Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive185

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Undelete request[edit]

Resolved: Undeleted. J Milburn (talk) 14:11, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Hiya, somebody please undelete Talk:Feather Linux, the deletion has been contested and article has been restored again so talk page should be too. Thanks —Magic.Wiki (talk) 14:07, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Done. J Milburn (talk) 14:11, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Move Constantina Diṭă-Tomescu to Constantina Diţă-Tomescu[edit]

Please move Constantina Diṭă-Tomescu to Constantina Diţă-Tomescu. Reason: the letter ṭ (t with a comma below) is a letter not supported by many browsers, although it looks almost exactly like ţ (t with a cedilla below). ṭ is generally not used on Wikipedia, ţ is used instead. The name of the person is Romanian and the Romanian Wikipedia uses ro:Constantina Diţă-Tomescu. --BIL (talk) 09:04, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

 Done Actually, the original location seems to have had neither cedilla nor comma, but U+1D6E "t with dot below", unless my browser is fooling me. Compare: dot: ṭ comma: ț cedilla: ţ. Fut.Perf. 09:15, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Just to confirm, the original was "T with dot below", not "T with comma below". I don't claim to know which is "most correct" here, though. Gavia immer (talk) 20:50, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

See Romanian alphabet#Unicode and HTML. Funny it shows up just fine in Windows 2000 SP4, but then I'm ahead of the curve as I don't use Internet Expletive and I also know how to install fonts. (t with dot below) is clearly incorrect. ț (t with comma below) is correct as it is the only one found in Romanian. ţ (t with cedilla) is an approximation of ț, and about as accurate as interchanging β, ß, B, В, and β̞. — CharlotteWebb 17:38, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Since Constantina Diță-Tomescu (featuring our good friend T with comma below) does in fact exist now thanks to Future Perfect at Sunrise, we might want to have the article there instead. Again, I claim no paticular knowledge of Romanian orthography, apart from the link already posted - but articles should be at correctly-spelled titles. Gavia immer (talk) 18:52, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
I agree. Willfully corrupting our data for the sake of "compatibility" is the best way to discourage software vendors from improving multi-lingual support. — CharlotteWebb 15:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Ban evasion on Maltese language[edit]

Iamandrewrice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is disrupting the article and talk page using the usual 78.146-149.xxx.xxx IPs. The article is an old favorite of his together with Latin Europe which was semi-protected for 14 days recently after his persistent disruption there. I'm hoping I don't need to bother Alison with this again so I'm trying here before asking for checkuser assistance. EconomicsGuy (talk) 18:05, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

backlog at Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage[edit]

Resolved:  Done --Rodhullandemu 18:49, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

There is now a 4-day backlog. Per the instructions there, I am now reporting it here. Thank you. NSH002 (talk) 17:43, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Doing... --Rodhullandemu 17:59, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the prompt response. NSH002 (talk) 18:58, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Poll on Wikipedia talk:Bureaucrat removal[edit]

There's an ongoing poll on Wikipedia_talk:Bureaucrat_removal#The_obligatory_evil_thing.. — Aitias // discussion 20:10, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive IP, feedback requested[edit]

Resolved: Following feedback, IP blocked two months for disruption. Will protect article if necessary. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:25, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I believe I'm dealing with a disruptive contributor here. He is tendentious, resorting to unencyclopedic sources ([1]) and rejecting community input. According to DE, those are strong signs. :) He has long been involved in an edit war at Gothic music, which was brought to my attention at my talk page by an uninvolved editor (here). Both of the involved editors had been warned before, but I gave each a final, explicit warning telling them that if they reverted again without seeking dispute resolution, it would lead to a block. I thing there's pretty clear evidence that this individual previously edited under these ips:

This edit war seems to have begun in May 2007 and slowly escalated since. Any editor who has attempted to change the article has been reverted.

Given his response to my encouragement to seek dispute resolution, I don't think there's any reason to believe that this contributor is going to stop. See here and here. This matches his general belligerence in edit summary at the article ("Get fucked") under this ip and in earlier responses to talk page notices under previous ip (again, I feel contrib history is pretty definitive of identity there): "Blow me. It's not "vandalism", dip shit, it's the truth. Get a life.", "'stfu Thanks.'", "you are a puerile little ass-clown and you need to stop wiki-stalking me. Danke".

I don't particularly care that he's been rude to me, but I see zero sign that he's intended to follow procedure ("I tried "dispute resolution". But somebody refuses to budge....Consensus means nothing....") He obviously feels like he has the right and only answer, and he's not willing to persuade others, but is insisting on pushing his position. Since I'm primarily cleaning up articles, not dealing with edit warriors and disruptive editors, I'd like some input from other admins as to whether it would be more appropriate to block the IP for longer for disruptive editing—say two months—with instructions for how to request unblock if at some point he decides to seek WP:DR or leave it alone or to allow his block to expire and block him again, for a longer time, if he resumes the edit war. I'm leaning the former. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

There are two possibilities on how to deal with this, but BOTH are going to require some additional input from you:
  1. We can use targeted rangeblocks to cut down on his access to Wikipedia. Sometimes this can be helpful, but usually, if he is editing from an ISP that uses a huge set of dynamically assigned IP addresses, then rangeblocks are no more effective than whack-a-mole blocks of individual IPs. If you have a full list of the IPs he has used, we can possibly see if this in an option
  2. We can semi-protect the target articles he tends to disrupt. It appears from your description that he is pretty much a single-purpose POV pusher, and if we take away his ability to edit his target articles, he will likely go away. This has worked in the past for particularly persistant disrupters (anyone remember the Walt Disney World vandal from about a year ago or so?), however we would need a list of articles he tends to target.
I would agree that this is a user who does not have the Project's best interest at heart, and the above methods should work to help protect the Project. We just need more info to enact one or the other... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:49, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
How about a two-month block of the single IP, followed by the type of measure described by Jayron32 if he evades the original block. Semiprotection of Gothic music would be the next idea. EdJohnston (talk) 14:45, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks so much for your feedback. I believe there have been 4 IPs within the past year and a half (I didn't list one, from about a year ago, because it made one edit), and, excepting that one, he seems to be stable within each for a length of time. His current IP is the only one that I see any sign of him using since October of 2008. At this point, his disruption seems to be contained to Gothic music, which is currently a redirect as a result of consensus at AfD. (This article has been contentious for a long time it seems, having previously been the site of an edit-war by banned user User:Leyasu.) The only other recent article contribution from this IP is this; note that I'm linking where it was reverted, which states why, but he didn't edit-war over it.
The Gothic music article could be semiprotected, but given his tendentious editing, I am concerned that he'll just register an account. So far as I understand autoblock, he'd be able to create a new account within 25 hours or so, right? (Technical stuff--not for me. :)) Then it would be a matter of waiting until he met the threshold to edit again. I think a medium range block of the current IP would probably be sufficient, since it should be easy to see if he changes IP by a return to old behavior. Fortunately, he doesn't jump around like some disruptive editors I've encountered. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:31, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Actually, forcing someone to register an account is a good idea. Accounts (as opposed to IPs) can be indef blocked, and serial sockpuppeteers can be additionally sanctioned. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 22:02, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Once the autoblock ends, what's to stop them registering a new account? </clueless about such things> --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:17, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Nothing, except that now they have violated more policies, which can result in further indef blocks. Its all about giving them enough rope to hang themselves with... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:49, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
How about, then, starting with EdJohnston's suggestion of two months for the IP, and, if this is ineffective, protecting Gothic music? I'd hate to protect an article space which might potentially be developed by a good faith contributor because of the actions of a single individual, but if he proves persistent it might be necessary. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:36, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Sounds fine to me. I hope it works. I don't expect it to work, but I hope it does. I am currently dealing with a persistant vandal at the Days of our Lives related articles. He changes IPs every few hours. We have had to protect a whole batch of those articles for like 6 months just to shut him down. Likewise, about a year ago it took a whole bunch 6-month semiprotections to end this guy's (userpage deleted, but trust me he was a PITA) reign of terror over Disney World and other Orlando-related articles. I hope and pray that EdJohnston's method works, I really do. I have just become jaded from being here too long, and have little faith that anything but the "nuclear option" really works for these persistant types. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
I understand. I have my own scorched earth at Dapto High School. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:57, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Help handling disruptive editor[edit]

