Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive31

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

Noticeboard archives


Advice requested from experienced admins[edit]

Some time in January, Giovanni33 (talk · contribs) arrived and began to make big changes in the Christianity article and other related articles. His changes were resisted by those who had been editing the article for some time, as they were considered to be attempts to insert and present fringe scholarship as mainstream views. He sometimes edited as (talk · contribs), and acknowledged those edits as his, when he inadvertently got logged out. bang bang bang boom guah

After Givanni33 had met with some resistance, BelindaGong (talk · contribs) turned up to support him. She sometimes edited from an IP address – (talk · contribs), which she agreed was probably hers. Her very first edits both as and as BelindaGong were reverts to Giovanni's version. They both reverted aggressively, while lecturing their ofor reverting them. They very quickly violated 3RR, but were not reported as they were new (even though they had been warned gently but frequently of the rule before the actual violations occurred).

They continued to revert unrepentantly, and seemed to take advantage of the fact that the "old" editors were reluctant to report them, or to go beyond three reverts themselves. Finally, after a long period of gross violations from both of them (on one occasion, Giovanni reverted an article 11 times in about eighteen and a half hours, despite being asked repeatedly to stop), they were both blocked. See the reports [[1]] and [[[2]].

Since then they have been careful, and have not violated 3RR, although they have, on numerous occasions, taken six reverts between them in a 24-hour period. They have also voted together. Belinda often shows up to revert just as Giovanni has used up his three reverts. In fact, as I write these words, she's doing it right now at Christianity.

The WP:RFCU results came in on Saturday. User:Giovanni33 is User:BelindaGong. They had constantly denied this, and had put up an elaborate pretence of not knowing each other (see their talk pages), while suggesting that User:Str1977 and User:KHM03 were sockpuppets, and that I was a meatpuppet for Str1977.

I would appreciate some advice on what I should do now. I seem to recall that in the past, admins have blocked indefinitely an account that was sockpuppeting to get round the rules, and have also blocked the main account for a period. In my view, Giovanni is the real account holder, as Belinda nearly always just reverts to his version, whereas he posts long messages to the talk pages in order to justify his edits (though he then insits on posting his extremely controvesial edits even if he hasn't achieved any kind of agreement.

I know I can't block people I'm in dispute with. Does that mean that I shouldn't block Giovanni or Belinda, since I have opposed their edits? Is an indefinite block on Belinda justified?

Advice would be welcome. AnnH (talk) 04:11, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

You're right that you shouldn't block them, as that would be an abuse of your administrator privileges. But it sounds like they are definitely violating the spirit of 3RR, which is an abuse of having a second account. Coming here and telling the story was the right thing to do, as it sounds like this is a problem that needs to be addressed. I don't have time right now to investigate the specifics and engage in the appropriate dialogue before considering a block (which may well be necessary) but I'm sure some other admin will do so. moink 06:04, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
I would suggest that you submit a WP:RCU to see if they are sock puppets of each other. If they are, block both for 3RR violations. --Nlu (talk) 06:08, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
As indicated above, she already has, and they are. -GTBacchus(talk) 06:18, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Looks like User:MONGO has blocked both for 24 hours, an appropriate remedy for the apparent violation. I'm sure many will be keeping an eye on them after the block expires. Good job keeping your cool, Ann. moink 06:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Kecik (talk · contribs) has shown up to continue the edit war. Jkelly 20:28, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the article Christianity could benefit from mediation. I'm surprised to see very few citations. In controversial pages like this, people have to stop presenting their own views and do serious scholarship. That means presenting a multitude of views and documenting who says what. I know next to nothing about the subject (I'm an ethnically Jewish agnostic raised as an atheist), but reading the article and the discussion I don't understand the difference between the views. Assuming one is mainstream and the other is more of a fringe view, they should both be presented so that someone like me understands the different views and can recognize which are mainstream and what the controversy is about. I don't know if the parties in this debate can accomplish this without moderation. I'd also try to get everyone to agree to a ONE REVERT policy. If there is a clear controversy, three reverts just waste everyone's time. If people can't behave civilly and work together, perhaps the page needs to be protected and all edits happen by agreement on the talk page. If you all worked together you could probably create a great article. Good luck. -- Samuel Wantman 06:50, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I second this notion. Infact my proposal has been that no one revert anothers work without at least coming to the talk page first. Making the talk page mandatory before making a revert would do a lot to help.Giovanni33 10:17, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

This is why I could never run a stable of sockpuppets: [3] It's just too easy to get confused. I believe both of these, as well as BelindaGong (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log), are currently blocked for using puppets to avoid the three-revert rule. Tom Harrison Talk 04:18, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Again, I have no socketpuppets, and I'm willing to prove beyond any reasonable doubt for anyone would would like to take me up on the offer. I will trust any arbcom admin with my the personal ID's. Giovanni33 10:17, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
User:FionaS may be an additional sock. KHM03 02:13, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
I think FionaS did admit to being a sock infact. But, not my sock. She stated that she wanted to speak out but not be targed for harassment in her main account. This person may be an established older user. There are legitimate reasons for somoene to have a sock, and it appears Fiona made a good argument for why she adopted this sock. I also note she did not do any reverts. That editors feel they must hide inorder to express themselves is indicative of the chilling atmosphere that results when those with a contrary POV are bullied. Giovanni33 10:17, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

