't battle damaged and reupload the photo. It only takes an autoconfirmed account to do so. Cheers. lifebaka++ 16:45, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
What regulation or order covers BD iamges? --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 17:00, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
We already have photos of non-damaged ones, I presume this photo was uploaded as an example of one that was damaged. Mr.Z-man 17:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
[1] seems to be relevant, though its unclear whether it would apply to us, and I haven't been able to find any actual regulation saying this. I think we should wait for actual confirmation from the miltary (via OTRS) that we actually cannot host these pictures before we start deleting them. I would be surprised if this was the only picture that such a restriction would apply to. Mr.Z-man 17:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
This appears to be a slide-show presentation for soldiers, detailing what they can and can't publish in the internet, probably at peril of court-martial. I think the first amendment would prevent this from applying to the general public (those who have not waived their their right to free speech as a condition of government employment) but I am not a lawyer. — CharlotteWebb 18:59, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
On the one hand, Wikipedia is not censored. On the other hand, "It is not censorship to exercise mature and responsible editorial judgment." Discuss. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 18:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
The information might be public-domain, since it was collected by US military employees as part of their official duties, but releasing this information seems to have been against their instructions and certainly not part of their official duties. The copyright status of the material is therefore questionable. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:36, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
That's a tricky legal question. If we can agree that it does more harm than good to publish these photos on WP, that question can be avoided. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 18:38, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, I was just noting this to discourage any "It is PD so we must publish" arguments. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
The copyright status of the material is therefore questionable. ← Wrong, the copyright status is unambiguously PD if it was created by on-duty military. Whether publishing it in the U.S. is protected by the first amendment is another matter. Let's ask Mike Godwin about this. — CharlotteWebb 18:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't see how military regulations have any bearing on what we do. The soldier that released this photo might get in trouble but that's about it. BJTalk 18:54, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
The photo was uploaded by User:IraqVet225, selecting the Federal government public domain copyright template that doesn't quite apply. Using that template seems inaccurate, presenting it as a work of the Federal government. The template would apply if the Federal government was the source of the photo, as in presenting it on a federal website. The photo could still be public domain, but for reason that it is posted by the photographer and released by the photographer into the public domain. Not clear who took the photo and who releases it into the public domain. Anyhow, not every photo taken by someone who is a Federal employee is automatically in public domain. P.S. It doesn't appear to me that the photo is very revealing to anyone about any military secrets, although it may technically be a no-no for an on-duty soldier to take such a photo and post it. However, it is also technically a no-no for wikipedians to take other photos, without changing the legality of the photo. For example, wikipedians sometimes trespass onto private property and take a photo of a U.S. historic site, but I believe the owner of the property can only pursue a trespassing charge. The "illegally" taken photo can still be freely uploaded into the public domain and used in wikipedia with no legal problems, i believe. doncram (talk) 18:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually on further examination I don't think pictured vehicle is damaged enough to provide useful information to the enemy. All I can see are some holes in the glass windows, if that. So I'm not sure it would create a problem for anyone. Of course I'm not a lawyer or a ballistician, plus it's a small photo and I have uncorrected vision, etc. — CharlotteWebb 19:07, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any use issues with this photo. The U.S. military "strictly prohibits photos of battle damaged vehicles being posted on the internet" by members of the military. It has no authority over other uses, and there is no legal bar to the use of these photos. In terms of judgment, the photo should only appear in an article if there is an encylopedic reason for it, but illustrating the effects of IEDs or discussing the resistance or vulnerability of a given vehicle to attack is certainly an encyclopedic use. The public domain copyright status of the work is not affected by an internal regulation limiting what the government employee may subsequently do with the work. --MCB (talk) 19:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

This sounds like a Foundation, or at least an OTRS, issue to me. It's probably unwise for us to try and parse out whatever U.S. Military code this may or may not be in violation of. -Chunky Rice (talk) 19:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

So it may be not permitted for US military personnel to post such images on the internet, and WP is therefore uncertain if it therefore can host such images... Which leaves us with the unenviable situation of being okay to host pictures taken by non US military personnel of damaged US military vehicles; someone perhaps like an Al-Quada operative perhaps... Do these people have to train to be this dumb? It surely cannot be natural. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC) ps. Can I be a ballistician, too? It sounds "exotic"!
Yeah, I think we'd better step back and let OTRS and Co. handle the details. I'd be shocked if it DOES apply to us, but hey, you never know. (And LHvU, isn't the ballistician that guy who tells you to "turn your head and cough"? Because in that case? No thanks.) Gladys J Cortez 20:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Has someone contacted Mike about this? JoshuaZ (talk) 21:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
My .02 cents: I'd be less concerned about legal issues which might impact the project & more concerned about inadvertently causing someone in a combat area to be more seriously injured than they might otherwise have been.. In order to use an image of a damaged vehicle to build a better IED, the badguys would have to identify the specific build & placement of the IED that caused the damage to the pictured vehicle.. The chances of that happening from this 3yr old, non-geolocated, low-res photo are pretty slim. --Versageek 00:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Response from image uploader: First of all, I strongly disagree with the premise that the military prohibits posting pics of battle damaged vehicles on the internet. If this really is the case, you'd better tell the army that[2][3][4] and you should really tell the department of defense that[5][6]. Secondly, somebody please tell me how anything in this picture gives an advantage to any enemy who sees it. There is nothing in it that violates operational security other than to display the fact that it is really, really hard to blow up a Buffalo. It is a well known fact that the military releases photos of MRAPs hit by IEDs to show the enemy that it cannot hurt us. And even if it did give the enemy an advantage, it's not Wikipedia's job to take sides in a war. It is Wikipedia's policy to maintain a neutral point of view and editors should be bold and unopinionated with their edits. Also, don't we have an obligation to show folks back home what is going on? How good is a democracy that burns books and keeps it's citizens blind? Lastly, there is not a single Wikipedian rule or policy this image violates. It isn't copyright protected. It is pertinent, notable, and encyclopedic. Honestly, there isn't a single objectionable thing about it. You have to be careful, because if you violate Wikipedia's censorship policy and censor this one it opens the door to a whole lot of other images about related and unrelated images alike. How different would censoring this be from China censoring google search results? IraqVet225 (talk) 03:00, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

In support of IraqVet's comment above (which makes a lot of sense), I suspect that what we have here is one of the following: (1) a troll trying to jerk Wikipedia around by making a dubious accusation; or (2) someone associated with the Bush administration who wants the photo pulled because it makes what's-his-name look bad. While (1) is most likely the actual case, (2) is not Yet Another Conspiracy Theory -- the Bush Administration has been known to downplay all of the bad news concerning the Iraq occupation, which includes keeping the press from attending funerals for those killed in Iraq. (No, I don't understand the logic behind that either.) -- llywrch (talk) 06:25, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Considering this is Cycloneveteran's first and only post on Wikipedia ever, you may be right. However, I am inclined to assume good faith and not bite the newcomers that haven't yet learned Wikipedia's policies and the fact that this image doesn't violate them or the law in any way (doesn't even come close), just as I'd expect the people here to assume good faith on my behalf that the picture was taken and posted properly. IraqVet225 (talk) 09:57, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
IraqVet, I doubt anyone has any problem extending good faith to you -- or to almost any contributor, even if that person made only one edit. (My suspicion was directed at the OP, not you, just in case it is not clear.) However, knowing just how critical military secrets are, whether we are at war or at peace, do you believe that the Pentagon would simply leave a message on WP:AN asking that this be removed, or would they send a detachment of commissioned officers & government officials to the WMF to lean on the people there until the image was deleted from not only Wikipedia, but the database? If there was any chance this was a military secret, the image would have vanished within 24 hours of its posting as an OTRS action & there'd be a long thread full of demands to know why the image was removed. (And having written this much, I'm letting the topic drop since we should not feed the trolls.) -- llywrch (talk) 20:54, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
I've been in 21 years now, and this is the first I've ever heard of a supposed ban on posting images like this. Unless a user can CLEARLY come up with the EXACT military regulation that states such a ban, these and other images are clearly allowed. Rarelibra (talk) 13:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