I've been dealing with an editor who has been changing his IP address in order to evade blocks. The first two were User talk:98.180.196.203 and User talk:98.180.208.214. He has now moved on to 98.180.202.52. If another admin could help me keep an eye on this situation (and also assure that I don't get too happy with the block button), I'd appreciate it. :-) faithless (speak) 07:07, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Update: He is now also using 98.180.202.250. faithless (speak) 07:09, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
You are going to have to specify about what's he's doing. Is there some article, some user, something being attacked? Random IP addresses aren't clear. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:45, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
By this edit [2], he appears to be undoing merge consensus to make a point. Dayewalker (talk) 07:53, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
The IP editor has had at least two AN/I threads about his activitities in 2008 (he usually tries to restore the merged/redirected article Simon Tam and Planet Express first, without discussion). User:EEMIV and I have been dealing with this editor for ages, but he is (obviously) a dynamic IP, and RFP doesn't protect redirects for longer than a month. Blocking doesn't have any long-lasting effect. – sgeureka tc 09:55, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I have protected the redirects at Simon Tam and Planet Express (which have previously been protected for the same reason). Guy (Help!) 10:07, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
  • If the dynamic IP is within a range that could be blocked with minimal collateral, I would also suggest taking that action if this has been going on for so long. Hiberniantears (talk) 20:39, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Question about adoptions[edit]

Resolved: For the record this kind of thing is best asked at WT:ADOPTxeno (talk) 19:52, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I was just wondering, can you be adopted by more than one user? Is there any limitation to how many people can adopt a single user?

Please reply on my talk page.

Axmann8 (talk) 19:50, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and no. –xeno (talk) 19:52, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Esasus removing PROD tags from articles[edit]

Resolved

- anyone is allowed to remove PROD tag from any article, for any reason. WilyD 22:08, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me what I already knew. §FreeRangeFrog 00:17, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

See [3], [4], [5], [6]. The only "source" he added to all of these was a link to a forum, which I'm sure he knows is hardly WP:RS. Two of these were already AfD'ed and deleted (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2007 Worf Music Awards). I don't want to assume bad faith, but it seems Esasus wants to make everyone waste their time and energy by forcing these to go to AfD, where they will surely be deleted anyway. I'm not sure why. Can the rest of these not be deleted simply on the basis of the closed AfD? I don't have a problem with rescuing articles, on the contrary, but this seems to border on the disruptive. §FreeRangeFrog 21:58, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

If they've been AFD'd and the content is identical or substantially similar they can be {{db-repost}}'d. Exxolon (talk) 22:05, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
No, in this case they haven't. The addition of these to another afd wasn't handled ideally. 87.112.17.229 (talk) 22:11, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, anyone can remove a prod for any reason, good faith or bad. It's difficult to say that the AfD tag applies to these articles too, as these articles didn't have "this article is being discussed for deletion" tags added to them. I guess the closing admin didn't feel comfortable with deleting the related articles, and while all those opining for delete make comments that strongly suggest they'd be in favour of deleting them all, not one actually says "delete them all" or the like. AfD voters can be vexingly unclear, sometimes. I think you should bulk afd the remainders, link to the old discussion in the new one, and link to the new discussion in the talk page of the old. I'd guess that the remainders will get SNOWed, but you never know. 87.112.17.229 (talk) 22:11, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I removed the proposed deletion tags for the "Worf Music Awards" because I do not agree that the articles should be deleted without discussion (as is my right). The Worf Music Awards have been around since 2002, and, in my opinion, is a notable award. It is not my intent to "make everyone waste their time and energy" (as stated by "User:FreeRangeFrog"), and it is unverifiable speculation that these articles will be "deleted anyway" if they go to AfD. Esasus (talk) 22:14, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Since they have been deleted, clearly not... --Cameron Scott (talk) 23:13, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Oooh, WP:NFT - a blast from the past, those gentler days when people were just that bit less viciously determined to get their new thing on Wikipedia. Guy (Help!) 10:29, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

History merge[edit]

Can someone merge the history of Gary Locke (politician) to Gary Locke? The history seems to have gotten lost in a tangle of moves and redirects, also involving Gary Locke (disambiguation). Right now Gary Locke, the main article, does not have its complete history, which needs to be fixed. 140.247.155.54 (talk) 03:35, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Done. Keegantalk 07:00, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

disruptive editor[edit]

Resolved: Future requests of this nature should please go to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Sockpuppets requesting to be blocked Guy (Help!) 08:46, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Daedalus969has been very disruptive attacking other editors for no reason i think he should be blocked for a period of 24 hours to cool downI Am The Hollaback Boy (talk) 07:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I just posted at AIV, but the above user I Am The Hollaback Boy (talk · contribs) is an obvious sock of banned user The Hollabck Girl and is only here to disrupt and taunt [7] [8]. His report here is further evidence of that. Can some admin help clean this up, please? Thanks in advance. Dayewalker (talk) 07:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
This is, I think, the uber-Plaxico. //roux   08:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

i think we should give daedulus some slack and instead block that annoying day walker and while you're at it why not me btw whats a plaxicoI Am The Hollaback Boy (talk) 08:07, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Holocaust denial related vandalism[edit]

Resolved: WilliamH (talk) 11:04, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Note the bigotry fueled vandalism discussed here on the "Committee for the Open Debate on the Holocaust". At first I undid edits changing Holocaust denier to Holocaust revisionist on Arthur Butz and Jürgen Graf, however given that thread, nothing is left to the imagination. User:68.12.36.69 has already got into hot water and been blocked multiple times - User:68.13.242.42 continues the pattern and geolocates to the same place. I have therefore blocked the latter for two weeks. WilliamH (talk) 20:45, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

It does seem prudent to assume they're probably the same person. Left a brief note for this last IP; here's hoping it doesn't fall on deaf ears. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:45, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
  • The consensus is, is that the term is Holocaust denier, not revisionist. This has been discussed repeatedly, at the Holocaust denial talk page for instance. Good faith is clearly not the intent here, and they have as much chance at changing a 5 year long consensus as they do, um, explaining why millions of Jews vanished during the war. WilliamH (talk) 21:55, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Please don't mistake my politeness for permissiveness -- apologies if I come across that way. :) – Luna Santin (talk) 22:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
No problem at all Luna, thanks for your help. WilliamH (talk) 11:04, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I need help on...[edit]

An article, which is considered "Good Articl" but says a lot of lies. Britney Spears's Article says that she is a soprano, i create this section on it discussion and nobody answers me. So, i need an administrator hel to change every lie which says the article, cuz wikipedia is always true. Thanks!. --190.29.158.79 (talk) 00:51, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

You do not need an administrator to edit the page. It is semi-protected which means any auto-confirmed user may edit the article. Please read WP:Signup for details about the benefits of creating an account on Wikipedia. Also if you can find a reliable reference for your claims, then feel free to change it. If you want, I will change this for you, but first you need to find a reliable reference supporting your claims. Jerry teps (talk) 01:10, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes; there is no apparent need for Admin intervention here just yet; you probably need to discuss your changes on the Talk page if other editors are reverting your edits. --Rodhullandemu 01:15, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
It would appear we do a poor job of advertising Category:Wikipedia semi-protected edit requests. MBisanz talk 02:31, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Since {{editsemiprotected}} is explicitly mentioned in the information seen by anons when they click "view source", it seems like this one probably didn't. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:12, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee block of Chergles[edit]