As I'm rushing out now, and have no time to provide an update, perhaps some not-too-busy admin might take a look here and here and give some advice. There's quite a history of redlinked user names appearing, agreeing with Giovanni, reverting to his version, voting for whatever he votes for, etc. And one of them accidentally signed his own signature for something that Giovanni33 was answering. Then he logged in as Giovanni, and changed the signature. Comments please? Thanks. AnnH (talk) 13:26, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment: I admit I edit warred in the very beggining. I have stopped. I noticed you keep bringing up my past 3RR violations to paint me as an aggressive edit warrior, but the truth is otherwise. I extensively used the talk pages to work for and infact build real consensus. I pleaded that no one reverts to undo anyother editors work (except for vandalism) without first at least going to the talk page. My idea to stop edit warring was ignored. Still, I learned that simply winning an argument by providing references while the side failed to and went silent, did not entitle me to edit war in vio of the policy; being right is no excuse. So I stopped. I am reasonable and I have been convinced when wrong. I can be swayed, but with reason, and evidence to support the claims. After my first block, I never violated the 3RR again. But I continued try to find out what the objections were and have them substantiated, using reasoned arguments, and sources. This apparently emboldened other users (my theory) who started to show up, agree with me and help me out--but no different than the tag teaming you have enjoyed with your confidants in pursuing for your POV. (another theory is that they are real sockets created to make it look as if they were my sockets to use as a diversion away from edits work). But, I assume good faith. When the threat of possible equality for a secular POV encroached, in part by my winning over the moderate voices, the aggressive attacks of socket puppet accusations started, and expanded so that anyone who agreed with me was automatically suspect; to assume bad faith was made the norm and civility was thrown out. That Belinda proved to be my wife (a fact I felt I had a right to keep private) was seized on as excuse to avoid even trying to work on the article to address contentious points. Now it's locked. Temporarily this might not be bad if it forces others to go to the talk page to address the issue.
You will forgive me, AnnH, if I think you have utterly failed not to bite newcomers. Freethinker was a newcomer, yet as soon as he explained his relation to me he was attacked, blocked, and his page defaced with a socket puppet label. This is the opposite of assuming good faith. Now he doesn't want to come back. Infact you called him a "meatpuppet" outright, after he explained his connection to me. He was new and wanted to help with the POV disputes. I mentioned before to you that the Wiki policy states, "Do not call these users "meatpuppets"; be civil." It should be reasonable to understand (yet you said you can't understand it after it was explained to you) The only other time I used another account was once when I was at a friend's house, to introduce him to Wikipedia (I think getting a more diverse body of pov's is healthy, not bad), and I used his account only to respond to a question on my talk page. This was all open and disclosed by me. Its lot logical to assume that this is an attempt by me to use a socketpuppet, esp. when I use his PC and even sign his name to my message (which I corrected, to my name when I know full well about the usercheck abilities. Yet, despite this you keep spreading a negative bad faith interpretation that assumes a negative intenion on my part. I also will say that as a result he was blocked, and I was blocked for an additional 48 hours (72 in total for having my wife edit and inviting a friend). I don't protest this, even though I'm innocent of any sockepuppetry, and did not violate 3RR or any rule. What I do protest in the strongest way possible is the continued distruption with constant socketpuppet allegations of me and others based on allegations and variations of different half-truths that insult, disrupt, and distract from honest editing.
I think the Christianity article's problems, in part, stems from an ideological rigidity kept in tact by a dominance of multiple users sharing the same basic POV. Apparently any new comer doesn’t meet groupthink standards is bullied into conformity, silence, or expulsion. I felt I was. You will recall that user Sophia stated she felt bullied and ganged up on, when she first joined, that it was scary. Others stated similar sentiments. The very fact of the nature of maintaining one POV means that newcomers who do not fit will get the bite experience. Most will probably leave. In this sense the article space acts like just like institution, it’s self-selecting.
The socket puppet allegations have not stopped but are now being pushed agressively despite the fact that the checks have cleared me and the others. This now objectively serve as a tool keep the status quo by attack users integrity instead of their arguments. I see it as intimidation and disruption with the aim of getting me permanently banned. In my forced wiki-break (although I've been editing in the other wiki language sites) I've also had a chance to read a lot of messages so I'm confident I know whats going on, what you have been saying, and others, and can easily see what the motivations and goals are not in good faith. You want me gone for good. I'm sorry if I'm not going to violate any rules to make that easy. Belinda is not my socketpuppet, and I can prove she is my wife. That should restore my credibility and put to rest this modern day inquisition. I’m willing to forgive and continue assuming good faith as I realize that is not a luxury but a necessity in order to focus on the collaborative effort we are all supposed to be part of.
Despite my concilliatory and amicable disposition, and the fact that I've pleaded to to focused on my arguments to improve the Christianity article, the continued allegations of socketpuppetry by those I've had Pov diputes with, continue unabated. I think, are being done in bad faith being pushed by a handful of edit warriors as a result of the POV differences. The speculations continue to disrupt good faith discussions and turn them into personal attacks. It has gotten so bad that I think it borders on harassment. Sadly, I've been convinced that AnnH has been making this her mission, expanding it to anyone whose agreed with me, is taking the form of an ugly inquisition; even an older valued editor has left in protest describing it with this kind of language. AnnH continues to lead this attack spreading bad faith assumptions, making interpretations and speculations to cast the worst possible light over me and others, over and over in different places. I have had a hard time even keeping up with trying to defend myself over the many one-sided half-truths being spread. Keeping my marriage private was my right; that I chose to not share this fact is irrelevant to the fact that she is my wife and hence not a sockpuppet, which is all that should matter (I've offered to prove it-- if any arbcom admin is interested, by sending you our respective ID's for Giovanni and Belinda Gong, our real names). I disclosed this after a usercheck showed our connection to offer a valid explanation for the appearance of sockepuppetry. We were both blocked. Due to the POV dispute I've had with AnnH and a couple others, they are now taking advantage of this to continue what is essential a personal attack, including anyone else who has agreed with my pov. Even after a usercheck has cleared them and myself, all kinds of accusatory speculations continue unabated. The result is in effect to disrupt constructive edit work to improve the substance of articles. This is indecent, counter-productive, and harassment. The role that AnnH describes of my wife, also exactly matches her own role in pushing for her own Pov with user Str1977; they have use up 3reverts each between each other, and AnnH has even accidentally gone over 3rv's in a 3RR vio herself. AnnH says that was an accident and I believe her. She is careful to follow the letter of the rules, although this McCarthy like witch-hunt is certainly violating the spirit of several other equally important wiki rules and principals. I ask her to stop this, if not for me then for the good of Wikipedia as it's inimical to the good the project. Thanks for reading. Giovanni33 09:44, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Shultz block[edit]

I've blocked User:Shultz for one week for a series of trolling edits on the Ref Desk, despite warnings and his previous extensive history of blocks for this [4].

I warned him for a series of edits in which he created a redirect from 'Kim Il Sung City' (in Korean) to Seoul [5] and then asked on the Refdesk what the redirect meant [6]. He subsequently removed his signature from his question, then deleted the question, then re-added it from an IP address.

In another bout of Korea-related trolling, he started with a question [7], added a wikilink to it after Dirk had answered [8] and then (using another IP address which he had previously identified as himself [9]) berated Dirk for not noticing the wikilink which had not existed when Dirk answered. [10]

While the Refdesk is perhaps not the most vital part of the Wikipedia universe, this sort of unpleasantness and time-wasting has to be stopped. Markyour words 17:11, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Good detective work. We don't need that kind of behaviour. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:24, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Well done, Mark. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 08:18, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I also agree with the block. Has anyone noticed though that User:Shultzii has arrived on the reference desk with similar questions and has a long history of people asking him to stop redirecting and other unhelpful edits? Nothing better than circumstantial, but may be worth checking. - Taxman Talk 17:51, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked Shultzii (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) as a sockpuppet of Shultz (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) which was used to circumvent the block on the main account. For evidence just look at their user pages. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 19:24, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I've discussed this matter with Shultz, here's my best AGF interpretation of what might have happened. Shultz created a redirect from "Kim Il-sung City" (in Hangul) to Seoul (the redirect no longer exists) and want to draw attention to this "hilarious" feat. He logged out and posted anonymously on the Reference Desk,[11] yadda yadda yadda, he got blocked for trollish disruption. He has promised to take similar attempts at humor to Uncyclopedia. He also indicated that he wants to start over using a different account when the block expires. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 00:01, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Deceptively drawing attention to a POV redirect can hardly be good faith; neither can insulting someone for noticing something that clearly wasn't there. I would not support him getting a new socl either; possibly, CheckUser should be used to prevent this. Superm401 - Talk 05:35, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

User:SteveDevine and what I should do about images[edit]