A military regulation on this doesn't affect Wikipedia at all... Federal US law might, if there was a law that said that you couldn't publish photos of damaged US military vehicles, but there is no such law and such photos are released regularly by the military and taken by press and independent people. This is either a hostile troll attempt or someone who is terribly unaware of how the military regulation on what its people can do is inapplicable to what other unrelated people can or can't do. Ignore. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Error in "Bundling" at AFD[edit]

Would an Admin please check Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Accounts Payable Association (esp. my Comment to closer ) as there may be an error in how "Delete ALL"'s may be interpreted. Several AFD bundles seem to have been created all refering to the same bundle of Articles. Exit2DOS2000TC 01:42, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

  • That's a bit messy. Stifle (talk) 11:36, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I've put a note near the top of each AFD saying that it is for the named article only and is not a bundled AFD. Stifle (talk) 11:38, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks, I know you are a pretty regular AFD Lurker so I'll trust you might keep an eye on the outcomes. Just in case. Exit2DOS2000TC 18:58, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

1RR enquiry[edit]

Per User_talk:Boodlesthecat#1RR_restrictions and Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive474#Proposed_1RR_restrictions, and per text of WP:3RR (Contributors must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period, whether or not the edits involve the same material), can we consider the following edits a 1RR violation: revert 1 and 6h later, revert 2. PS. Proof that I am involved in this article and w/ regards to this very content: [7]. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 02:48, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I would like to note that I was the administrator who placed both Piotrus and Boodlesthecat on 1RR restrictions (when reverting one another) pending the outcome of Piotrus's current RfAr. I was asked to review these diff's earlier and was unable to come to a conclusion as to whether a block would be appropriate here. From my understanding you can revert a user quite a few times within a short period as long as the reverts are not related, and that is what appears to have happened on the page in question. But according to WP:3RR, it does not matter if the content they are reverting is the same or not. So, I would really appreciate if another administrator (or two or three) could give some input here. Tiptoety talk 02:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
I'd already blocked Boodlesthecat before noticing this. In my opinion, [8] is a clear revert to [9], and [10] is another one back to [11]. Even though the edits that they're reverting are different, each one counts individually, and also towards establishing a pattern of hostile editing; there's a partial revert here on the fifth, and another one here. This is fundamentally edit warring to the maximum extent that one thinks that one is allowed daily, and it isn't healthy. The intent of a 1RR sanction is to stop hostile behavior, not establish a numerical hoop that must be jumped through every day. We might need a different solution if unconstructive editing practices continue. east718 // talk // email // 03:42, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, I probably would not have blocked in this situation, if only because I see both of these editors names on this noticeboard and in other places on such a regular basis that I am getting beyond the point of "This one did something wrong now" as a reason to block. But that said, I do see east's block as reasonable. I would urge both of these editors to disengage entirely from each other and stop with the noticeboard posts, they are far to frequent for any good to come. MBisanz talk 03:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
"if only because I see both of these editors names on this noticeboard and in other places on such a regular basis that I am getting beyond the point of "This one did something wrong now" as a reason to block". Thank you for giving me another example for my essay on "mud sticks" :> In future, when you see an editor "frequently on ANI", do consider that he may not be a wrongdoer, but a victim of constant harassment. Victim blaming is a common occurence, unfortunately.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 07:43, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
I think my block is reasonable only to the effect that it's a temporary stopgap until we figure out what to do. I don't like blocking established contributors, and have found that 1RR often creates more trouble than it solves - again, the effect with the hoops. A more elegant solution that is equitable to all is required here. east718 // talk // email // 03:53, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
To be honest, on the 2 diffs alone, I'd initally come to a conclusion that no block was needed here. The sanction was to stop Piotrus/Boodlesthecat reverting between each others versions, even if they're reinstated through another neutral editor. This was a completely different revision & editor so the sanction didn't apply. However, east718 has established a clear pattern of edit-warring so a block on that basis is certainly reasonable. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Just observing that Piotrus is an admin and is also on restriction. Fascinating. Bstone (talk) 04:05, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Btw, Piotrus is the subject of a second ArbCom case at the moment. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes. Amazing, isn't it. Shouldn't admins be expected to set a positive example by their behavior? — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 04:16, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
In any case, on this occasion, this is about Boodlescat rather than Piotrus. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Silly me. I didn't realize that it's acceptable for an admin to recruit edit warriors to do his dirty work for him. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 04:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
It's silly of us to assume, even for a moment, that our admins follow policy and be positive examples to and of the community. Bstone (talk) 05:02, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
It's sad of us to assume, in every case apparently, that every action by a WP editor is an act of bad faith. See Malik Shabazz's innuendo in this thread. WP is more about tar and feather than about pen and ink. —PētersV (talk) 05:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
P.S. To Bstone, a cursory gander at your contributions is quite positive, your cynicism is unbecoming. PētersV (talk) 05:18, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
My cynicism can be easily rectified by making admins accountable for their actions. Quite easy, in fact. But silly me. So, so silly me for expecting anything otherwise. Bstone (talk) 06:32, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Cynicism? How? Bstone has every right to inquire about an administrator's poor actions -- who is the subject of a second ArbCom case of all things. Administrators are accountable to the editors; we cannot be selective on what we enforce and run amok. seicer | talk | contribs 13:36, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Please see my reply on 07:43, 8 October 2008 (UTC) above. Score another one for mud smearing campaign :( --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 15:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
I would be less cynical if Bstone didn't have a long history of yelling "admin abuse" every time something (usually not involving him) comes to one of the AN boards that might involve an admin having done something wrongly [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17][18] and ad nauseam. Black Kite 16:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
BK, I am actually quite flattered you're keeping tabs on me. However this thread isn't about me, it's about another admin. Bstone (talk) 18:04, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I'm not keeping tabs on you, those took about five minutes to find. Black Kite 18:42, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Boody's edit warring was bad enough, but I think that the biggest problem was his rampant incivility: in the past week, accusations of "spreading anti-semitic propaganda", "attempts to make this entry into a vehicle for anti-semitic libels", "bullying threats to vandalize articles that contain referenced material you dont like", clear and direct accusations of vandalism, "Are you committed to manipulating, distorting and twisting every aspect of this encyclopedia?". PS. Malik, I am really disappointed with your actions: I've asked you time and again to moderate Boody; you have failed to do so, and instead complain about those trying to stop his harassment. That's not the way to go... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 07:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Tiptoety's comment above suggests that future 1RR restrictions should be worded in a better way. For instance, if there is a mutual 1RR, neither party should revert more than once a day *in total* on page that the other party has edited in the last 48 hours. Otherwise the reverts may be too hard to count and admin action could lead to disagreements, as in this case. Regarding the general idea of imposing 1RR restrictions, the idea still seems good, since it is a milder option than some of the alternatives. EdJohnston (talk) 14:16, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
EdJohnston, I agree it might be a good idea to amended the current wording of the revert sanctions, just to make them a bit more clear in the future. I currently do not have the time to contact Boody to see if he would be willing to agree to the wording: "neither party should revert more than once a day *in total* on page that the other party has edited". If someone would not mind doing that? And Piotrus, does that seem reasonable to you? Tiptoety talk 18:44, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Implicit in that is assumption of good faith on the part of other editors when they revise (as opposed to revert) on a page. Otherwise we have a case where one or both (or more) sides operate from a blanket assumption of bad faith. I've already been attacked and labeled a Piotrus lackey for a neutral edit that actually preserved a disputed source. —PētersV (talk) 18:59, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

For the record, Boody has asked to be unblocked via unblock template twice in the past few hours and been declined twice ([19], [20])... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:41, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Oversight request[edit]