The Arbitration Committee has announced that it has blocked Chergles (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) as a sock of already banned user Archtransit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). For more information, please see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Block of User:Chergles.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 13:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

FYI re soapboxing banned editor[edit]

Just for reference, there's a bit of activity regarding User:Posturewriter at present. This banned editor lost access to his/her talk page due to soapboxing, and shortly thereafter popped up with an IP, 203.87.117.105, at Editors Assistance asking for some of his/her combatants to be blocked. A couple of editors informed him/her that it would be best to go through ArbCom if an unblock was desired, but the point was missed. Another editor has released the talk page block on the main account and warned that future disruption and soapboxing outside of a block review request would respond with another lockdown. Since that outlet is now available, I've blocked the IP for a couple weeks anon-only (happy to have comments on the appropriateness of this). I'd suggest that editors keep an eye on the talk pages the IP was engaging, in case the point is missed again. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Good job. I archived the EA request. Guy (Help!) 18:54, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
So far, no unblock request or talk page abuse at User talk:Posturewriter. Ho hum. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 21:46, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Azxten[edit]

User:Azxten is here mostly to promote his site, renewable-energy-future.com. See his contribs. We can deal with that. I think my removals of this link have frustrated him now, because he's just started looking through my contribs and he is reverting my removals of other people's spam links. Would someone have a word with him before this gets out of control? Thanks. - MrOllie (talk) 18:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

From azxten:
Right, I add content to articles and then reference my site which is where the content came from. Apparently the content is good enough to stay but my reference is against the rules. That is completely stupid in my opinion. Oh well, wikipedia can do without my help.. I'm just annoyed that the content I've contributed will stay even if I don't. I read the "rule" links that I'm sent about why my site isn't a reliable source but it says right in the reliable source page that a reliable source is only needed if the content is likely to be challenged which none of mine is.
What a great community. I build content for you, you remove my reference to where it came from, link me to a rule that I didn't violate when you read the specifics, then I break another "3 edits" rule when trying to point out I haven't broken the rule and so now I can't edit anymore. THEN I'm told to use the "discussion" page, hey maybe you should have told me that before I made 3 edits! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Azxten (talkcontribs) 18:41, 24 February 2009
You appear to have misunderstood WP:V. When it states "any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation"; what it means is that content that is unlikely to be challenged does not require a source. If a source is used, then it should meet the WP:RS guidelines. If you are correct, and none of your content is likely to be challenged, then no source reference is needed.
On your contributions to Wikipedia, all edit windows clearly state "You irrevocably agree to release your contributions under the GFDL", and all article windows include links to WP:COPYRIGHT. By editing Wikipedia, you release your contributions under that license. Just because you later decide to leave Wikipedia does not mean that you can take your contributions with you. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 20:16, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

request help in moving page[edit]

hello,

can someone please take a look into Talk:Province_of_Bolzano-Bozen/Naming#Province_of_Bolzano.2FBozen? A vote has taken place there to move Province of Bolzano-Bozen to Province of Bolzano/Bozen. Thank you. Gryffindor (talk) 20:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

You are probably going to want to add a request to WP:RM and they will take it from there. - NeutralHomerTalk • February 24, 2009 @ 20:21

Editor modified a talk page message of mine without permission[edit]

Resolved: No admin action needed here. --Tone 17:12, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi. An editor modified a talk page message of mine here. I think that he did it knowing it was against Wikipedia policy, and there was a similar incident previously by another editor that he collaborated with. I deleted it, but it seems that some administrator action might be appropriate, for example a block. Thank you. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:04, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see how adding an image to a section is modifying your message. Tan | 39 17:09, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
(ec) I don't think this was modifying your comment, it was adding a picture to the whole section. No reason for any sanctions, I'd say. Could you provide evidence for other incidents, as you mention? --Tone 17:10, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
This explains the comment. --Tone 17:12, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Ah, but that wasn't the situation that I was reporting. Please check the link that I gave above, where the image is entirely in my message. Thank you.
P.S. I'm working on getting the info related to the other incident. Perhaps the resolved template is premature? After all, the resolved template was put up only 8 minutes after my first message and before I had a chance to respond to any comments. Thank you. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:59, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
I agree with the above. Since he placed the image on its own line, it's not modifying your message. Perhaps he should have signed the image comment to make it clear who left it there, though. –xeno (talk) 18:05, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your response.
I started the section with the following edit:

== Damaged telephone service in roof knocking section ==
The following excerpt is from the Roof knocking section of the article.
etc. ... Bob K31416 (talk) xx:xx, xx February 2009 (UTC)

Now, would someone be allowed to put an unsigned contribution like so:

== Damaged telephone service in roof knocking section ==
How many Israelis and Gazans does it take to make a telephone call? Beats me!
The following excerpt is from the Roof knocking section of the article.
etc. ... Bob K31416 (talk) xx:xx, xx February 2009 (UTC)

Now is placing a picture with caption there any different? It implicitly ascribes something to me that I didn't put there. Other editors would think that I put that image there and would hold me responsible for it in their minds if they found it offensive. --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:43, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
No, they wouldn't, because the image is rendered alongside the text, rather than flowed into the paragraph. I've seen this happen on Village pump threads before. If they do, you can point them to the history. Moreover, jumping straight to ANI for a minor issue best worked out at the talk page of the user in question is rather extreme. I think a better option would have been to add a caption including the username of the user who added it. Dcoetzee 19:55, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)So let me see if I'm following what happened correctly. Sean.hoyland added a picture with a caption to the beginning of the dicussion, possibly in an attempt to be humorous. You, Bob K31416, removed it, with an edit summary expressing that you felt it was a modificaton of your comments. Sean.hoyland later readded it with a caption that read "This image is endorsed by User:Sean.hoyland and no other users and especially not Bob who had no part in it's creation or placement.", a comment previous to the image that reads <!-- This image starts here and is an entirely seperate entity from the discussions that precede and follow it. --> and a comment after that reads <!-- This image ends here. Better Bob ? :) --> You have not discussed it on the Sean.hoyland's talk page or removed it since.

Sean.hoyland (who I see has not been notified of this thread), made an attempt to address your concerns after you objected. While the humor may or may not have been appropriate for the talk page of a surely contentious article, where exactly is the problem that requires admin intervention? Since you posted quite a bit more after this thread was marked as resolved, I assume you still want some kind of admin intervention.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:25, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not pursuing this anymore. Thank you everyone for your responses. --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:50, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
FYI, I opened up a discussion for a suggested change to the guidelines here. --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Page histories returning SQL errors[edit]

[FYI cross-posting from Wikipedia talk:Village pump (technical)] For any Talk pages in any namespaces, I am seeing the following message when trying to view the page histories:

A database query syntax error has occurred. This may indicate a bug in the software. The last attempted database query was:

(SQL query hidden)

from within function "IndexPager::reallyDoQuery (PageHistoryPager)". MySQL returned error "1054: Unknown column 'ts_tags' in 'field list' (10.0.6.22)".

Any idea what's up? Is this affecting everyone else? --Dynaflow babble 22:23, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and it's actually all histories (modified header). –xeno (talk) 22:27, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Good to know it's not just me ... and bad at the same time. --Dynaflow babble 22:28, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Page histories

I can not view page histories anymore:

Database error A database query syntax error has occurred. This may indicate a bug in the software. The last attempted database query was:

(SQL query hidden)

from within function "IndexPager::reallyDoQuery (PageHistoryPager)". MySQL returned error "1054: Unknown column 'ts_tags' in 'field list'

Is it just me? — Aitias // discussion 22:27, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Look up there ^^^ a bit. Black Kite 22:29, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
History page has disappeared for Preston University

I don't know how it happened but the history page has disappeared for the Preston University article. I would really appreciate someone's assitance on this. Thanks TallMagic (talk) 22:28, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

They appear to be functional again...  GARDEN  22:31, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Here's the explanation: Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#DB error --Saddhiyama (talk) 22:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
  • It's all fixed now; apparently a fix to disable slow tag search, whatever that is, broke the page history. Stifle (talk) 22:35, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Well to whoever fixed it, THANK YOU! TallMagic (talk) 00:20, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science[edit]

The above-linked Arbitration case has been closed and the final decision published.