User:SteveDevine has uploaded three images, which I am reasonably sure are connected with an article he created about a 16-year-old girl, which I speedily deleted. However, since I am totally blind, I am not sure what these images are and am not sure what to do with them. Is there a better page to ask a question like this? I have been patrolling Newpages for over a year now and sometimes run into images with specific names, but usually only one, not three. Academic Challenger 10:12, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, they're all of the same girl, and I can only assume they were to go on his article. I'm guessing they could be deleted. Raven4x4x 10:54, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
The article was about an Australian teenager, Jessica Mckenna. Three images were all the same; I've deleted two of them and placed a template:nosource on the other. Steve Devine, btw is an All Black scrum-half [12]. — Dunc| 11:08, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Though SteveDevine (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) is possibly Stevedevine (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log)Dunc| 11:10, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
I think I saw him create a bunch of variations on his username, but it could have been someone else. Is there a problem with this, as long as they are not using them to avoid a block or influence consensus? I figured that it would be pretty dumb to do those things with such similar usernames. -- Kjkolb 00:05, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm indefinitely {{UsernameBlock}}ing User:SteveDevine. The account could cause problems later. If you find more duplicates, list them here. Superm401 - Talk 06:06, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Legal Threat[edit]

Check out, probably the biggest stretch of a legal threat ever. Mike (T C) Star of life2.svg 04:42, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I've removed it and warned the poster. Superm401 - Talk 07:00, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Final decision[edit]

The arbitration committee has reached a final decision in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/KDRGibby case. Raul654 06:44, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/RJII v. Firebug[edit]

This arbitration case has closed. RJII is placed on personal attack parole, probation, general probation, and is cautioned regarding POV editing. Firebug is counseled that Wikipedia is a work in progress and that perfection is not to be expected. These remedies (where applicable) shall be enforced by a block of up to one year. For further details, please see the arbitration case. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Johnleemk | Talk 08:40, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rajput[edit]

A final decision has been reached in this case and it has been closed.

Shivraj Singh, DPSingh , Gurkhaboy and all of their sock puppets and all users listed as the "Hindus only side" at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Rajput/Evidence#involved_users are banned from editing Rajput and related articles. This is to be enforced by the usual escalating blocking policy.

For the arbitration committee. --Tony Sidaway 22:03, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

For how long are these users banned from these articles? User:Zoe|(talk) 22:18, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Indefinitely, I guess. --TML1988 22:34, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll ask the committee to clarify, but for now I'd assume it's an indefinite ban. --Tony Sidaway 23:15, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

If there is no statement otherwise, remedies have no set expiry. Sam Korn (smoddy) 23:36, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
I was always under the impression that bans were never for more than a year. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:47, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Indefinite. It is doubtful that their caste will change within a year. Their place will be taken by others from the Rajput caste who hopefully will conduct themselves more courteously. There are a million other articles available for their attention. Fred Bauder 13:33, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


... I appear to have been de-sysopped. Can someone explain why? - Ta bu shi da yu 04:33, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Nope, I just can't edit locked pages. Why is that? - Ta bu shi da yu 04:35, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Nothing in the meta logs: [13]. Chick Bowen 04:59, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
There have been no logged changes here to your privileges and Special:Listusers indicates that you are still a sysop. I don't know why you wouldn't be able to edit locked pages. Can you give an example (not that it should matter)? Superm401 - Talk 06:33, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
It was a problem with editing Adolf Hitler. Strangely, problem has gone away. Something on my browser must have gone screwy. Apologies for knee-jerk reaction. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:19, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
AAAAA! Its The Boys from Brazil cabal! :) --Syrthiss 13:23, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Oh no! - Ta bu shi da yu 12:46, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Rick lay95 - block warranted?[edit]

I've been experiencing long-term difficulties with User:Rick lay95. I now feel too personally involved to block this user, since his talk page comprises mostly messages from me. He's been blocked twice this month (the second time, I'm convinced he used User:Zeo6 as a sock puppet account to evade the block - please see my rationale at User talk:Zeo6). Since the second block expired, he's persisted in uploading images without source details (despite 38 previous missing source/licensing reminders and three messages from me in which I've offered to help him if he doesn't understand how to deal with source/licensing tags), he has blanked a redirect page and he has removed an AfD tag from a page he created - I left a "final warning" after that one.

Since the final warning he has uploaded images which he tagged as public domain because he "couldn't find anything that matched and that happened to be the closest [he] could find". As a result, I left a long-ish comment here, warning him that he needed to start heeding copyright issues and to follow policies. He has since added a speedy delete tag to an article for no apparent reason.

As I've said, I feel too personally involved in this case to give another block myself. It could be that due to my lengthy involvement with this user and my subsequent frustration, I'm over reacting. However, I feel a block (probably longer than the 24hr/48hr blocks he's already had this month) is in order - please could another admin review this case and take appropriate action (either issuing a block or telling me to cool down if I'm over-reacting!). Thanks, CLW 18:27, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked for one month. The amount of repeated copyvios he has uploaded is ridiculous. -Greg Asche (talk) 18:43, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, Greg. CLW 18:45, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Moving a page: Transatlantic (band)[edit]

There has been some controversy over the name of a page on a band, Transatlantic. It has been resolved as shown at User_talk:Chiok. The page started out at TransAtlantic when I moved it to Transatlantic (band). The page was then moved to TransAtlantic (band) by way of copy and pasting instead of using the "Move" button as I did. Because of this, I'm unable to move the page back toTransatlantic (band). If an admin could move the page and notify me on my talk page, User_talk:Snaxe920, I'd be happy to take care of any links to the three pages in concern. --Snaxe920 19:56, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Problem has been rectified. Sasquatch t|c 22:49, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Eh? I was blocked?[edit]

Why was I blocked? Can I be, you know, unblocked? That'd be nice... --Xiaphias 23:24, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Silly question, but if you're blocked, how can you edit this page?-- 23:25, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Responded at user's talk page. It is a little paradox, isn't it? :) Chick Bowen 23:26, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

We occasionally have what could be called "rolling blocks." What happens is, an editor ends up on a dynamic IP address that has been blocked earlier in the day for one reason or another, and is blocked as a result. Sometimes it is not a direct block of the IP address, but a Wikipedia:Autoblock that causes it. Generally, the problem corrects itself quickly, as the user is moved onto a new, unblocked IP just as quickly as he or she was moved on to the blocked one. It's inconvenient, but barring all users demanding static IPs from their ISPs, there is nothing that can be done. In future, if you have this problem, you can email the administrator who placed the block, or add {{Unblock}} to your talk page. Make sure to say you believe it is not an actual block of your account, but a block of the IP you are on, and give that IP address (it will appear in the block message you see). An administrator can do a "hard unblock" (acutally input that IP into the unblock page) and force an unblock of that IP, whether the initial block was an actual IP block or an autoblock. Essjay TalkContact 23:35, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
You can always check that your username hasn't been blocked at the block log. (Note that the User field there refers to the blocker, not the blockee - so leave it blank when checking your own block status.) Rd232 talk 23:43, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I get this message: Your user name or IP address has been blocked from editing You were blocked by Duk Reason given: Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "Kalsi". The reason given for Kalsi's block is: "suspected sock of User:Kiop, serial copyvios". (see our blocking policy)