Partially offtopic: could oversight remove this terrible slander? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 15:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Oversight has been requested. Kevin (talk) 21:42, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Editing a user's posts[edit]


Should this edit be reverted? It is apparently an IP interfering with a registered user's post to a talk page and changing the signature. But it occured to me that it may be the original user trying to anonymise the comment. What should be done, if anything? SpinningSpark 16:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Is the IP == that user? Protonk (talk) 16:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Nothing needs to be done; a review of their contribs makes it pretty obvious it's the same user, who sometimes edits while logged in, and sometimes edits while logged out. A quick review of their contribs shows a dedicated wikignome with lots of good work and no apparent ulterior motive, so rather than revert, or even raise the issue with them, I'd just leave it alone. --barneca (talk) 17:03, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Bad faith AfD nomination[edit]

Resolved: Was closed as speedy keep. — Realist2 20:53, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

An editor just nominated Honorific titles in popular music for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Honorific titles in popular music (3rd nomination). The reasoning given is pointy to say the least had verges on bad faith. This is the articles 3rd nomination, infact, I made the original AfD nomination several months ago and here I am supporting the article today. The article has it's problems, I rant about them regularly on the article talk page. However three established editors: myself, User:Rodhullandemu and User:Bookkeeperoftheoccult watchlist and improve the article daily, removing all unsourced, pov info that arrives. There is also regular talk page discussion on what direction to take the article. It's in good hands to say the least. I spoke with Rodhullandemu about the latest nomination, I was tempted to remove the AfD myself, but Rod suggested I brink it to AN. Looking for a speedy resolution to this and hopefully some assistance on stopping these AfD's that pop up every month. — Realist2 18:23, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Hardly "every month" if there's only been two previously. If it is so obvious, then there will be a string of speedy keeps and someone will close it soon.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 18:32, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Those are just "official" AfD's, the crazier ones are removed much quicker. — Realist2 18:34, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
The major problem with this AfD is that it hasn't followed the process; as the Admin who closed the previous nomination and an editor who has added content since then, I would rather a fresh pair of eyes looked at this. --Rodhullandemu 18:27, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Chinese New Year[edit]

Could some other admins step in and keep a close eye on this article? There is a rather large shit-storm brewing over there, and I am not very much interested in getting into the middle of it. I'm not much interested in taking sides, but there has been an ongoing edit war, personal attacks, and general WP:LAME-ness going on. It appears this may be a spill over from other articles as well, but I can't make heads or tails of it, and I am just asking if a few more admins, who are better at conflict resolution than I, could take a peek at the situation and see what they can do about mediating or stopping the mess. Thanks. 02:38, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


I kinda fragged Crack cocaine cleaning up giant turds; could someone fix it? -Jéské (v^_^v Kacheek!) 03:00, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I saw no evidence of recent turd cleanup, but I did restore two blanked sections, if that helps. (wtf?) -- Vary Talk 03:29, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
X! fixed it. -Jéské (v^_^v Kacheek!) 03:37, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Chinese New Year[edit]

Could some other admins step in and keep a close eye on this article? There is a rather large shit-storm brewing over there, and I am not very much interested in getting into the middle of it. I'm not much interested in taking sides, but there has been an ongoing edit war, personal attacks, and general WP:LAME-ness going on. It appears this may be a spill over from other articles as well, but I can't make heads or tails of it, and I am just asking if a few more admins, who are better at conflict resolution than I, could take a peek at the situation and see what they can do about mediating or stopping the mess. Thanks. 02:38, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


I kinda fragged Crack cocaine cleaning up giant turds; could someone fix it? -Jéské (v^_^v Kacheek!) 03:00, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I saw no evidence of recent turd cleanup, but I did restore two blanked sections, if that helps. (wtf?) -- Vary Talk 03:29, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
X! fixed it. -Jéské (v^_^v Kacheek!) 03:37, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Huge backlog at Category:Candidates for speedy deletion[edit]

Hi there, fellow admins, Category:Candidates for speedy deletion has a huge backlog the whole day already, I would like to request some more help clearing it (especially those images). TIA SoWhy 15:55, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

On it. Thanks for the notice. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 15:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Dear lord, that's a lot of media files. Gonna' go what a few dozen. lifebaka++ 19:34, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Someone pulled together a userspace identifying duplicated images. Category:Disputed non-free images needs some work too. I cleared two days' worth earlier. Stifle (talk) 20:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for all the help, it still needs much work on those images. I do not want to tackle many at the moment, being a newbie at it and being quite busy at the moment. Regards SoWhy 21:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Off to do some CSD I8 deletion. OhanaUnitedTalk page 13:04, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
It's off to more than 500 entries now! It really needs a joint effort of a dozen admins to be coped with, please join in! TIA SoWhy 07:28, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


apparently this page is blocked from bieng created. I would like to write an article about the village of Radοžda in the Republic of Macedonia. Can any one tell why its creation is blocked and please free the article. PMK1 (talk) 04:54, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Try again. I think I've removed the problematic entries from the title blacklist. --Carnildo (talk) 05:58, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
I've restored them. The reason Radοžda is blacklisted is because it contains a Greek omicron. Try Radožda instead. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 12:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
What's wrong with omicrons? Shouldn't this at least be a redirect? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:02, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
The title blacklist contains a few entries designed (presumably) with the intent of avoiding the use of characters that look like standard English letters - but aren't - in an attempt to get around other entries in the blacklist that target particular unwanted page titles. I do agree, however, that if the proper name uses an omicron then either the article or a redirect should use the correct character, something which an admin would have to take care of. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 22:16, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm quite sure that the proper name does not contain an omicron, or any other Greek letters for that matter. I've no idea how it originally ended up in there, but apparently someone typed it that way somewhere and everyone has since been cutting and pasting the broken version around. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 11:58, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

remove from blacklist[edit]

please remove from the black list to update stock footage section in wikipedia Stock footage

I was editing the page on Stock footage and included Russian Stock Footage Library link, This link will contribut wikipedia stck footage page because Russian Footage provides archival motion imagery, stock footage and research services for documentary producers who are willing to license video from state Russian archives, other Russian video libraries. Please help me to unblock the web site Somehow it is blacklisted now. It deserves to be added to Wikipedia stock footage section here: Stock footage. Thank you in advance — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oxana s (talkcontribs) 14:23, 8 October 2008

Em? You've never edited that page? Indeed this is the fist edit of this account. Methinks this is not so innocent.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 13:34, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
A bit of WP:AGF wouldn't go amiss. If an attempt is made to insert a blacklisted link, saving of the edit will fail; that would account for not having edited the page in question. ➨ ЯEDVERS will never be anybody's hero now 13:36, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Hm. Yes, and the account that's never edited before immediately knows where to find this board and then, with his next edit, 2 minutes later the spam blacklist. I'll see your AGF, and raise you a WP:DUCK.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 13:42, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
He might have found the spam blacklist because MediaWiki:Spamprotectiontext links right to it.. --Conti| 13:48, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Yeah maybe. But this account is entitled "Oxana" previous spammers of this link have had accounts like "user:Oxxxrsdsy" "Oxxxrsds" "Oxxxrs" "Oxxie" "Oxxx" "Oxromss" "Oxyruyyyurq" and so on......quacking yet?--Scott MacDonald (talk) 13:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Reviewers may wish to see Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/LinkReports/ for blacklisting information. ➨ ЯEDVERS will never be anybody's hero now 13:32, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello Everyone, thanks for paying attention, feels like on a trial, but I do appreciate your work very much, I have personally edited all the mentioned account and my name is Oxana and I run and I think that if we provide information on the stock footage page that will contribute this page , because international producers always while making documentary for Discovery and National Geographic are looking for Russian stock footage and do not know where to refer? Tanks you so much for your help …Don’t you watch documentaries on National Geographic? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oxana s (talkcontribs) 15:16, 8 October 2008

Oxana s, if you would have gone through the trouble of actually reading the warnings that were left on your many, many accounts (this actually is about 4 domains this far!) then you would not have gotten here, and maybe your link could have been used here in an appropriate way.