ScienceApologist is banned from editing any article relating to fringe science topics, broadly construed, for a period of six months. ScienceApologist is free to edit the talk pages of such articles. Pcarbonn is admonished for needlessly stoking the fires of disputes in the area of fringe science, and is encouraged to direct his efforts elsewhere.

All editors in the disputed area are warned that further disruptive editing in the disputed area will be viewed dimly by the Committee, and may lead to further sanctions being imposed. Editors in the disputed area are encouraged to seek to engage in formal mediation to help establish consensus when coverage of fringe science in an article or group of articles is under dispute. While mediation is not binding, editors are further encouraged to abide by the results of mediation (and other dispute resolution).

For the Arbitration Committee, Gazimoff 00:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Misinformation? Or not.[edit]

This request is probably misplaced; if so, forgive me (I'm in a huge "RL" rush right now) and feel free to move it where it better belongs.

This person has made a short series of alterations. I'm sure one is wrong, and have reverted it. The others, I don't know. They could be corrections, or they could be insidious vandalism (debasement by alteration to well-expressed, plausible misinformation). Could somebody who knows about C19 USA, or is willing to put some time into finding about it, take a look? -- Hoary (talk) 01:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Improperly resolved move request at talk:Mogilev[edit]

A move request for Mahilyow > Mogilev failed to gain consensus, with three editors in favour and four opposed since it was opened, on February 4. Administrator User:DrKiernan closed the request and moved the article anyway, insisting that the the request was concluded properly. Would one or two neutral admins please review the article move? Thanks. Michael Z. 2009-02-17 18:12 z

Under discussion now at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#DrKiernan_moving_articles_against_consensus, as well as talk:MogilevMichael Z. 2009-02-21 01:00 z

(archiving comment with non-standard timestamps. Fram (talk) 08:02, 25 February 2009 (UTC))

Lots of articles "doing no harm" recently...[edit]

Hi. I don't know if I'm entirely in the right place here, but I've noticed something quite curious going on at WP:AFD today. Two separate editors have been adding keep and strong keep votes within minutes of each other, each claiming the article in question should stay because "the article does no harm." As this seems an unusual phrase (especially in the context of voting in an AFD process), I thought I'd bring it up here and see what the general consensus on an incident like this would be?

Here's the first set of "does no harms": 1, 2, and 3 ... and here's the second one 4. Am I just being paranoid or is something fishy going on here? Richard Hock (talk) 15:44, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Worthy of note... All of these are AfDs initiated by either User:ScienceApologist or User:Ricky81682. caknuck ° is a silly pudding 16:06, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
It's possible that some user has got the wrong end of the stick as far as WP:BLP is concerned... and that someone else has picked up on it... but it's a stretch. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 16:36, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
(in response to Caknuck) Am I the only one who sees a bit of heavy-handed irony with those !votes? Or is the leap from SA's well-known stance on fringe/voodoo-medicine to the Hippocratic Oath a bit of a stretch? Badger Drink (talk) 08:44, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


You might want to point them to WP:NOHARM and let them know that the closing admin is likely to discount such arguments. Skomorokh 17:36, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I've notified Northwestgnome and Esasus that their names were mentioned here. EdJohnston (talk) 19:02, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
I was puzzled by Esasus' removal of a PROD on Rowan of the Wood, given the comments in the history of the article, which mirror the discussion here. I left a message on his talk page asking if it was OK for me to restore the PROD given that his edits did nothing to help the subject squeak past WP:BK. That article certainly does no harm, but that's not the point. §FreeRangeFrog 19:08, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I have recieved the above mesage and I agree that "no harm" is a poor argument. If the closing admin chooses to discount such argument then so be it. In the future I will endevour to better explain my reasons on such issues. As far as the isue of removing a PROD, it is my understanding that it is my right to do so. Esasus (talk) 20:26, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I think most of the problem was with two accounts making the same argument in near-identical words, something that always raises eyebrows here. Guy (Help!) 21:34, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
The expression "do no harm" is found in the oath doctors take (I forget the spelling, well, not really see: Primum non nocere) and in Wiccan doctrine. I'm not related to Esasus. Northwestgnome (talk) 16:27, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Check out Ahimsa as well. I might be wrong about the Wiccans. Northwestgnome (talk) 16:40, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't think the Hypocritic Oath [sic] adapts well to inclusion/deletion debates. The do-no-harm mantra is a national joke more than anything, when medical error claims more lives than cars, guns, and drugs (the other things us Americans love). I'd be surprised if anyone takes your arguments seriously. — CharlotteWebb 17:04, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
I wasn't defending my argument in the AfD, which was fairly weak, but myself against the charge of being a sockpuppet by pointing out how common the expression "do no harm" is. BTW the practice of medicine is very dangerous, which is why "first, do no harm" was said in the first place. Northwestgnome (talk) 17:09, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

BTW my edit was in support of an article on a minor artist in South Africa. The material seemed to be true, although the sources were hard to verify and the article, well, did no harm. Northwestgnome (talk) 16:57, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to keep saying "it does no harm" in AfD debates but only if there is some other argument for keeping. :-) Northwestgnome (talk) 17:19, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

In my view, while I'm not sure about User:Esasus's prod removals, those are his right. He has a right to comment at AFD with "do not harm" I guess but that approaches the silliness of using the five pillars or I like it or whatever and the closing admin can consider it. I also don't know what I did to earn the somewhat nasty personal attack at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bushra Khalil but this version seemed like a reasonable redirect to me. I disagree with replacing the prod notice at Rowan of the Wood. Just list it at AFD and be done with it. Prod is prod and just follow what it's for. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:56, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Maybe they just share a lot of interests: are there any studies available on Deletion by Geographic Location (or Deletion by Political Incorrectness Gone Mad?) 1 2 Richard Hock (talk) 14:57, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
I also notice that my question was not answered in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/David_Kuijers. Northwestgnome (talk) 21:40, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
I responded on your talk page. Frankly, I find a suggestion that I only nominated that article because he is a "politically incorrect" person (your words, not mine) insulting. I nominated the article because I felt it wasn't notable enough. As I discussed, regardless of where the person was born or whatever color he is, an article that consists of an artist who just has written a book about himself and just has a gallery is at least questionable. Suggestions otherwise in my opinion as asinine given that it is solely based on the view of a single AFD. At least have some history of AFD nominations before you start insulting users. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:39, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Attack site[edit]

Resolved: No action required at this time. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:58, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

www.theduchyofeffenhauer.com. Owner (Tony Sayles) or more likely Mike Sales is indef blocked (Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Tom_Sayle). See User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#COMPLAINT. Kittybrewster 09:09, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

  • There are no links in mainspace, and the IP is blocked by Gwen Gale as evading another block. What else needs doing? Guy (Help!) 09:20, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Blacklist as spam? Kittybrewster 09:24, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Is it being spammed? --Carnildo (talk) 09:29, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
How bizarre, that complaint on Wales' talk page. §FreeRangeFrog 09:52, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
I think the guy is not playing with a full deck, to put it as charitably as one can. Read the website - it's a mixture of an unsophisticated scam and outright delusion. I do not think English is his first language, either. Much of what he writes is barely comprehensible. As abuse goes this is low-level and appears well-contained, so I don't see what further action is required other than "watchful waiting", a process in which I am sure Kittybrewster will be a willing participant. Guy (Help!) 09:56, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
The header of this section is practically an engraved invitation for me to dig up the WP:BADSITES dead horse again, but I can't see how anybody would apply this concept in any way to the site in question... it's got a small caption about how the author thinks Wikipedia is suppressing them, but how does that make it an "attack site"? It's too incoherent to really communicate anything, other than that apparently somebody is claiming to have a title of nobility over an allegedly sovereign nation, whose location isn't even actually mentioned in the site. *Dan T.* (talk) 13:43, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
So don't, because your input is utterly unnecessary and counter-productive, everything that needs doing had already been done, and you will only stir up unnecessary drama and make yourself look even more like a mission poster into the bargain. Guy (Help!) 18:50, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Er - that last comment seems very aggressive JzG - was that really necessary? Exxolon (talk) 19:23, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Probably as unnecessary as Dan's trolling, I will admit. Ho hum. Guy (Help!) 23:07, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Oh-no-he-di-int!!! Badger Drink (talk) 08:36, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Is this appropriate ?[edit]