That is a Wikipedia:Autoblock; it can easily be removed. I'll go see if I can't find it now. Essjay TalkContact 03:23, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
I pulled three autoblocks matching that discription, everything should be back to normal. Essjay TalkContact 03:26, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Hey 2006[edit]

Hey 2006 (talk · contribs) was recently created today. I'm not sure about his edits though. All of his edits seem to be tagging random artcles for deletion. Could someone go threw his edits and Afd's he started are worth keeping? Moe ε 00:36, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll take a look now. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:39, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
A couple of his recent edits appear to involve removing the }} at the end of templates; I left a note on his talk page. --AySz88^-^ 00:44, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
I've also formatted some of his AfDs and listed them all. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:53, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for dealing with that, Flcelloguy. My question: I understand that this is our usual practice, and I have no problem with what Flcelloguy has done, but is it really necessary for us to complete AfDs if they are both badly formed and clearly are going to be kept? Obviously any AfD that is correctly nominated has to go through the process (even if that will certainly lead to a speedy keep), but does one that appears to be either bad-faith or based on a misunderstanding of the process and that is not correctly nominated need to? This is not a rhetorical question (and not necessarily about the current user; I'm think more of clear bad-faith or retaliatory nominations such as often come up); I'm curious to know what others think. Chick Bowen 00:57, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

(2 edit conflicts) I was going to say before 2 edit conflicts that its better to just let it's run course than delete because who was going to support the deletion of an article that has the AfD description of "who?" It's no big deal to speedy keep. Moe ε 01:11, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
I just think that anyone, who we believe is acting in good faith, has the right to nominate articles for deletion. If we need to speedy keep them, we speedy keep them - it's no big deal. In addition, most of the articles that he nominated weren't "obvious" speedy keeps, per se; it's no harm to put them through AfD. Of course, that's just my opinion. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:00, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Terrence Murphy and C.C. Brown were both up for AfD and both Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terrence Murphy and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/C.C. Brown were closed as speedy keep but the AfD tag was not removed from the article. I removed them now. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 12:46, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

No more George W. Bush templates[edit]

It is clear that there will be no acceptable solution whereby some of the more polemical templates are deleted, but not others. The various templates related to George W. Bush are a clear example of this. The only long-term solution will be to get rid of them entirely, which is what I've just done. In the interest of avoiding more divisiveness, please discuss any future actions here first. Thank you, --MarkSweep (call me collect) 22:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll say a few more things: This is not the End Of The World As We Know It. As the French Wikipedia and German Wikipedia have demonstrated, the project will not grind to a halt if we disallow polemical userboxes. And before anyone says "let's wait until we have a comprehensive userbox policy", let me counter this by saying that we're under no obligation to keep stuff which is irrelevant to the project's main goal. Once we have a comprehensive userbox policy, let's see if it says "polemical templates are Ok and encouraged"; if so, these templates can be recreated in a flash. But for now, things will be much easier without them. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 22:32, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:34, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Wow, that's WP:BOLD, but it has my full support. The mood on Wikipedia:Deletion review/Userbox debates shows that the mentailty is 1) All userbox deletions are 'out of process' regardless of the WP:CSD 2)All userbox deletions will be listed on DRV, regardless of the merits of deletion. 3) All will be sent back to tfD. 4) TfD will delete nothing. Basically, not only is this unencyclopedic material enjoying the full benefits of an inclusionist deletion policy designed to keep encyclopedic material, it is expected that userboxes will be treated as a special case - never speedied - always reviewed - inevitably kept. This is unsustainable. --Doc ask? 22:35, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
I think you mean "the project will not grind to a halt". Sam Korn (smoddy) 22:37, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
I certainly do, now corrected. Thank you. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 22:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Bravo. --Improv 22:45, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Sigh. Does it not occur to you at all than it will cause more "divisiveness" to just whack them in a flash than to just leave them for a while? Does it not occur to you at all that doing so and then saying "please discuss any future actions here first" is problematic? We're under no obligation to not delete every person's user page that has anything on it that doesn't aid the project, but we don't because most of have some slight shred of common sense. What was the emergancy that required this action, almost certain to result in recreations, wheel wars, blocking, and further driving potentially good editors from the fold as well as giving the "freedom of speech" provocateurs something else to scream about? And would it have been so crazy to talk about it first? - brenneman{T}{L} 22:51, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
I've considered this. In fact, I've ignored userboxes for a long time, treating them essentially like trolls, hoping they would go away. But they clearly won't, on the contrary. We can no longer ignore the elephant (no political pun intended) in the room. I don't see why we shouldn't enforce core policies vigorously. We don't go around first debating whether we want to enforce 3RR, for fear that we will be accused of "censoring free speech" (or treason, for that matter). --MarkSweep (call me collect) 23:00, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
We might as well use the correct terminology. It's called a ForestFire. Sam Korn (smoddy) 22:55, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Aaron might be right, but what is the other option? No compromise will be acceptable to the warriors, and they clearly will not go away. Will some editors leave over this? Quite possibly. Will some of them be a loss? Probably. But the alternative is a) just allow wikipedia to become a POV-pushers club, and campaigning ground/my space. 2) Wait. But for what? Will it get better? I think the problem here has in fact been too much delay and tollerance. If we had delivered a swift 'no' to this several months ago, we wouldn't have created all these new warriors. Karmafist has been going around petitioning noobs with his 'manifesto' creating partisans rather than wikipedians. We must cry stop. --Doc ask? 23:06, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
  • These are probably the most often deleted, restored, and recreated templates of the lot. Is there some special "Delete and I really mean it this time" tab that has been used? Further, since I've seen Jimbo (praise be his name) quoted a few times with regards to "not acceptable", didn't he also ask for restraint in deleting things? For less action and more talking?
  • This "fire" is caused at least in part by the repeated deletion of these stupid little boxes. If they aren't deleted right now than they won't go to TfD and DRv, then we won't have the non-stop three ring circus. A little bit of patience would go a long long way to defusing this stupid and pointless cycle. Did the memo go out that Wikipedia had to be finished tomorrow and I missed it?
  • One of the things that we're supposed to be good at as administrators is resolving conflict. We're meant to help people talk about things, we're meant to educate newcomers into our occult ways, we're meant to be patient and thoughtful. By continuing to randomly delete stuff we're creating POV warriors, not stopping them. When we balance out the damage done by these templates continuing to exist for another week or even a month by the "forest fire" that is created by the continued and repatative deletion, there is no contest.
  • I'll ask Mark directly: why was it that these had to be deleted now as opposed to next Thursday?
    brenneman{T}{L} 23:17, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
    Playing devil's advocate: why next Thursday rather than now? Sam Korn (smoddy) 23:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
There is no presumption that eventualism always trumps immediatism. I could counter by saying "if not now, when?" But to be honest, several things happened today that made me realize that there will be no other quick solution that will make everyone happy. Check WP:TFD and my talk page to see what I mean. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 23:25, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
"A little bit of patience would go a long long way to defusing this stupid and pointless cycle," quoth Aaron. Can you explain how? How will waiting around make the userboxes go away? How will it send the message that they're not part of an encyclopedia? How will it change the minds of the edit warriors? How will it counter the idea that Wikipedia is a free webhost? What on Earth are you proposing as a solution? -GTBacchus(talk) 23:23, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Brenneman, I 'hear what you are saying'. But perhaps you can tell me what you'd prefer - and how it will play out in the long run? We wait (for what?) and exactly what happens? --Doc ask? 23:26, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

As requested[edit]

Ok, this turned out to be huge. Sorry to post such a screed here, but you did ask. And it's only about one tenth of one percent of the total words we've wasted on this. - brenneman{T}{L} 01:25, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

A quick and dirty summation

  • Stop fighting the boxes. The boxes aren't doing anything and do not present an ugrent problem.
  • Editors and admins are doing things, and it is the continued posturing on both sides that is the urgent problem.