In case you really missed all of those welcome message, remarks, warnings, please review WP:ENC, WP:NOT#REPOSITORY, WP:NOT#DIRECTORY, WP:EL, WP:COI, WP:USERNAME, WP:SOCK, and maybe more. The links have been on XLinkbot for some time, but as I think recall saying in my blacklisting remark, 'enough is enough' (no, did not say that, that was for another case; diff). May I suggest others to have a look, at a certain time I caught an edit after the blacklisting where a youtube video was linked, where the youtube link was actually an upload of a movie on one of the four servers (diff). I guess the request to remove from blacklisting is  Declined until you can convince regular editors that your links do have a use here on wikipedia. --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:25, 8 October 2008 (UTC) (adapted Dirk Beetstra T C 16:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC))

From Russia with Love

Hello Dirk,

would you please make an exception this time, and not be that very judgmental, we really have a lot of interesting video which would benefit related wikipedia page, well if its a tabu to insert the links on any other pages, please allow to do on stock footage page, which is directly appeals to people looking for stock footage, please allow them to know where to find the stock footage . professional video in Russia … I never ever inserted irrelevant links to wikipedia pages, and I read comments later on realizing that I am actually doing something wrong… truly was not my intention ... Full awareness came after U blocked the sites...But I promise we will not divert our links to your pages ( even if our video benefits it) ...Please whitelist our websites

Oxana— Preceding unsigned comment added by oxana s (talkcontribs)

Oxana, we are writing an encyclopedia here, not a linkfarm. If you have content to add, then please do so. If that needs to be referenced, and your site is the only site that can verify the content, then you can contact the local whitelist and request if the specific url can be whitelisted.
If you believe the link has merit, then I would suggest to you is that you contact an appropriate wikiproject (see Wikipedia:WikiProject, or you can look at banners on talkpages of pages where you think your link is of interest), or contact regular editors on pages you want to edit (see the history of the pages, and find editors who expand the pages), and ask them what they think about the link, and the information it provides. I hope this explains. I am not going to make an exception after this long history of sockpuppetry and continuous link-additions, sorry. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:14, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
I will second the decline based on the evidence above. Its a link that has a known history of spamming, and was added to the blacklist for good reason. Account that seems related to the link asks to have it removed, no thanks. —— nixeagle 16:33, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Merge discussion closure[edit]

The merge discussion for I Am Rich has petered out and needs closing. See Talk:App Store#Relist for more details, including the reason for requesting closure here. Thanks, Orpheus (talk) 17:36, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Ho-Chunk mythology[edit]

Could someone please look at User talk:Xenocidic#Ho-Chunk mythology and provide me some assistance here? The user seems to want the article returned to it's April stub and claims the material he has written is copyrighted from his website and he wishes to withdraw his contributions. I don't have the time at present to properly deal with this inquiry. –xeno (talk) 19:20, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Normally when an editor makes a contribution that's copyrighted to another writer, we treat that as a WP:COPYVIO and revert, block etc as necessary. But when an editor submits their own writing ("You irrevocably agree to release your contributions under the terms of the GFDL") they cannot later withdraw permission. So the question for Mike Godwin et al to answer is, did the author violate their own copyright by posting the text here? If that is possible, their text should be removed. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 20:34, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
That was the main issue that I was trying to get my head around: especially if the author paraphrased his own work when contributing it. –xeno (talk) 20:36, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Contact information for Mike Godwin (he has an article!) can be found at User:MGodwin. It has his phone number and email address. It may be a good idea to refer the user directly to Mike and ask him to contact Mike either on wiki, or off wiki via email or phone, to decide how to proceed. You may also want to drop Mike a note yourself and give him a heads-up over the situation and let him handle it. 20:51, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
userdiete003 has removed all of his contributions to this page, although I'm not sure if the above mentioned attempts at arbitration have taken place or helped. I have stopped reverting his vandalizing edits until this is resolved, but he is currently vandalizing what is left of the page. I keep trying to Wikipedia:Assume good faith, and not try to make any of this worse. Would some admins please step in again?Heironymous Rowe (talk) 04:25, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
I've emailed Mike Godwin. Let's see what he has to say. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 13:31, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Ah, my apologies, I should've probably mentioned I emailed him last night. No response yet. –xeno (talk) 13:32, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
We can wait. There is no deadline for the article to reach its final state. I think the important thing to do in the meanwhile is avoid making matters worse. I considered protecting the article pending a resolution, but didn't want to inflame the situation. As far as I'm concerned, this is a good faith academic contributor who's ignorant of how Wikipedia works and as such it's important not to step on their toes. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 13:41, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
He can still remove his own contents even if they are under GFDL, BUT people may continue to use the contents released this way as long as they use the revision (not the later derivative) released under GFDL. OhanaUnitedTalk page 14:01, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
My view is essentially the same as OhanaUnited's. I will note, however, that the facts themselves are not copyrightable, so a recreation of the article that doesn't use this particular author's text but that does include the facts (and links) should be fine. MikeGodwin (talk) 15:54, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Such things happen from time to time. An example is Buddhism in Korea, written originally by someone who just used his own text in 2003. In 2004, he came along and claimed the text violated his copyright. When he didn't understand that he could not enforce deletion of his text, which he had released under the GFDL by posting it here, I just took his version and rewrote it. That settled the issue for good. Lupo 21:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

SJRCC Redirect Page, but will not let me create it[edit]

Resolved: Created. ➨ ЯEDVERS will never be anybody's hero now 12:30, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I am trying to create a redirect page (SJRCC) for St. Johns River Community College. However, it will not let me create the page because it is protected on the list thingy. I searched for it on there, but I didn't see it (I can understand why most of those are on there, but SJRCC is just an abbreviation). Other pages, schools, etc. have redirect pages, so why can't SJRCC?

I will PWN (talk) 12:17, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure which "list thingy" you mean. SJRCC doesn't appear to be protected. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
I had no trouble at all creating it - not one warning. Perhaps you were logged out and saw the "anon users cannot do this" page? Whatever, it now exists as requested. Best to remember that sometimes stuff like this happens around here and it's rare for it to be personally targetted against you or your college. ➨ ЯEDVERS will never be anybody's hero now 12:30, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
It was probably blocked by the title blacklist. Admins can bypass that blacklist with no confirmation that they have done so. Graham87 14:32, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
I just tried creating two similar pages with my non-admin account and didn't have any problem. But it could still be that. Stifle (talk) 16:00, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't seem to match anything on the blacklist. --Carnildo (talk) 22:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Community ban proposal regarding PoliticianTexas is at WP:ANI[edit]

There is an ongoing discussion regarding a proposed community ban against PoliticianTexas, a disruptive sock puppeteer. Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#More_copyvio_by_User:LamyQ and its subsections. Thanks. --Uncia (talk) 19:46, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Chevy Chase death hoax[edit]

An organized campaign to say that Chevy Chase has deceased (he most certainly has not) from a wide range of IPs seems to have begun. I wasn't sure where to post this, so I'll start here. miquonranger03 (talk) 06:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Nipped it; I deliberately left it indef'd semi. Remove when necessary. -Jéské (v^_^v Kacheek!) 06:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

New proposal - provisional adminship[edit]

See discussion here (permanent link). Jehochman Talk 08:22, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Block review needed[edit]


I just noticed this block to NJGW (talk · contribs). User:Elonka is wielding her admin power too frivolously. This block should be immediately retracted because: 1) NJGW was not warned, 2) it was not edit warring, he was trying to keep the peace, 3) others were trying to edit war, 4) they were not all the same reverts. By Elonka's logic, we can't do any editing to these articles. She has appointed herself sheriff of these articles, and I don't think she's doing the right thing by WP:AGF and a whole host of other core principles. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 20:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