Resolved: move along, nothing to see here. –xeno (talk) 22:52, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I check newpages for vandalism and what not and during my patrol I saw something rather odd:

SemBubenny moved the contents of this talk page to SemBubenny/ar2 | here. No problem there. Stuff is moved all the time. It was the next move that caught my I. He then proceeds to delete the contents of his talk page here. Now, if there's nothing wrong with this, feel free to delete this, dimsiss this, whatever, but I thought we weren't to delete the contents of our page, except in really unusual cases (death threats..etc....). Like I said, if I'm wrong, just dismiss this and leave a brief note here or on my page - just so I know and don't bug you again. Thanks Kosh Naluboutes, Nalubotes Aeria gloris, Aeria gloris 21:55, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

A user can delete the contents of their talk page at will, except for current block notices, IIRC. – ukexpat (talk) 22:01, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
No, editors may blank their own talk pages more or less at will, but deletion is highly inappropriate and rarely permissible. DuncanHill (talk) 22:07, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Dang I was temporarily confusing blanking with deleting. It's been a long day... – ukexpat (talk) 22:13, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
I hate to sound melodramatic but deleting one's own talk page seems like abuse of the tools to me. To clarify: I think this user should undelete the page before someone else does. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 22:14, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm glad an admin came out and said it before I had to! DuncanHill (talk) 22:18, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Isn't this exactly what User:Manhattan Samurai did to evade scrutiny? Moved tpage to another page, blanked, tagged with {{db-author}}? //roux   22:16, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Restored. It was deleted along with a bunch of my other user subpages. - 7-bubёn >t 22:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Cool. Cancel DRAM-CON one. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 22:21, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Could you make User:Mikkalai and User talk:Mikkalai into redirects to your current name for clarity? Also, there is something very odd going on with the revision histories of those pages. DuncanHill (talk) 22:23, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
This account has right to vanish. - 7-bubёn >t 22:27, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
I thought it was a rename, not an RTV. If it was an RTV then your old contributions wouldn't shew under your current name. DuncanHill (talk) 22:33, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
If it was a RTV, then he wouldn't have a new name: "The "right to vanish" is not a "right to a fresh start" under a new identity." (bolded in the WP:RTV page, not by me). It continues with "Vanished users have no right to silently return under a new identity." Fram (talk) 08:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Also User talk:Mikkalai/ar1 should be undeleted. DuncanHill (talk) 22:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
It was moved to User talk:SemBubenny/ar1 due to name change. - 7-bubёn >t 22:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Then there is a hell of a lot of history missing from it - and attempts to look at the history produce database errors. DuncanHill (talk) 22:27, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Someone hacked an editnotice[edit]

Resolved: Users have been able to put edit notices in their userspace for some time, and someone's edit was misplaced. –xeno (talk) 04:35, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

This can't be good. Will someone speak to the malfeasor in a language he comprehends? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kivel (talkcontribs) 01:57, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Er. . . evidently I don't understand how these things work because I thought that was impossible except for admins. Does that not apply to userspace? Chick Bowen 03:22, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
It is not a publicly used template, just one a user made for themselves. Chillum 03:25, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
I think my confusion was that I assumed they worked like .js and .css pages, editable only by admins and the user in question. Perhaps they should. . . Chick Bowen 03:34, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
It looks like an innocent mistake in using the Editnotice instead of the talk page to discuss. No need to call him a "malfeasor" over this mistake. hbdragon88 (talk) 03:27, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Alex Rodriguez needs semiprotection[edit]

Resolved: Page protected. — Jake Wartenberg 04:39, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

The request at RfPP is being ignored and this is fairly urgent. For some reason the last protection was for only two days, after it had just come off of two week protection. I would think semiprotection for several months would be warranted. Enigmamsg 03:48, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Semi'd for two weeks. We'll see how it goes after that. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:05, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Recommend move-protection be indefinite. Thanks, Enigmamsg 04:09, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Why? — Aitias // discussion 04:12, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
High value target, unlikely to be moved without discussion. –xeno (talk) 04:34, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
10 years, $275 million? High value, indeed! Badger Drink (talk) 09:09, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Quick request[edit]

Resolved: neuro(talk) 11:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. I was wondering if a nice admin could restore the history of User:Stepshep/Sandbox.js; I'm looking for a diff I typed down about an IP and think it might be there. Thank you, §hepTalk 01:01, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, there are no edits there by anyone other than your logged-in name but it's all restored, I think. If you have the IP address, we can look for it that way. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:14, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Seems I must have been thinking of the wrong page... Thaks, §hepTalk 02:31, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Daniel Westling and Daniel, Duke of Västergötland[edit]

Resolved: Redirected back and deleted redirect afterward. Histories merged as good as it can get. --Tone 14:31, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Daniel Westling is engaged to the heir to the throne of Sweden. Once they marry, which is probably not till 2010, he may be given the title of Duke of Västergötland, but he does not yet have that title. Somebody moved the name article to the title article, and now the redirect has been removed. The article should be at Daniel Westling, but the edit history is at Daniel, Duke of Västergötland. Could some kind admin fix that? Thank you. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 01:07, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Ryulong's indefinite semi protections[edit]

Resolved: We're trying unprotection on most of the pages, and if that goes well, probably opening up to nearly all of them (Google and Brazil are probably very high value and visibility targets, even though Ryulong was amenable to lowering them it is this commentators opinion that they would go right back up, but anyone else should feel free to try unprotection on them.) –xeno (talk) 14:51, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I have been going through WP:INDEFSEMI and lowering protections that have been in place for lengthy periods of time. I came across a few that have been in place for a minimum of six months, and in some cases upwards of twenty set by Ryulong (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) that requested his consult before lowering, so I asked him about all of them and received a curt "No" in response. I'm here to determine whether there is consensus for the following articles to remain indefinitely semi protected, this being the encylopedia anyone can edit. –xeno (talk) 23:13, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Haim Saban
  • Shuki Levy
  • VR Troopers
  • Saban Entertainment both unprotected by Fabrictramp
    • The above four appear all appear to be related to a campaign of vandalism to these related topics around June 2007. –xeno (talk) 01:18, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
      • Trying unprotection on the two non-blp's and if things go well, we'll try opening it up to the others. –xeno (talk) 14:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Google
  • Brazil
    • ^^ These two are probably high enough visibility to warrant it. –xeno (talk) 02:03, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
This is indeed the encyclopedia anyone can edit, and unless there's a compelling reason not to they should ne unprotected. In addition, "no" it not an acceptable answer to a perfectly civil and reasonable question. Ryulong needs to improve his interaction in these circumstances. RxS (talk) 23:25, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