Possible classes of userboxes, with totally made up percentages

  • Marginally useful (5%)
    • These are the language, browser, etc boxes. Convert these into categories. The users who have are likely to be amenable to reason, and there is no rush.
  • Useless but not mostly harmless (90%)
    • "This user is made of meat" et alii. These are mulitplying because they are easy, and the "pick lists" of userboxes make this worse. Slow the creation of these and eventually eliminate them.
  • Potentially harmful (5%)
    • Divisive user boxes (.1%) - These are mostly either simply jokes in poor taste like the original "This user is a pedophile" or trolling like the "This user had been attracted to females under 16 while not under 16"
    • Polemic user boxes (4.9%) - These are the thorniest issue. "User dislikes George Bush"
    • These need to be removed, we all agree on that. The only question is how and how soon.

What's the harm again?

  • All problems arise from the editor's behavior and not the user boxes.
  • The mostly harmless 90% are often used by the newest members of the community. Not a huge problem, and it's good if people have fun and learn some wikimarkup. But when the first edits they make (or the first 75) are hanging curtains on a user page, it's easy to lose sight of the "encyclopedia first" concept.
    • First get rid of the pick-lists, then slowly {{subst:}} and deleted the existing templates while explaining nicely the reasons why. Again there is no rush. This can almost certainly be done with simple talking, and work on the wikiproject. I've dipped my toe in here, and the response has mostly been "Sure, I thought it was funny, but since you asked nicely I'll take it down."
    • This is not an urgent problem, and is not amenable to a quick fix.
  • Divisive boxes - are actually few and far between.
    • In some cases it's just stupidity, and a simple explanantion is all that's required. More often it's trying to get a rise, and should be treated as such. When SPUI pops a "pseudo-pedo" userbox on his page, deleting the box isn't going to do anything. Remember We don't feed trolls. Editing is always a better way to solve a problem than use of sysop powers. Edit troll boxes into something mild. If someone wants to edit war, 3RR blocks are uncontroversial.
    • This is an urgent problem only if we make it so, but is amenable to a quick fix.
  • Polemic boxes - these are the actual problem. These range from the mild "This user doesn't have a problem with the UN but just thinks they are useless" to the shocking "This user supports Hamas' campaign of suicide bombing".
    • These may also be used for vote stacking. I've only seen one instance of it, but there could be more. No images in templates, full stop, would solve half this problem. This is, I believe, also supported by the developers. Using {{subst:}} would solve the other half. Talking about other ways to use an image-free, substituted template for vote stacking might be spilling the beans.
    • This is not an urgent problem, but is amenable to a quick fix.
    • The big problem is that people feel like they that they ought to be able to voice some opinions about Geogre or somesuch. And to some small degree, they should. We're humans, we have opinons.
      • When we use admin powers to stop people from expressing their opinon (or some fascile mass-produced group-think opinon as the case may be) they are going to be upset. They can't restore things, and if they re-create them they just get deleted again. So now DRV and TfD are totally constipated because people feel like they need to have their "voice heard". Of course that's bollocks, there's no freedom of speech here, only the freedom to contribute.
      • Deleting fairly mild "Anti-pope" user boxes as if they were "This user hates jews" is troll-baiting. As long as we keep jamming people down, they are going to keep popping back up in other places. The irony of deleting an anti-George bush template is that it's only going to convert another mild-mannered editor into a "template freedom fighter".
    • This is urgent problem, but is not amenable to a quick fix. But it can be made less urgent.

A proposed solutions

  • Stop deleting boxes for reasons of "controversy" or "trolling". Someone must stop shooting first, and we're meant to be the sensible ones.
  • Use redirecting and editing to fix problem boxes. User 3RR if required. Stop playing with the sysop buttons, you'll go blind.
  • Get some less inflammitory members of our community to engage the template warriors in dialog. Work on the wikiproject.
  • Have a little more patience, use care, and remember that everyone thinks they are right.
I have to agree with Aaron. What we must remember here is that the majority of users with these boxes probably won't have any knowledge of this debate, or the damage the boxes can cause. Imagine an editor who doesn't read AN, or TFD or anything like that, but sticks to a few articles about his favourite subject, whatever that may be. Upon going to the user page of another editor, he finds a "This user does not support George Bush" box, or whatever, and thinks "hey, I like that", sticks it on his page and thinks nothing more of it. If he sees one day that it's been deleted or removed from his page, can you really be surprised when he wonders why or gets a little annoyed? We need to explain to users like him why these boxes are such a big deal. Raven4x4x 02:03, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
I highly 2nd this suggestion above. I'd ask that it be put onto a separate page somewhere, so it can be referred to. This is really sensible, and right. We do need to get rid of these things, but we also need to do it in a way that adds, rather than splits, the community. 01:58, 18 February 2006 (UTC) (User:JesseW/not logged in)

Not doing something about polemical userbxxes is not an option. They have been used in several instances of attempted vote stacking, they are divisive because they inject external political advocacy into Wikipedia, they give people the wrong idea about what Wikipedia is for and what a user page is for. They are harmful. And the boss wants them gone.

Speedy deletion has been very successful, and the new criterion has gained wide acceptance among acculturated Wikipedians. It's not as if we're doing this without explaining what is happening, and it's not as if a huge number of editors were using these boxes--a large-scale survey I did found that only around 10% of all active editors on my watchlist actually had polemical userboxes.

But still the number of useroxes grows. Up from 3500 on January 4 to 5800 when I checked again on February 14. The page of political belief-based userboxes is up from 45 in January to 150 in February. A relatively small number of editors are producing userboxes in any great numbers, and quite a few of them those already known as trouble-makers on these pages. Names like Mistress Selina Kyle (92 boxes), and Bourbons3 and his sock Dussst (a total of 174 boxes across both incarnations).

People with no interest in editing the encyclopedia become Userbox producers and advocates--User:Vargher, on WP:DRV, said "Jimbo Wales is the founder of Wikipedia, but WE are the community. WE build the encyclopedia, so WE decide." A quick check showed that Vargher had produced a grand total of five article edits and seven talk page comments in his three weeks on Wikipedia, during which time he had managed to make SIXTY edits to his user page. Bourbons3, in addition to his prolific userbox creation activities, made a habit of uploading pictures he obviously did not own with deliberately falsified upload summaries.