NJGW has been warned for 3RR in the past,[21] and also blocked for edit-warring.[22] It is not necessary to issue new warnings each time, especially in such controversial areas as the Pseudoscience-related areas. --Elonka 20:06, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
(ec):Without endorsing OMs summary of the situation, I do agree that this block seems undeserved. Perhaps Elonka will reconsider shortly, and let's try to keep it as undramatic as possible! Verbal chat 20:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Wasn't there an Arbcom ruling for these articles? —Wknight94 (talk) 20:14, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
It seems Elonka is focusing too much on editors who edit from a neutral point of view on Pseudoscience-related areas. QuackGuru 20:16, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
This certainly does not look like edit warring, and a warning could have resolved any issues rather than jumping straight to a doubtful block. An early unblock would be a good idea. . . dave souza, talk 20:26, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
(e/c) The relevant ArbCom case is Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience, which empowers uninvolved administrators to take any necessary action to reduce disruption to the project. In this particular case though, the block was not based on discretionary sanctions, but plain old 3RR, which any admin could have done. To provide a bit more context, other editors were warring too, and have been appropriately warned, but no one else (that I could see) passed 3RR yet. Also, some of the battling editors are the same ones who battle at other pseudoscience articles, such as Chiropractic (which was the Topic du Jour today). Though the four reverts were not specifically to the same version of the article, they were mostly related to whether "Chiropractic" should be listed as a pseudoscience or not. --Elonka 20:27, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
What edit warring, and what other editors? I've been active on this page today and I completely missed it. The removal of the incorrectly placed fact tag is hardly a revert. Verbal chat 20:31, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
(ec) I would also encourage an early unblock, as the diffs don't look like an edit war to me - there are a number of changes made to the section in question through the diffs pointed out, and discussion on the talk page as well. The lack of a warning is a big issue to me as well; we should be giving good editors notice before pulling the block trigger. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:32, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Endorse unblock. Block was unwarranted. It's a far stretch to claim that all of those edits are reverts, and certainly there was no blocking that needed to be done. HiDrNick! 20:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Here's what I would propose: NJGW is unblocked, as a gesture of goodwill. He agrees to refrain from editing pseudoscience for the duration of the block, as a gesture of goodwill. We move on with our lives. MastCell Talk 20:43, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
The war was a clear overflow from the other battles at the Chiropractic article, which is also within the scope of the Pseudoscience case and tends to have many of the same editors battling. To be more specific, here are the reverts that I saw from this editor within the last 24 hours:
  • revert #1 - re-adding a list of examples of pseudoscience, including "Chiropractic"
  • revert #2 - removing a fact tag which was challenging whether "Chiropractic" should be in the examples list
  • revert #3 - re-adding "Chiropractic" to the examples list
  • revert #4 - re-adding the list of examples, including "Chiropractic"
--Elonka 20:44, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Let's see how this started. Levine2112 claimed his revert was reverting vandalism. But his motivation was to delete any mention of chiropractic and not to revert vandalism. Levine2112 blindly reverted to an old version. QuackGuru 20:47, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, editors familar with editing can see the difference between editing and editwarring. Unfortunately it seems Elonka still hasn't learnt anything from her RfC. Shot info (talk) 21:25, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Can anyone tell me why MastCell's suggestion should not be used here? Anyone? --barneca (talk) 20:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Because NJGW has signed off for a bit, so he can't agree to anything on-Wiki until he gets back. Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 20:58, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
NJGW is his own man, of course, and may be perfectly happy to accept the restriction. Still, I don't see why he would be bullied into the concession when he shouldn’t have been blocked in the first place. It would be sensible to let consensus take its course and the unblock cometh. HiDrNick! 21:01, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Well, if this is truly a case of RightTM vs. WrongTM, then I suppose put me down as supporting an unconditional unblock, combined with a request (not a demand) that NJGW avoid the article for a day as a gesture of goodwill and a way to cool everyone down. I will say, however, that an orange bar instead of a block would have served the same purpose without all the fireworks. --barneca (talk) 21:13, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
I agree with that last point - it's actually not that hard to go over 3RR without noticing it if you're editing various parts of a highly active article. In such cases, it's an admin's judgement call on how to proceed - a block is justifiable, but for a good-faith editor a word to the wise and a request to self-revert or disengage can accomplish the same thing with less drama. I remember accidentally and unwittingly going over 3RR on a very active article, and I was quite grateful to the admin who notified me and asked me to stop editing the article - which I happily did - rather than blocking me.

Anyhow, I'm not trying to bully anyone into anything, which is why I proposed that both the unblock and the disengagement be undertaken as gestures of goodwill, in a no-fault process aimed at getting back to business. MastCell Talk 21:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

As an undirected reminder/comment: 3RR is a bright-line limitation, not a right to three reversions. Edit warring of any kind is discouraged, sometimes by blocks.--Tznkai (talk) 20:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

  • It seems to me unreasonable to have taken the various differing edits as editwarring, and the relationship to any dispute at Chiropractic seems tenuous – that article was last edited on the 6th, and while Levine appears in the talk page, I've not found any evidence that NJGW edited there in the last few days. The discussion on User talk:Levine2112 looks very reasonable. Elonka, as a goodwill gesture can you please unblock, and obviously if there is any disruptive return to that article within 24 hours that can be taken up as a reasonable reason for a reblock. . . `dave souza, talk 21:18, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Dave, with all due respect, I understand that you're an administrator, but you are also an involved editor in this topic area. Other "involved" voices in this thread so far: OrangeMarlin, QuackGuru, Verbal, Shot Info... Which doesn't mean that the opinions are unwanted, but it may be best if consensus is determined more from the uninvolved voices. In any case, if NJGW is willing to promise to avoid the Pseudoscience article for a day, I have no problem with an unblock. I see the block was also reviewed by (uninvolved) User:AGK,[23] who is saying the same thing that I am, which is that if NJGW is willing to give an assurance, then an unblock is reasonable, but until then, it should not be lifted. --Elonka 21:45, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
      • You missed your own name off the list of "involved" editors (for completeness). I support Dave's compromise. Verbal chat 22:01, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Ah yes, now we are getting to the core of Elonka's issue's with Wikipedia. All editors are equal...but some are more equal than others. Shot info (talk) 22:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Elonka points out these four reverts today: [24] [25] [26] [27]. Since the user had been blocked for edit warring before, and this is a bright-line 3RR violation, the block seems reasonable to me. Three of the reverts even include the word "revert" in the edit summary... making it hard to say that NJGW didn't realize he was edit warring. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:52, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I've thought about this before, and have no comments on the current situation, but couldn't the 3RR be gamed, with one editor making four completely different bad edits to the same article, and another not being able to revert them all without violating 3RR? --NE2 22:01, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it could hypothetically be gamed that way, except that normally other editors would be willing to revert as well. There's no need for a single editor to assume the role of "guardian of the article". — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:04, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Well, for n "guardians", the editor could make 3n+1 bad edits. In addition, there could be multiple bad editors, and each "guardian" would have to take time away from "guarding" to ensure they don't go over 3RR. --NE2 22:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
You're right. If the situation gets bad enough, it may require an RFC or some sort of dispute resolution to demonstrate the broader consensus. In some cases protection may even be needed. But there's little harm if "wrong version" appears for while in many cases - this one included. The dispute here is only over a list of examples of pseudoscience, after all. (And, an editor who makes e.g. 20 obviously bad-faith edits in a day would probably draw some admin attention. The real issue here is with edits that are not obviously bad faith). — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