Here's my take on them. This is just my opinion, and other opinions are equally valid.:
  • Shuki Levy appeared to be vandalized by a single IP hopping vandal for a few months almost two years ago. Without getting into issues of stepping on toes, this is one I'd be willing to unprotect and watch list, ready to deal with vandalism if it starts up again.
  • Saban Entertainment had sporadic IP vandalism, again almost two years ago, mostly from a single IP. I would have declined to semi-protect in the first place, instead dealing with the IP editor directly. I think an unprotect is in order here.
  • VR Troopers had a number of productive IP edits in the months before the block, with only two days of IP vandalism right before the block that happened 20 months ago. IMO, the block protect shouldn't have been for more than a week.
No time to properly review the others right now.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:32, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
  • No reason for William Prunier to stay protected that I can see - bit of socking 8 months ago. Unprotected this one and watchlisted it. Will have a look at the others when I have time. Black Kite 23:40, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Google should probably stay protected. Other than that, I don't know. J.delanoygabsadds 23:42, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Brazil looks like a good candidate for staying protected. Triple H got Gr*wped in 2007 and has been protected since. I have unprotected and watchlisted Fraud - this was one IP vandal in 2007. Black Kite 23:49, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
In these cases (Brazil and Google) ideally I would like to try unprotected and if the vandalism is too much then semi protect with an expiry (3, 6, 12 months, but not indef). –xeno (talk) 23:53, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Denny Crane - same as Fraud. Would appreciate some more input on the others. Black Kite 00:11, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
The first four all seem to be related, and I would hazard a guess that the vandal from 2007 has moved on by now. –xeno (talk) 00:17, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I do find it gets tiresome with alot of articles continually reverting vandals - ghost, lion, vampire and schizophrenia and whales for some reason - Blue Whale are some I have indef semi'ed in the past. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:15, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

The worst ones on my watchlist are penguins (understandable) and deserts (huh?) Hesperian 00:54, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm not against semi-protection in cases of exhausting vandalism, I just feel that expiries should always be set. Some of the articles I unprotected were that way since 2006 (I believe, before expiries were available, but nonetheless...). –xeno (talk) 00:17, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Oh sorry, they are not all vandals Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:19, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
I have requested indef semi-protection on one article (which was granted after going through 11 rounds of semi-protection in 10 months in 2007) and I indefinitely semi-protected Big Mac after watching it get vandalized into unrecognizability in just a few days by IP editors. Oh yes, I also indef'd Joe Biden and Queer, which should stay semi-protected for (at least) four years and permanently, respectively. Horologium (talk) 01:07, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

The first four pages (Shuki Levy, Haim Saban, Saban Entertainment, and VR Troopers) have been the target of a single IP hopping abuser who pops up occasionally to vandalize these and several other articles. These are the only ones that I would prefer remain semiprotected because

  1. Two of them are BLPs that attract vandalism we do not want
  2. And the vandalism that is introduced into the articles to begin with is BLP sensitive.

Also, I didn't have a hell of a lot of time to respond to xeno earlier.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:17, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm willing to keep a close eye on these articles (including a separate watchlist), and if the issues you mention re-occur, I'm fine with re-protecting for a definite period of time. Would that be ok? –xeno (talk) 01:22, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
I really do not think unprotection is a good choice for these pages. If, by some chance, there's an IP editor who wants to edit the pages and they show up and go to the talk page, then maybe it's time for unprotection. Unprotecting just because it's been protected for a long time in my opinion is not a good reason to unprotect sensitive BLPs, especially when it's been determined that they have been vandalized in the past.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:50, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Hrm, ok the BLPs I'll concede if you insist, and I think Google, Brazil are high enough visibility to require it as well. Can we let VR Troopers (and possibly Saban Entertainment) off the hook to see how it goes? Old shows like that are something I could see a knowledgable IP dropping in an improvement or two quickly if required, but not so important that it would cause them to visit the talk page. (This is how I used to edit as an IP) –xeno (talk) 02:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
we have consistently refused to adopt a policy to semiprotect all BLPs, in favor of devising other ways of dealing with the problem, and I see no reason why these should be more sensitive than the general run. anyway, the only possible way to find out is to unprotect, and see. Otherwise, you'll never be able to tell. DGG (talk) 03:30, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
(e/c) I agree 100%. There are other methods of dealing with BLP issues than indefinite semi protection. Also, we must remember that this is a wiki and one that anyone can edit. Protection is simply here to protect articles from imminent harm, and unless the articles in question are still in harms way than protection no longer has a purpose and ultimately is going against the statement of principles. I am in support of all of them being unprotected, even including Google. I mean, we can always reprotect it. Tiptoety talk 03:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Endorse the continued semi-protection of Saban, Levy, and Prunier. I understand that proactive semi-protection of vulnerable BLPs has been consistently rejected (disclaimer: I think this is nuts), but once articles are shown to be vulnerable, the least we could do (not literally) is reactively semi-protect. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 03:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Swifter blocking of IP ranges would be more effective as this can at least potentially prevent the vandal from creating accounts with which to circumvent the semi-protection and manipulate admins into disrupting the article more than the vandals themselves would have by applying full protection (of what might actually be the vandal's preferred version—there could be a reverse-psychology element to this, who knows… Smiley.svg). Anyway I'm tempted to add an obligatory rant about flaggedrevs. — CharlotteWebb 03:52, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

A tremendous number of articles get disrupted once every year or two. Some more often--many school articles here get disrupted several times a term, & the disruption often involve BLP violations. Should we semi them all indefinitely? (usually when I encounter this I semi for a week, and if repeated, for the rest of the term--not years on end) Similarly for popular media figures and well known politicians. Those are the sort of articles where beginners often start is a useful way. I too favored semi protecting all blps as simpler than flagged revisions. But that approach was rejected. so if we semi permanently, it should be only the ones that are known to be very frequently and disruptively edited. DGG (talk) 13:20, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Just for your information: The fair-use rationale in a picture used in the Triple H article was "vandalized" earlier today. Oceanh (talk) 13:59, 23 February 2009 (UTC).

So it looks like we're down to discussing Haim Saban, Saban Entertainment, Shuki Levy, VR Troopers. I'm of the opinion that they should all be unprotected. Unfortunately, WP:PROTECT is not as clear as I'd like on this, but my take on it is that these were temporary disruptions by a single or small group of individuals. I've added all four to my watchlist so I can help with any vandalism, and I'm willing to temporarily protect them myself if future vandalism makes it necessary. Believe me, I get as sick as anyone about dealing with vandalism. I've been playing whack-a-mole for a week with a meatpuppet farm that has me tearing my hair out. But one of the founding principles of wikipedia is that you don't have to sign up for an account to edit, so to me that means vandalism must be really persistent for indef semi-protection to be justified.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:47, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

If these pages get unprotected, then they'll be hit by the vandalism. This user's been active since 2006. And everytime I block one of the ranges on the ISP he uses, he finds a new ISP. He hasn't shown up for a few weeks now, but he consistently returns and the few pages I do have protected does not stop him from vandalizing others. I am simply chosing pages that are the least watched or the ones that he hits the hardest. If you look at the history of Haim Saban, it goes back a lot to where this user was on his first ISP causing trouble.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:08, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
So let's try unprotection on VR Troopers and Saban Entertainment and they can act as a honeypot, if the vandal doesn't return we can unprotect the other two. A single repeat vandal does not justify locking out non-autoconfirmed accounts. As someone pointed out above VR Troopers was actually benefitting from some positive IP contributions prior to your protection. –xeno (talk) 13:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
I have boldly removed the protection from VR Troopers and Saban Entertainment. I've already watchlisted these and can pounce on vandalism, and Xeno has indicated a willingness to do the same. If the experiment fails and they eventually need protection again, then everyone will be convinced Ryūlóng was right. If the experiment succeeds, then unprotecting was a good thing. Win-win situation.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:35, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
most definitely. eyes wide and protection may be liberally re-applied (with an expiry i hope) should vandalism re-occur. cheers, –xeno (talk)

Re-appearance of minor vandal[edit]

Resolved: User warned. — Jake Wartenberg 16:55, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