So its utter nonsense to say that Wikipedia isn't being damaged. It's pie-in-the-sky to imagine that we can get anywhere by talking to the kind of people who come to Wikipedia to produce this trash. And its insulting to equate those, some of us senior Wikipedians with an edit count that would make your eyes water, destroying this damaging rubbish, with those producing it and frankly little else on Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway 07:42, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, editing articles is important. People shouldn't be on Wikipedia just to fight about userboxes. If I were a closing admin in a deletion discussion I would not pay much heed to the recommendations of someone with 5 article edits overall.
Tony, I think you may be trying too hard to save Wikipedia from the evils of userboxes or the deletion process or whatever you feel is most urgent at each moment. There are five days since your last article edit. For the month of February so far article edits are 7% of your total contributions. So here is my annoyingly condescending advice to you: Relax a little :) Make some old-fashioned content-contributions. Let someone else carry the torch for awhile. Don't burn yourself out, we want to keep you around for a long while. Haukur 11:44, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Tony describes an ever-growing problem here in Wikipedia. People like Vargher, for instance, demonstrate my law: that the number of opinion-expressing userboxes is inversely proportional with number of edits that user makes to the main articlespace. I won't say that I'm much better, because I'm just a lightweight editor, but the amount of time and serverspace that these relatively new users spend on Wikipedia could be better used for editing articles. If they want to go around making pretty little userboxes expressing their opinions, why don't they go on some other Wiki, or maybe LiveJournal or something? Jimbo and the Wikimedia Foundation have all their currently-overloaded servers to make an encyclopedia: not so people with a tiny amount of main articlespace edits can go around making pretty little userboxes saying that they are opposed to George W. Bush. --Deathphoenix 13:27, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Haukurth, please don't mistake my article edits for my only contributions to Wikipedia. I am also a clerk and a tools developer, and I am currently in the middle of a very important arbitration case involving me and, not surprisingly, userboxes. --Tony Sidaway 19:22, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't mistake your article edits for your only contributions, in fact they are just a small portion of your current contributions. And I'm not saying all your non-article contributions are useless either :) Haukur 18:44, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Aaron Brenneman's post has convinced me that our approach has been much too lenient so far. We've seen a lot of silliness related to the more polemical userboxes, plenty of boundary testing behavior, and a few cases of borderline trolling. This has to stop. We need to keep in mind what the goal of this thing here is. This is not boxopedia. It's time to be decisive and send a clear signal that we're serious. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 10:07, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I think at least one of the boxes you deleted was pretty good. It read: "This user opposes George W. Bush but equally vandalism of his Wikipedia biography." That's a good message to send to clueless newbies. Not liking X does not mean that you would want to damage X's article. Haukur 18:44, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Nah, it's a case of WP:BEANS. Whenever you say "don't do X", someone will take this as an incentive to do X. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 09:14, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
People need an incentive to vandalise GWB? WP:BEANS applies to fairy new ideas not something that has already been done several thousand times.Geni 16:55, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

TIME Magazine covers[edit]

Regarding all the TIME covers we gave in Wikipedia: this is bad. I agree with this site: having so many covers on Wikipedia will not cut fair use, especially as some of them are not lower resolution. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:33, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

The high resolution ones are not fair use and should be replaced or deleted. We really should have a template, analogous to {{nosource}}, to indicate that a fair use image should have its resolution reduced or be deleted. I'm no good at such things, but would welcome someone else creating one.Chick Bowen 03:56, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Done, {{fairusereduce}}. Edits are welcome. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 11:16, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Good work Ilmari. But do we have any guidelines as to what is an appropriate "low resolution" in relation to the original work? I also had a look at the various images in Category:Fair use TIME magazine covers. The majority seem to be used on the article relating to the subject on the cover, and not the particular issue of the magazine itself. There is a clear contradiction with the wording on {{TIME}} which has as the only fair use rationale:
  • to illustrate the publication of the issue in question
There is a clear anomaly here which needs to be addressed I think. Fair use for the article on the subject on the cover could be argued in many cases I am sure. It seems to me the best way forward is to modify the template. Thoughts welcome. 12:19, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
I've reverted your modification, since the rationale you added was way too broad. To quote an analogous example from Wikipedia:fair use, "An image of a rose, cropped from an image of a record album jacket, used to illustrate an article on roses" does not count as fair use. However, I agree that there's a gray area here. In particular, I believe that using a picture of a TIME magazine cover to illustrate the fact that a subject appeared on the cover of TIME magazine probably does count as fair use. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 12:55, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I think that if the fact that a person/place/thing appeared on the cover of TIME magazine is itself a notable fact, and one which is discussed in that subject's article, then it is appropriate to have the cover image to illustrate this fact. However, this isn't quite the same as a general allowance to use the covers in any context whatsoever when an illustration of its subject is needed. *Dan T.* 13:15, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
That's exactly my point. It seems to me that many articles are using the TIME magazine images as a general picture of the subject without reference to the relevance to their portrayal on the cover. I think some wording needs to be fashioned on the template to restrict this blanket use. I am sure we can work something out. 13:38, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I quite agree with; fair use is not for illustration of the subject within an image per se, it's for illustration of a discussion of the image itself or its immediate context. Meanwhile, I've added a sentence about deletion to Ilmari's very useful template (thanks for that), though I think we could have a specific time limit. I'll start a discussion at the template talk page. Chick Bowen 16:55, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Err... ? [14] · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 00:50, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
It's cool, this is sorted out now. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:47, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism policy[edit]