This is not a violation of the 3RR, supporting unblock. -- Ned Scott 21:59, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Could you comment on the four diffs I have posted above? — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:03, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
I stand corrected. -- Ned Scott 22:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I also want to respond to Orangemarlin's original post. WP:EW is clear that "keeping the peace" is not an excuse for edit warring, nor is the fact that other people are edit warring too; and WP:3RR is clear that the reverts do not have to be on the same material, only on the same article. So the only objection with possible merit seems to be that NJGW wasn't warned before the block. I do usually favor warning even experienced editors before 3RR blocks. But given the clearly controversial nature of this page, experienced editors should know to be especially careful to avoid edit warring on it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:03, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Even if you concede that the 3RR was broken, I still don't see the edit warring. Verbal chat 22:06, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
This *does* look like a conventional 3RR violation. (If submitted at WP:AN/3RR a block would likely have issued). In such a case, a wider study of the editor's motives and previous history doesn't seem necessary. This case is a plain old 3RR. (Such violations are easy to avoid if you are reasonably careful). I support the above suggestions that the block could be lifted if NJGW gives assurances. Since this an experienced editor who was previously blocked for 3RR in July, no new 3RR warning is needed. EdJohnston (talk) 22:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
I also have no objections to Mastcell's suggestion; I should have pointed that out originally. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:21, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
<ec>Not to go backwards in time, but just to make sure that NJGW doesn't get a bad rep around here, but his first 3RR block was kind of erroneous. He was trying to stop a bunch of socks from destroying an article, and ended up being "unfairly" blocked. NJGW is not the kind of editor that games the system or attempts to find ways to commit 3RR. I honestly believe he believes (talk about AGF) he wasn't engaging in an edit war. In fact, whether rightly or wrongly, he was trying to prevent edit warring by two different, and honestly, strong-willed editors in QuackGuru and Levine2112. My point was that there are lots of editors who deserve this type of treatment. A review of what NJGW does around here would indicate that there is a lot of latitude can be given. I've seen it time and again that good editors get slack. I'm concerned that NJGW gets support from the "usual suspects" to paraphrase the above, but there's not a review of Elonka's behavior in this issue.OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 22:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
By pulling the "uninvolved" ace out from the sleeve, editors are seemingly able to invoke some sort of magical immunity it seems. Shot info (talk) 22:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
I was thinking the same thing. Also, "uninvolved" gets to be self-proclaimed, and "involved" is now an accusation that means "cease and desist." This is not a good situation. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 23:11, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

NJGW has returned, and promised to stay away from the Pseudoscience article for a bit,[28] so I went ahead and unblocked. --Elonka 00:00, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for carrying out the unblocking, I'm glad to note the gracious way in which NJGW presented the promise not to edit the article for 24 hours, so hopefully no harm done. As a point of etiquette, your remark about "involved editor in this topic area" strikes me as uncivil, and note that I was not involved in this dispute and made no use of the tools. In the context of your own involvement with giving Levine free advice about acting civilly at Chiropractic, in my opinion it would have been wiser to give NJGW a well justified warning about edit warring rather than giving a block without warning. Hopefully everyone has learnt from this incident and there should be no repetition of the problems. . . dave souza, talk 08:17, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Violation of WP:GAME[edit]

Levine2112 assumed bad faith and claimed his revert was to revert vandalism. The comment by Levine2112 is misleading and disruptive. QuackGuru 23:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

For which he seems to be apologising. Why the need to run to mother?--Scott MacDonald (talk) 23:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Apparently QuackGuru misunderstands what I wrote in the diff which he provided. I never said that I was reverting vandalism, nor did I describe NJGW's edits as vandalism. I said that I believed that the intermediary edits (those between the one which NJGW made and my revert were either vandalism or reverts of vandalism). Upon further scrutiny and through discussion with NJGW, I see that at least one of those intermediary edits was a robot fixing a Korean link. And for this oversight, I have apologized to NJGW. Anyhow, I think it is clear that QuackGuru's charge of WP:GAME is one based on his misunderstanding (either he overlooked the word "intermediary" or doesn't know its definition). I have explained this too him several times on his talk page and mine [29][30], but he has rudely blanked out my explanations each time. [31] [32] Despite my explanation, he thought it appropriate to post this message here. I think this speaks tomes about QuackGuru. Not much more to say here about this really. -- Levine2112 discuss 23:28, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
According to NJGW, That's a bit of a stretch. with the vandalism suggestion. QuackGuru 23:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Actually it's not much of a stretch at all. Nearly every intermediary edit was either a vandalizing IP or an editor reverting said vandalism. And for any "real" edits which I overlooked, I have apologized. I have to say that I agree with Scott MacDonald above with regards to your behaviour, QuackGuru: Why the need to run to mother? -- Levine2112 discuss 23:41, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
QuackG, now who is assuming bad faith, after running here to complain about ABF? There's a great new essay WP:SAUCE.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 23:42, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
This is not the first time Levine2112 has claimed an edit was vandalism. Read the edit summary. QuackGuru 23:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
QG, your new example is a bit weak because it's a Twinkle edit, and you are assuming bad faith here. I can't blame you for that under the circumstances, but it would have been wise not to come with the "he assumed bad faith" accusation. (See also WP:AAGF.)
Levine, it's certainly possible that with this edit you went to the trouble of going back to this version from 3 weeks ago thinking "there has been so much vandalism in the last 3 weeks and not a single legitimate edit other than reverting it, so it's best to go back to a very old version to make sure it doesn't contain any unnoticed vandalism", and you also forgot to look at the changes before saving. People do have funny thoughts like that. But personally I agree with QG that the more plausible scenario is that you thought you can hide a substantial edit in this way and have plausible deniability. In either case you should probably be more careful in the future. --Hans Adler (talk) 00:15, 9 October 2008 (UTC) [edited 00:37, 9 October 2008 (UTC)]
The example is strong when you read what Levine2112 wrote about the edit. According to Levine2112: Yes, I consider your previous edit to be vandalism, edit warring, and disruptive. QuackGuru 00:39, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Update: This was Leviine2112's recent response. QuackGuru 02:14, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

May I suggest that QuackGuru and Levine2112 are well known to the administrators who watch these articles. As long term partisans with obvious points of view, it is not terribly convincing when you complain about each other. Could you both stop wasting our patience. These complaints serve no productive purposes. Maybe you could both go off and edit unrelated articles and actually contribute something of value to the encyclopedia. Jehochman Talk 14:28, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Reporting block evasion[edit]

Resolved: I've reset User:Ivan Štambuk's block back to 24 hours and blocked the IP for 24 hours as well. Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 13:19, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Where do I go to report a user openly using an IP address to avoid a 3RR block? I had a look at AIV:sockpuppets, but that didn't look right. +Hexagon1 (t) 10:40, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Here is ok, but probably the incidents board (WP:ANI) is better. That being said, I don't see any 3RR violations here. fish&karate 12:41, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Ip's can be reported to AIV, with a link to the supposed username account, but it had best be Donald/Howard obvious. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:47, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
You forgot Daffy! sorry I couldn't resist Prince of Canada t | c 12:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Thuffewing Thwocwateeth! LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:52, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
That's thuccotash! I should probably go now... Prince of Canada t | c 13:07, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
See WP:DUCK if you don't get what LHvU means. fish&karate 12:48, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I am not reporting him for a 3RR violation, but because he is posting as an IP address when his user account is currently blocked for a violation of 3RR. He is openly posting on the talk of the page he got blocked for reverting, even signing his posts with his username. AFAIK this kind of block-evasion is not allowed. I may be wrong on this.. ? +Hexagon1 (t) 13:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

No, you're correct. Looks like Ioeth has taken care of it.[33]Satori Son 13:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

propulsion information[edit]

Yes check.svg Resolved. Article is fine. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:44, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

If there is anyone who knows about propulsion in space could you check out this page Project Orion (nuclear propulsion). There is a lot of suspicious claims including some that are almost certainly not true on it. I could look it over myself and improve it however it would be better if someone who knew more about it did it. If no one else does it I'll do something with it and I'm sure it will be an improvement but only beaause there is so much false information on it already. thanks

Zacherystaylor (talk) 04:07, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

A) ANI is not for content disputes. B) Read up on the subject a little. You've made some rather silly comments on the talk page there. Jtrainor (talk) 04:38, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
I am an aerospace engineer and (as an educated hobbyist) have studied Project Orion. The article is accurate and properly cited as it stands, as far as I can tell, and most of the {{fact}} tags are in fact answered by the existing citations. There is no problem here. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:44, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I am being Susspected of being a puppet[edit]

My user name


Suspected of being a puppet

of Iharkin

I am not a puppet, I do know the user Iharkin, when he failed in writing a page, I registered and created a page based on how similar category pages are created, no my work has been deleted and my account is in danger and I can not find how to stop it. I don't think my page was incorrect, so please help me get my page back and my account.