User Rich4560 was warned off in May 2008 after some vandalism. He has today made two unhelpful edits to Rail transport, and been warned again. As far as I can see all his contributions have been unhelpful. Murray Langton (talk) 14:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I've left a final warning on the talk page. --Rodhullandemu 14:36, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Please restore File:All-Sports-Rugby-1924.jpg because will be deleted in commons[edit]

Resolved: Deleted in both EnWiki and Commons as lacking proper permissions. Can be restored to Commons if proper licensure supplied. Can be restored to EnWiki if an acceptable fair-use rationale is given. -- Avi (talk) 19:25, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi, i transferred File:All-Sports-Rugby-1924.jpg to commons (upload here after). But was an error. This image will be deleted because is non-free. Please, restore File:All-Sports-Rugby-1924.jpg here, when after are upload. Thanks Shooke (talk) 03:41, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Done, but I'm not sure I see the problem. If it's PD in its country of creation it's PD internationally and is suitable for Commons, yes? I put the {{Do not move to Commons}} tag on based on your say-so, but I'm not sure it's necessary. Chick Bowen 03:57, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Wait--I misread it. If this is a magazine published in the UK in 1924 it is very much under copyright, unless you have specific evidence that the copyright holder has released it under a free license. If not, I'm afraid it's not appropriate here or at Commons (note that we no longer accept images by permission). Chick Bowen 04:06, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
I've pseudo-speedy {{npd}}'ed it, no evidence of permission. neuro(talk) 17:43, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Agustinaldo[edit]

I am considering an indefinite block on Agustinaldo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). As per his edit history and block history pretty much all his edits are original research and have been reverted. He has been significantly counseled about this but appears to be either obstinate or totally unable to "get it". I am looking for advice here on how this should be handled.--NrDg 17:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm generally against the indefinite blocking of good faith editors who can't seem to get Wikipedia policy drilled into their heads. On the other hand, I think that increasing blocks following instances of WP:OR would definitely be warranted. Trusilver 20:16, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Main Wikipedia Page - Number of Articles[edit]

Resolved: Wrong venue. neuro(talk) 11:10, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I, Axmann8, as a user of Wikipedia with multiple edits pursuant to the GFDL, move that the main Wikipedia page, that displays all of the current languages of Wikipedia, be reflected to show that there are "2,761,000" articles on the English Wikipedia.

The reason is thusly: Currently, both the Netherlands and Portugese versions of Wikipedia display their article count to the nearest 1,000th, not the nearest 10,000th.

The English Wikipedia should be reflected to count the aditional 1,000 articles, as 1,000 articles, even though minute in comparison to the upwards 2 million articles currently on the English Wikipedia, is still significant enough for the change.

Respectfully submitted,

-Axmann8 (talk) 23:52, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Please propose this at Talk:Main Page. Administrators don't have a specific role in determining content. Mark this as resolved when you have started a thread there. Protonk (talk) 00:23, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
People at the English Wikipedia have no control over what happens on the main Wikipedia page. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 00:58, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
As noted above, if you want to discuss changing the portal page at http://www.wikipedia.org, English wikipedia is not the place to do it. You want to take this up on Meta. Gavia immer (talk) 01:08, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
I just wanted to say that each language's article count is expressed to three significant figures. That seems to me like a great approach and not in need of change. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 23:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Backlogs[edit]

WP:AIV and CAT:CSD really need admin attention. If somebody could head over there, it would be much appreciated. --L. Pistachio (talk) 02:07, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Regex error in Spam blacklist on Meta[edit]

Seems there was a small regex error which accidentally blocked all .com domains for about 3 minutes.. It's been fixed, but the fall out is, well.. still falling. FYI.. --Versageek 02:21, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Attempted move blocked[edit]

Resolved: Moved by Redvers.

I attempted to move 1990s in South Africa to History of South Africa (1994-present) but the move was blocked with the message "This page-move has been automatically blocked, because it looks like page-move vandalism. If you think this has been done in error please leave a message on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard." Please can someone help resolve this? My motivation for the move is as follows: "Other articles in the history of SA series are based on historical eras, not decades. There is no article for the period 2000-present. This article is still short and could easily be expanded to cover history up to the present." Zaian (talk) 18:52, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I think all the blocker saw was a certain name pattern of South Africa. An admin should be able to override it. neuro(talk) 19:05, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Moved, as requested. Sorry about the redaction above, Neuro. redvers sit down next to me 19:18, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the prompt help. Zaian (talk) 19:46, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Funny I had no trouble moving it to the correctly punctuated title History of South Africa (1994–present) which does share all the same words. Of course the only resemblance I see between you and a certain pattern vandal is the gratuitously long edit summary you tried to use for the page-move. Could the blacklist possibly affect that? — CharlotteWebb 03:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I removed the blacklist entry involved. --Carnildo (talk) 05:44, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Chergles, AKA Dereks1x[edit]

The Arbitration Committee recently sitebanned Chergles as a sockpuppet of the banned editor Archtransit/Dereks1x. See Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard#Block_of_Chergles. This person has been emailing me, and now that I've stopped answering he'll probably approach someone else. So here's a heads up for admins who aren't already familiar with his approach.

He will email claiming to be the 'real person' behind one of the 100+ sockpuppets, say he was indeffed due to accident, incompetence, or malice, and politely request assistance clearing up the matter and getting his editing privileges reinstated. He may offer to supply identification to 'prove' his identity.

If asked to drop the charade, he will merely continue with a different permutation of it. Always claiming to be the innocent party, and always seeking help. He often approaches previously uninvolved Wikipedians who may be unfamiliar with his history. So posting here to give a heads up and perhaps save other people's time. DurovaCharge! 20:54, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Has he been using EmailUser or regular email? MBisanz talk 21:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Good question. It wouldn't be surprising if he uses the site's system for a first approach (he's had my email for a long time although we've seldom corresponded). Think it would be a good idea to cut off the socks' email access? DurovaCharge! 21:20, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Reblocked with email disabled, he still has his talk page and arbcom's email. MBisanz talk 21:36, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
For what it's worth, the amount of email recently sent from Chergles' IP is small -- granted, of course, that this would omit any emails sent from other addresses, or from outside Special:EmailUser. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:44, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
After I drew the line with him on the Chergles account (basically saying come clean if you want help from the people who would help you), he emailed me from an account that had been indeffed a long time ago. Claiming 'someone' had given him my email address, and then spinning a long tale. Usual modus operandi for this banned editor's appeals is to start from some long-dormant sock, claim to be mistaken identity, etc. So what I wonder is whether to block those socks' email access, in order to limit the target pool to email addresses he already has--most of whom are already familiar with his lines. DurovaCharge! 21:49, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
I've got neutral feelings, there. I think I'd be more comfortable with it if we left talk pages open (at least for now), or if I saw an account sending out masses of spammy emails -- speaking of which, please do let me know if some other account(s) might be worth checking in that regard. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:18, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
He's more likely to select one person at a time, send a carefully drafted request, and slowly work his way through the admin corps until he finds a soft spot. That's why it's been tolerated for this long. I'm proposing email blockage, not talk page protection. DurovaCharge! 22:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Any unblock request for this individual should be referred to ArbCom, which implemented the block by vote and has access to the checkuser data. Anyone with information concerning other socks or activities of this individual should also kindly e-mail us. Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:01, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I've contacted Brad and the Committee, although there's not too much more to be said. Primarily hoping to give the admin corps a heads up. DurovaCharge! 02:51, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
This doesn't surprise me. Having been intimately involved in the Archtransit debacle, this is totally his MO. He knows how to play by the rules long enough to not get noticed, and he learns well from his past mistakes. Considering he actually got the admin mop once, and was gearing up to getting it again this time, I am not surprised. I fully expect to see him around again in a few months. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:51, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Zamora needs attention[edit]

Resolved: discussion continued at User talk:Fandezamora/Zamora (pianist).  – ukexpat (talk) 04:39, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Dear admins,

Please, I request the inclusion, disambiguation, and protection of Zamora because there is a Venezuelan pianist, composer and writer, called Alejandro Zamora (his artistic name is Zamora, and he is not known by his first name).