I am getting very frustrated with people sticking to the word of policy regarding blocking people on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. I often find that people should have received a test4 or bv template long ago but people often seem to not bother warning people when reverting vandalism or give them too leniant a template i.e. test1 when the edits are clearly vandalism not just a mistake. Really I do not really see the point in warning a blatant vandal as they are not the sort of person who would be likely to take any notice, in fact, it would probably encourage them. I would be grateful if someone please block this ip Special:Contributions/ as they have done nothing but vandalize since May 2005. Thanks Arniep 23:33, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Consider me a "rogue" admin in this sense. I show no mercy...I even rollback with a different summary for vandals. Adding a :) or "cool...I can edit" gets a test1....but "I suck cock", which I see here all the time, gets you 24 hours on the spot, more if you vandalized other stuff. They can always come back later if they magically become constructive editors.Voice_of_AllT|@|ESP 23:36, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
No vandalism from this particular IP since last warning. The IP appears to be registered to a school, so this is probably a series of separate delinquents rather than one persistent one. Thus, warning before blocking makes sense. Chick Bowen 23:40, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
This is the entire problem, warning will often not deter these people, but just encourage them. I really find it absolutely amazing that even if an ip's edits have consisted of nothing but vandalism from the start, still no block is applied just because people have not put the appropriate warning templates on. Arniep 00:02, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Sorry if you have no mercy for vandals, but most people believe they deserve at least a warning. Either try to change policy, or become an admin and be bold about vandalism blocks. -Greg Asche (talk) 00:05, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
I will not block a user who has never been warned, and I will remove all unwarned IPs from WP:AIV. See User:Mindspillage/admin for rationale. --Ryan Delaney talk 00:07, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
But the current warning system is just not working properly because people are using either too leniant a template or often not bothering to warn a user at all (resulting in the situation we have with this ip). Arniep 00:08, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
I warn with test1 for people just playing around (and I rollback). If they have vandalism with a clear intent to damage the article/person in question, they get a test4 and my revert usually has "reverted vandalism last version by..." in the summary. If the edits show a clear attempt to compromise Wikipedia more than once then they will get:
A)blocked indefinitely if it is a new account with an innapropriate/suggestive/fractalic (like "snfdsfnp444") name or an account with no other edits(a vandal account)
B)blocked for 24/48 hours if it is an IP or a new user with an exceptable name(most anything) and some other edits (not a vandal account).
C)blocked for 15 min - ~1 hour if it is an AOL IP.
And pretty much there we go. If someone keeps adding ":)" or "hello?" to an article, they will get test1 up to test4. They are not "true" vandals. Adding "HE IS GAY AND LIKE TO SUCK HUGE COCKS" will get you thrown out the door much faster. It is really just common sense. Besides, what Britinnica authors add stuff like that to their articles?(none...because they would get fired).Voice_of_AllT|@|ESP 00:31, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Mindspillage says in her rationale "(warning) What does it cost you? A few minutes of refreshing someone's contributions page to see if they're still at it.". This is the whole problem- that it is not at all the only cost- what it costs is a lot of time wasted by wikipedia contributors in dealing with vandalism when they could be improving articles! I don't think that a distinction should be made between offensive or non offensive vandalism, whatever sort it is it still wastes a lot of time for everybody so is detrimental to the project. I think that the applying of at least a short block of at least half an hour for blatant vandalism would greatly reduce the amount of work in dealing with this problem. Arniep 00:41, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
It really depends on the person you're dealing with. If someone is trolling, then a tame warning will indeed encourage them: if the vandalism was attention-seeking behavior and you warn, they know that they got somebody's attention. However, it's hard to tell a priori what is going on. So it's only fair to warn at least once, but warn according to the severity of the vandalism, ranging from "can I edit this? LOL" (a clear test-1) to some horribly malicious stuff (jump directly to test-4). The person who writes "can I edit this? LOL" will probably stop after test-1. If someone removes a warning or gives some other indication that they are aware of it but just don't care (like writing "screw you, I can do what I want"), I wouldn't hesitate to block immediately. The other thing you can try, but only for serious vandalism: warn once; if they continue, warn a second time and block for 2 minutes. That will force them to go to the talk page and it also sends the message that you mean business. Oh, and I also tend to block longer for sneaky vandalism, like changing dates and numbers. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 00:44, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes...sneaky vandals really try to mess things up and throw people off, I really block them. Delibrate misinformation or posting of private information is a good way to get blocked.Voice_of_AllT|@|ESP 00:50, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
As to Arniep's last comment: That seems a little extreme though. Plenty of good editors, even admins, once did silly stuff like adding smiles to a page, and it does not hurt our credibility that much either. Using test templates on obvious trolls is a good way to waste time, and hurt our credibility. I guess you do get to rack up your edit count, if you are in to that. Nevertheless, the trolls are the ones that bother me, not the users who are just playing around with an editable encyclopedia for the first time; they may become a good future admin.Voice_of_AllT|@|ESP 00:47, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, that's a good way to think about it. Try to assess the damage done to Wikipedia's reputation by the vandalism. If no reasonable person will get upset about it (perhaps they will scratch their head and wonder what that smiley is doing there, but they won't pick up the phone and call the Foundation's office), it's benign. If it's designed to cause offense, the gloves are off. Perhaps we should make templates along those distinctions, rather than first warning, second warning, etc. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 01:05, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Surely vandalism is not merely about causing harm to a persons reputation but much more importantly it is causing harm to the project because it wastes our time, whatever type of vandalism it is. Arniep 02:12, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I just want to point out that our current vandalism policy works just fine. Try hitting random page a few times. See any vandalism? Almost certainly not. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 00:59, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid that is missing my point, which is that we spend much too much time dealing with vandalism when we could be improving articles. Being liberal with vandals is harming the project. I believe applying short blocks for obvious vandalism will soon bore those who attempt it and make them go and find some other site to vandalise. Arniep 01:23, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I was deliberatly ignoring your point. How can you possibly know how much time anyone else spends vandalfighting? I frequently do a spot of recent changes patrol when i am otherwise at a loss for what to do. When I'm in the mood to get stuck into an article I don't patrol for vandals. Also when i am patrolling for vandals I often read the pages that i am reverting. Sometimes i edit them to improve them. If I never delt with vandals ever again my article contribution rate would not go up. i'm sure of that. If yours would then stop looking for vandals and start editing articles. I believe in warning vandals first. Sometimes they really are good people testing out the software Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 01:30, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, if the edits are clearly just a test they should be given test1, but I think in all other cases where there is clear mischievous intent there should be a short block so the vandal gets bored and goes elsewhere. Arniep 02:04, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Vandalism? *checks notes* One page out of 503. Copyvios are a much greater threat: six pages out of 503. --Carnildo 07:18, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
What do those figures show? Is that a sample of pages on which vandalism was found at one time, pages that have had vandalism reverted in the past 24 hours? It seems strange to me that people are arguing only in the terms of legal threats here, I am arguing that dealing with vandalism is wasting a lot of time that could be avoided by using a more effective policy in dealing with vandals. Arniep 14:45, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
That's vandalism that got past RC patrol and lasted long enough for me to find it by clicking "random page". In this case, the vandalism had stood for over a week. --Carnildo 01:04, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
For your information, policy discussion goes onto Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). enochlau (talk) 15:06, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

While I think existing policy works fine, I do think people need to use {{bv}} more often. I often see a number of blatant vandals while on RC patrol, and I find it crazy to be using a friendly test message with these people. I recommend going straight to {{bv}} (created just for this purpose) and then if the vandalism continues, {{test4}}. Then only block. Johnleemk | Talk 01:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Template:User Libertarian US[edit]

This template (it read, "This user supports the Libertarian Party.") was recently deleted; I was unaware that a simple statement of support for one's political party was somehow divisive. Does anyone have a suggestion for better wording ("This user is a member of the Libertarian Party."?) that would be allowed to stand in template-space? I cannot find any evidence that this went up for TfD and it certainly doesn't seem to qualify for T1 (though, that's what it's listed as)... RadioKirk talk to me 04:06, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Someone recreated it as "This user is a member of the Libertarian Party. Pro-choice on EVERYTHING!" I removed the gratuitous "Pro-choice on EVERYTHING!". Superm401 - Talk 06:25, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
MarkSweep deleted it again, saying "for the sake of consistency". I'll ask him to weigh in here. Superm401 - Talk 07:03, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
I would suggest just having a sentence on your talk page to the effect that you're a member of or that you admire the Libertarian Party. Mackensen (talk) 13:25, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Thank you but, if I may persist, this fails to address the issue. I've read discussions on that which is politically divisive and how, for instance, several GWB templates qualify for T1. I remain unconvinced that a simple statement of support for one's political party—or, at the very least, of membership therein—qualifies. A political statement and an acknowledgement of political affiliation hardly compare. RadioKirk talk to me 22:18, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be easier to just forget about your political userbox, as per Jimbo's request, and just write a sentence on your user page about your party affiliation? There is no need to have process for the sake of having process.--Alhutch 09:22, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Easier, perhaps, but I'm arguing a principle. I read Jimbo's request as issued in the spirit of the polemic, not necessarily to be extended to a simple acknowledgement of political affiliation. Until/unless he clarifies this issue, I believe the debate a valid one. RadioKirk talk to me 21:53, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
In any case, it was clearly an in-process (T1) deletion, but an out-of-process recreation - David Gerard 11:39, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Acharya S[edit]

Some one needs to do something about this page. There has been a long running content dispute there since September 2005, and the page has been protected countless times (and is so now). However, instead of any fruitful discussion, or any decent debate, the two groups of editors remain locked in a mudslinging verbal match. So almost everyday, there would be 10 paragraphs of "you said, I said" venom added to the talk page.