Tatianarus (talk) 15:10, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Looking at both deleted versions, your version of the page is obviously based on the deleted version, not on "how similar category pages are created", complete with identical grammar errors and odd turns of phrase. So first, you aren't being entirely truthful above, are you? And second, if you aren't Iharkin, I'm curious how you got a copy of the deleted article to base your version on. --barneca (talk) 15:37, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Further, to answer your question about "how to get my page back", I suggest reading the speedy deletion notification on User talk:Iharkin. It goes into this in some detail. --barneca (talk) 15:39, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Pick one account and stick with it. If you want to discuss your article, follow the proper procedures. Deletions can be contested at WP:DRV. You should read about WP:Notability, the rules that generally govern whether subjects deserve articles. For more help, put {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone may come to you who can explain your situation in more detail. But don't make the mistake of thinking we are stupid, or that we haven't seen the same situation 1001 times before. Thatcher 17:20, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Sharing account between highschoolers[edit]

I'm sorry if this is the wrong place, but I couldn't find anywhere that covered WP:NOSHARE. I placed a vandalism warning template on user User:BentonComp last night and recieved a message stating that he was the teacher responsible for a class of school kids who were doing a project on editing wikipedia, and that he would tidy/delete anything inappropriate left at the end. Should this be allowed? Thedarxide (talk) 08:12, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I think anything that teaches more people how to contribute productively is a Good Thing. Perhaps we need to hammer out how to handle this sort of thing in general? Prince of Canada t | c 08:50, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Why can't they all make their own account? Shared accounts are not allowed, see Wikipedia:U#Sharing_accounts. I'll post on his talk page. RlevseTalk 09:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
That was my thought. I don't want vandalism "justified" that a rogue student did it, with promises of fixing it later. Use the sandbox. Thedarxide (talk) 10:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't think we can leave problems for someone else to fix 'at the end'. Doug Weller (talk) 10:19, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
The teacher may need account creator permission, but shared accounts are not allowed. Besides all the other reasons, individual accounts will teach the kids about responsibility for one's own messes. Thatcher 18:25, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
All of the above may be true, but lets handle this with tact and decorum. The teacher is likely unfamiliar with the policy, and will likely gladly comply if politely explained (not templated, but explained...) about the existing policy. It would be a bad idea to simply block this account. Learning how to properly use Wikipedia can be a valuable tool for these students, and we should encourage such classroom activities, and should be availible to help this teacher do it right... 18:28, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't think anyone said block him, just for him to have the kids make their own accounts. RlevseTalk 23:23, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

DYK update[edit]

Resolved: DYK updated. – RyanCross (talk) 02:01, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Could an administrator update T:DYK with what's at T:DYK/N? Probably someone with experience with this should do it. I'll be happy to do the credits after. I just need an administrator to update the fully protected template. Thanks, – RyanCross (talk) 01:41, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

By the way, it's over two hours overdue... – RyanCross (talk) 01:46, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Alright, thanks to Casliber (talk · contribs), DYK has been updated. Now resolved, thanks. – RyanCross (talk) 02:01, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

User:PatPeter requesting unblock; claims to have not edited in 6 months, asking for another chance[edit]

PatPeter (talk · contribs · count · logs · target logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · spi · checkuser · socks confirmedsuspected · rights · blocks · protects · deletions · moves)

  • Unblocked — Coren (talk) 14:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

See User talk:PatPeter. This seems similar, in my mind, to the House1090 case; if it is true, I would support a conditional unblock here of some sort. Anyone out there more familiar with the case, and does anyone know if what he says is true? Just posting here for a wider opinion on the matter. 03:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

If the claim of no socking is true then I'd support. DurovaCharge! 03:59, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Well, I can say that he's not socking right now (unlike the last unblock time, in Feb) and hasn't been in quite some time indeed, so I'd say he's being honest about the socking. However, I don't like his threatening, lawyery tone re. the images vs. minor edits. It sounds like the last time he was here :( Either way, he's having problems unifying his account under SUL. We have fixed this for others in the past (Hornetman, also up for unblock) and I guess we can do that here again too, whether he's unblocked or not - Alison 05:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
I apologize if I sounded like a lawyer, and actually did read this section before posting. I did not want to sound like a lawyer but rather wanted to persuade you (all... does not sound good, just know that I do not mean you personally) to unblock me, seeing as I had tried beforehand. Also, began reading Socrates, including his Apology, so I have sealed myself into talking like this for an unknown remainder of time. I also did not want to sound myself in a threatening tone, but once again wanted to make a point. Also, what do you mean SUL? I know you mean the global login, but what does that acronym stand for? -PatPeter 18:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Could you give examples of the tone that concerns you, Alison? DurovaCharge! 06:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
From now, as compared to before? - Alison 07:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Given that he's not socking anymore, I've unblocked with a reminded that trying to climb on soapboxes is not appropriate here. Let us hope he will not squander that last chance. — Coren (talk) 14:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
I figured I should post here, instead of my userpage for a more rapid recognition of this message. Can someone restore my userpage history, without restoring the less than admirable edits? Also does anyone know if I can change my home wiki to, for instance, [34]? -PatPeter 18:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
I've restored the full history, as is proper. I also tried to put your last known version back, so I hope that's okay. Change it as you like :) But please - no bigoted, homophobic userboxes this time - Alison 19:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I wish that this had run longer, because I would have registered a fairly strong oppose. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 April 4#Category:Cub Wikipedians and Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/July 2007#Category:Wikipedians against the onychectomy of animals show specific instances of some rather deceitful behavior (depopulating a category and then nominating it for deletion, and adding a userbox to an IP userpage), and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive224#User:PatPeter and Category:User templates and subcat tree have more examples more of his disruption. Of course, there is the issue behind his original block (in the block log) and some of the rather disruptive changes he made to the babel categorization process as Sox207 (see a bunch of discussions on his talk page [35]). This unblock was very hasty. Horologium (talk) 20:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The Cub Wikipedians category had how many articles? Something around two, then compare how long it existed to the point of its deletion. If a long period of time passed then the category had no use. How many IP addresses know how to use userboxes? And with this will you say that IPs do not need to use userboxes? And that they should not be in Wikipedian categories? I think of User: as a Wikipedian, and he has userboxes. How did Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive224#User:PatPeter and Category:User templates and subcat tree cause disruption? How did my edits to the Babel system cause disruption? -PatPeter 21:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Umm - me, too. I didn't get a chance to reply to Durova above. What I remember most was the rampant homophobia, the continuous userbox wars and the way he'd have an absolute snit if you posted in the wrong 'section' of his talk page. Oh, and the suicide threat that brought in the police *sigh*. I guess we'll see how this works out - Alison 20:40, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
"Homophobia is an irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuals." I do not fear homosexuals. I do not avoid them. How did my userboxes cause discrimination? "Discrimination against is the prejudicial treatment of a person or a group of people based on certain characteristics" and prejudice means "making a decision before becoming aware of the relevant facts of a case or event". I would not call them userbox wars either, I simply tried to make a userbox, and someone deleted it, tell me, if I put the userbox: {{User:ChristTrekker/Pro life 5}} on my userpage would you delete it saying "PatPeter does not believe in womans' rights?", which I do, I hate discrimination against sex and race. I did not yell at you if you posted in the wrong section of my talk page. I would simply move your message, maybe tell you how I like my talk page used as. Oh and thanks for getting me kicked out of high school.... -PatPeter 21:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Please do not start this again. I see absolutely nothing has changed - Alison 21:43, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Also agree that more discussion would have been nice on this one. Here's to hoping that Coren's abundance of good faith is not misplaced. — Satori Son 20:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Apologies for not following up sooner, Alison. I saw the resolved tag and the unblock and hoped there was no need to. Yes, I'm very familiar with PatPeter's history (check his block log). Wondered what new concerns had arisen. In the interim that's explained itself. I hope this works out. DurovaCharge! 22:12, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

All other concerns aside for the moment, I'd like to point out that this is and has been an extensive sock-puppeteer. One thing that I've seen done in the past is a request for a puppeteer to name all socks before being unblocked. I think that this should also have been done in this case.