Another people with last name Zamora is known by both, his first and last name.

So, the Venezuelan artist should point to Zamora because his artistic name coincides exactly with this name, and the Zamora disambiguation page should point for the other people.

About his inclusion, there are an old debate about him that have 2 years old when he was not so notable like nowadays and nobody did nothing again to include him in Wikipedia. Actually he has succeded on the United States and you can find his works on notable online and retail music & book stores.

Note about the request of indefinite protection:

Some days ago the page was created by another fan of Zamora and it was vandalized by people coming constantly. Another admin probably saw the old debate and ended deleting and protecting the page.

So, please I request the revision of inclusion of this artist, his disambiguation & protection, and once created the page, please protect it at least during a time.

p.s. Sorry for my english, but its not my native language.

p.s.2 The Wikipedia entry is still showing in the google cache:

http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:I47c7Hkyt08J:en.wikipedia.org/%3Ftitle%3DZamora+zamora+oasis+instrumental&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1

Thanks. --Fandezamora (talk) 23:13, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

That's not the way it works. There is no article for Alejandro Zamora. If in the future there is one, it can be titled Zamora (pianist) and added to the disambiguation page. – ukexpat (talk) 22:06, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

He is not only a pianist, he is a composer and writer too. However, if disambiguation is not posibble, Zamora (New age pianist) or (pianist) should be ok only by the fact that he is known more for his piano music, than by his books?

--Fandezamora (talk) 22:24, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alejandro Zamora, for the reason there is no article currently. Kevin (talk) 22:09, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

OK. So please tell what is the right procedure in order to include him in Wikipedia.

Thanks. --Fandezamora (talk) 22:14, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

The best approach is to create the article as a sub page, something like User:Fandezamora/Zamora (pianist). You will be able to work on it in user space without fear of it being deleted. I have created that subpage for you. Please also read WP:YFA, WP:BIO and WP:RS. Once the page is ready for the mainspace, it can moved there.  – ukexpat (talk) 23:20, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

OK. I did copy & paste of the original Wikipedia entry, and fixed some grammatical errors.

So, please tell me now what is the second step for publishing it out of my user space, on the Zamora disambiguation page.

Thanks- --Fandezamora (talk) 23:32, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Just a very gentle point here: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Alejandrozamora. I would hope that the episode won't be repeated and this is a different person who is here to contribute positively to the encyclopedia by following guidelines and creating valuable content that adheres to said guidelines. §FreeRangeFrog 23:48, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Sure, I am here to politely discuss where to place this artist on the enciclopedia and for this reason I am requesting admin assistance in order to do the right procedures. --Fandezamora (talk) 23:58, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Excellent. We do always try to assume good faith and welcome all contributions. §FreeRangeFrog 00:00, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

OK. fine.

How I said previously, I did copy & paste of the original Wikipedia entry and the article is ready now for the main space, so please tell me now what is the next step for publishing it out of my user space, on the Zamora disambiguation page (and for protecting it indefinetely against vandals).

Thanks again- --Fandezamora (talk) 00:06, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Sure. Before we do that though, have you addressed the issues for which the original article was deleted? I.e., if the subject did not meet the notability guidelines (I assume those would be WP:MUSIC), does he/she meet them now? §FreeRangeFrog 00:23, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Sure. You can read his references or search his albums or books on Amazon.com. --Fandezamora (talk) 00:57, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The references in the draft do not establish notability as required by WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC - you need "significant coverage" in reliable sources. – ukexpat (talk) 01:19, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

There are a lot of reliable third party references:

1. Several references of cultural government agencies of Venezuela 2. The database of books and authors of Venezuela. 3. Newspapers, official biographies and blogs.

And finally the most reliable third party source: Amazon.com

What more he needs? There are a lot of other artist with less references published on Wikipedia. --Fandezamora (talk) 01:34, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

None of those sources you cite would be considered reliable or valid in any way. To start with, for example, if you're claiming that the subject has published books and you're providing a reference to that, you need to link to the publications, not to the website of the national library or to the CENAL. The other is a blog, a few don't even work and the rest are links to your own website. Go ahead and source everything correctly. Yo hablo Español perfectamente y puedo evaluar si tus citas y ligas a publicaciones u otros recursos en línea se considerarian válidos bajo los reglamentos de Wikipedia. §FreeRangeFrog 01:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

OK. no problem / no problema,

you can go to the book database and search the isbn of his book (please note that this is the book database, the music sheets books containing ismn's are not listed there. So you will need to contact the ismn agency for that because this agency does not have an online database. anyway the music sheet books are listed on amazon.com

And about your worries with the official governmment links, there is the procedure to search in the national agency of venezuelan books and authors:

go to: http://www.cenal.gob.ve/

click the "isbn en linea" logo

click now "registered books" at the bottom of the page

you can be now redirected to the search engine:

i thought that its not possible a direct link with the results, for this reason i published like reference the database url only.

however you can try this link:

http://isbnvzla.no-ip.info/site_isbn/buscador.php?mode=buscar&code=&tit_nombre=thoughts&col_nombre=zamora&tit_IDmateria=&t_idiomas=&tit_date_apar=&D_sigP=%3D --Fandezamora (talk) 02:15, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

This should probably be continued at User_talk:Fandezamora/Zamora. Kevin (talk) 02:34, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Ive copied and pasted this discussion like reference in User_talk:Fandezamora/Zamora. --Fandezamora (talk) 03:09, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The article of Zamora (where per suggestion was placed to avoid the fear of being deleted) along with the talk page User_talk:Fandezamora/Zamora where suposedly the discussion was going to continue was deleted, so I would like to know where to continue.

thanks --Fandezamora (talk) 04:03, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I asked the sysop to restore it. Further discussion about this should take place on the talk page of that sandbox once it's restored, as AIV is probably not the best place to converse about content. If someone wants to mark this section as resolved, I guess.... §FreeRangeFrog 04:22, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

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

Arbitration Committee agenda as of February 26[edit]

The updated agenda of the Arbitration Committee (as of February 26) has been published here. For the Committee. Kirill [pf] 04:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Question about appropriateness of deletion[edit]

Is this deletion proper? It removes information directly related to the subject of the article from RS. Not only is it about direct criticisms of the NCAHF by a major profession and its response to that misguided criticism, it also removes information uncomfortable to the editor who made the deletion, who happens to be a strong supporter and defender of chiropractic, a profession which the NCAHF criticizes for its unscientific foundation, its quackery, and other issues. Is this a form of disguised whitewashing? I would like to hear what other editors think, and would prefer that other editors deal with that edit in the appropriate manner. -- Fyslee (talk) 04:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

This is not an issue that requires admin action. Providing you have already tried to discuss this with the user in question, please consider Wikipedia:Requests for comment. Dcoetzee 05:29, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Regarding selective deletion / RevisionDelete[edit]

I posted some questions regarding selective deletion / data suppression / RevisionDelete here: Wikipedia talk:Selective deletion#Questions on my mind. Any and all input is welcome. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:05, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Attempted move blocked[edit]

Resolved: Moved by Redvers.

I attempted to move 1990s in South Africa to History of South Africa (1994-present) but the move was blocked with the message "This page-move has been automatically blocked, because it looks like page-move vandalism. If you think this has been done in error please leave a message on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard." Please can someone help resolve this? My motivation for the move is as follows: "Other articles in the history of SA series are based on historical eras, not decades. There is no article for the period 2000-present. This article is still short and could easily be expanded to cover history up to the present." Zaian (talk) 18:52, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I think all the blocker saw was a certain name pattern of South Africa. An admin should be able to override it. neuro(talk) 19:05, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Moved, as requested. Sorry about the redaction above, Neuro. redvers sit down next to me 19:18, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the prompt help.