And I have to say that I am stunned that the user was unblocked without the unblocking admin attempting to discuss with those who previously blocked the user. (Which I had thought was common practise in such cases.)

And 2 years of being blocked for an equal time of socking all undone due to a few comments posted in less than a day? I'm a big fan of WP:AGF, but this really seems surprising. - jc37 21:34, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


This unblock was made out of process and without consensus and should be undone. Would you unblock Willy on Wheels because he cited AGF and said he was sorry? To be blunt, abusive sockpuppetry and userbox warring is just as bad. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 21:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Please section link the area of the process you are referring to. -PatPeter 22:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
What seems problematic? Why did I make the sockpuppets to start? If you are truely a fan of WP:AGF, then you would understand why I made socks, to prove that I could contribute, because no one talked to me on my userpage, or when I tried to talk on socks, for example, you ceased responding to me. -PatPeter 21:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
If you were truly a fan of Wikipedia, you would not have disrupted Wikipedia to make a point. Socking can not be excused just because someone asks it to be. It is an unblock request, not an unblock demand. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 21:57, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
And what point was that? That I wanted to be unblocked? Once again my requests were shrugged off. I do not expect immediate forgiveness, I want to prove what I can do for Wikipedia in its mainspace, all the possible edits I saw over the course of those six months. -PatPeter 22:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Your question wasn't addressed to me, but I'm going to answer it. If Willy on Wheels came and demonstrated remorse, yeah, I'd advocate for unblock. I'd watch him closely, and I'd block again if he so much as parted his hair on the wrong side, but I'd unblock him. Good grief, Jimbo has unblocked Daniel Brandt! We're a community that tends towards believing in second chances. - Philippe 22:00, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) PatPeter, can I strongly suggest you step back from this for a minute and modify your approach here? Mainspace is that-a-way, so it might be best to return to editing the encyclopedia, now that you're unblocked. What you're doing here just gives the appearance of being overly aggressive - Alison 22:02, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
What Alison said. I believe in second chances for people who sit on the sidelines for half a year, and thank you for that. The second chance also depends on avoiding a repeat of the behavior that caused problems in the first place. This site has millions of articles waiting for improvement. Go show the community we made a good choice in bringing you back. DurovaCharge! 22:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, sorry I wanted to set everything back up again, after all my userpage consists of primarily red links now. As far as mainspace goes, I make my best edits when browsing and reading Wikipedia, but I fear that jc37 or another user who has talked to me in the past will block me (seeing as I need inspiration [i.e. a typo... or something of the sort] to edit mainspace). Can I trust you all? Can I trust that I can wait to find "inspiration" and not suffer an block in the meantime? -PatPeter 22:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Pat - the problem is that you came back and immediately re-engaged in unfriendly discussion here about the original block reasons. You would be advised to walk away from the topics that got you blocked before. Continuing to reargue them would be disruptive, and if you disrupt after all your prior history, someone will reblock. Unless the request/proposal to reblock gets more support, I recommend not posting on AN. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
I apologize, I did not want to spur an arguement, nor did I want my discussion to sound unfriendly, but rather friendly. I would walk away from my original block reasons, but does that mean others will walk away from my original block reasons? If I do not post here then someone will inevitably reblock me, not that it matters as I must go to eat dinner with my best friend for his birthday, and therefore will not post here for the remainder of the night and not until the next day. -PatPeter 22:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Since I was specifically noted, I suppose I should comment.
First, I've asked others several times about whether you should be unblocked. (Though admittedly part of my reason was that I was rather tired of tracking down your socks.) So even the implication to suggest that I'm "out-to-get-you" or some such nonsense is, well, quite a few things, but I'll settle for "insulting", for now.
Second, if you pick up the habits of the past, such as harrassing other editors, edit warring, POV pushing your personal interpretation of guidelines, suicide threats, meat-puppetry, sock-puppetry, and a slew of other disruptive activity for which you have been blocked repeatedly in the past, yes, I or someone else will indeed likely block you.
And as the others have said, your actions (and tone) so far aren't instilling great confidence.
Personally, one thing that I think would go quite a long way for showing evidence of good faith, would be (as I noted above) for you to list all past sock puppets. - jc37 22:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
And incidentally, I stopped looking for his socks sometime after the last checkuser back in May. (Check my block log.) So, I don't know that we could say 6 months, or even 5 (and perhaps less?). - jc37 02:01, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
I am not a fan of this unblock, because after reviewing the evidence I believe this user is very disruptive and does not appear to have anything to contribute to the encyclopædia. That said, now that he's been unblocked, it would seem a bit mean-spirited to merely reblock him, lets give him another change (but monitor him closely), and if he gets back up to his old tricks, then he can always be reblocked indef again. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC).
For the record, this unblock was (as are all of my rare unblocks) because the proximate cause the initial block no longer applied (nor did, I point out, the socking which was the reason why the block lasted so long in the first place). Need I remind everyone here that blocks aren't punitive, but preventative? Should problem behavior continue, I'll reblock faster than you can say "userbox". Everyone should be given an opportunity to mend their ways— whether they then choose to squander it is on their heads afterwards. — Coren (talk) 12:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
While I absolutely agree with you that "Everyone should be given an opportunity to mend their ways," I want to emphasize that "an opportunity" is singular. It appears that one more opportunity had already been squandered in this case. I'm all for second chances – it's the third and fourth ones that give me pause. — Satori Son 17:58, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
I agree SS.
And I'll apologise in advance for the possible lack of good faith, but when a previous sock puppeteer pushes for an unblock, receives it, stomps off for a "birthday party", doesn't come back to the discussion, and makes only 2 edits in several days, should someone wonder if there's possibly new socking? (Made possible by the recent unblock?) - jc37 09:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Well, I think Coren's unblock here was a bit hasty (maybe not wrong, but it would have been better to let the discussion unfold and share all the concerns first). Some kind of mentorship/sponsorship would be a good thing. Unfortunately I'm not able to make that commitment. DurovaCharge! 17:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm not entierly certain how the unblock would have allowed socking that could not have taken place before it? — Coren (talk) 22:31, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Part of my standard offer to sitebanned editors is that I'll support a return to editing if they sit on the sidelines for six months. Usually, when discussing lifting a ban, it's a good idea to give the discussion a bit more time to shape up and work out any concerns that arise. Such as whether they've really refrained from socking for as long as they claim, or whether other problematic behavior has arisen recently. DurovaCharge! 05:10, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Compulsive standardization becoming a problem[edit]

wat? Are we just going to pull out our handbooks here and go.. green.. blue.. oh here we are.. yellow.. yellow means...

Changing the template that everyone is used to seeing for who knows how long to some compulsive standardization isn't helping the project. No one gives a crap if