Here is a sample of today's entry from Rpsugar (talk · contribs):


Also added to it is the subject's attack page on her website against wikipedia. See the page here. Almost any editor other than the two groups have been berated to the extent of leaving the page. I think its high time to have the issue cleared. Thanks. --Ragib 22:17, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm actively looking into what can be done. Charles Matthews 22:42, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Given repeated personal attacks and assuming bad faith ([15],[16],[17],[18],[19],[20],[21],[22],[23],[24],[25],[26],[27]) and that he was warned twice about personal attacks and once about "bad edits" (admittedly vague), that the last warning said it was final and that he makes no edits off that page, (except Jesus-Myth), I'm blocking for 4 days. If someone objects, explain why here and unblock. Superm401 - Talk 22:47, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
I see Charles Matthews has blocked for a month. I have no real objection to that, since I just noticed he has been blocked before for 48 hours. Superm401 - Talk 22:51, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

That page and its history is quite appalling, starting with the very first revision [28]. No wonder the subject is upset [29]. I would say delete it (to remove the long and acrimonious history and possibly personal information), and start again with information that is verifiable and NPOV, not duplicating other articles (notably Jesus-Myth) and not using quotes from people she has a history of antagonism with unless necessary (and then with context). I'd probably vote for deletion again (Dec 05 AfD was "no consensus"), since too many editors involved seem unable or unwilling to edit in accordance with Wikipedia policy, and her notability isn't so great that an article on her is essential, separate from her work as referred to elsewhere. Rd232 talk 23:55, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

it has been listed for deletion in the past Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Acharya S.Geni 00:47, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Er, yes, I referred to that AfD above. What's your point? Rd232 talk 14:44, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

... And more venom continues to foment in the talk page. --Ragib 21:29, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Warned for personal attacks. Chick Bowen 21:50, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Signing another user's name[edit]

With this edit, User:Domfeargrieve tried to influence a VFD by signing a keep vote as User:Mikkalai. My personal opinion is that this is a blockable offence, but there's nothing in the blocking policy that covers it. How shall I proceed? Snottygobble 05:47, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Never mind, Mikkalai has handled it. Snottygobble 05:49, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Is this really a "never mind"? I'm no admin, but I agree that forging signatures is an egregious offense, and if it's not blockable by policy, perhaps it should be. Steve Summit (talk) 14:12, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

It is disruptive, so it is a "blockable offence". Of course, if the user in question did it only once, then it's no big deal. If he persists after warnings, then he probably would get blocked. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 14:16, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Impersonation is a big deal, but because it is a first offense, I don't think that it's worthy of an indefinite block. – ClockworkSoul 17:11, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree. The block should be long, perhaps a week or a month, but not indefinite. -- Kjkolb 17:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
    • User:Domfeargrieve gave the classic "I didn't do it, I swear" defense, to which Mikkalai gave the correct response (in my opinion). After some more begging, Mikkalai seems to have accepted that Domfeargrieve had been adequately warned and unblocked him. In the end, I think it was elegantly executed. Nice work, Mikkalai! – ClockworkSoul 17:42, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Personally I disagree. I thought Domfeargrieve's "I didn't do it, I swear" protest was blatantly disingenous, and I didn't like to see him rewarded for it. But Mikkalai was the injured party, and now would be a very bad time to start a wheel war ;), so I will let the matter rest. Snottygobble 23:56, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not in agreement. Impersonation is no biggy in my opinion. Jimbo Wales 15:09, 19 February 2006 (UTC) (this comment was actually made by (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log). Johnleemk | Talk 15:15, 19 February 2006 (UTC))

Classic--God of War 04:16, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

A Day No Pigs Would Die[edit]

Can an sysadmin please remove "A Day No Pigs Would Die" from the Children's Book's category? The book has been banned, hence making it not appropriate for children. Maybe it could be moved to the Young Adult section? Pkazazes 14:35, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

While I support keeping children from having to read the book due to the fact that it sucks, the book is marketed towards children, and assigned to children in schools. Banning books is a local decision - not a binding comment about the appropriateness of the book. Phil Sandifer 14:42, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  1. You don't need an admin to remove an article from a category.
  2. My opinion is: seeing as it won a few awards for "children's books", I would think that it can exist in a category for children's books. Wikipedia is not a nanny. --Syrthiss 14:44, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Whether or not it is banned has nothing to do with whether it's a children's book. Superm401 - Talk 06:09, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Heather Has Two Mommies is a children's book which has been notably banned in some places. So have any number of other books which were written primarily for children. Jonathunder 05:23, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
I read this in ninth grade. It was pretty good and all ninth graders should read it. --DanielCD 05:26, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
My fith grade class is reading it, and my mother read it to my brothers. . . and she had to do a ton of quick thinking

squidward followup[edit]

After determing that the Chicago Public Libary is involve i have drafted a letter at the link below and would be happy if as many people as possible could sign it, please feel free to endit it to for formatting etc nd propose major changes to it on its talk page

letter Benon 19:22, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

LOL, How do you even know the attacks were originated from Chicago Public Libary? Morse hansel 06:10, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Checking the vandalism IPs in ARIN. — TheKMantalk 06:19, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
yes, and ive confirmed with the isp in question, by phone (i had skype credit lying around) that the block used was from the libarys load balancers and proxys, but they would prefer the libary totechies to deal with it before escalation to there abuse department Benon 06:52, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Only a small portion of ips were from Chicago Public library. Even if he can't use Chicago Public Library anymore, he can still use other public computers. Morse hansel 20:57, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
yes the majorty of the ips used where open proxies, but we should at least be alerting the libary,we dont want to make it easy for himBenon 01:42, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Wheel warring by Grue[edit]

Grue (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) restored Template:User freedom (which I had deleted) without any prior discussion. I have asked him to revert his actions, but to no avail. Any thoughts on what to do next? --MarkSweep (call me collect) 11:37, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

  • When two admins disagree on whether something should be speedy-deleted the normal procedure is to take it to XfD. Haukur 11:59, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
That's the wounderful thing about CSD. Only takes one admin to do it and the same number to undo it.Geni 12:58, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm, I don't think I'd call it a crystal clear speedy under T1. I'm also not sure I'd call the issue wheel warring. Undeletion policy allows an admin to revert an out of process deletion. If Grue does not believe the template matches T1, from what I can see, one course of action open to him is to declare it out of process and undelete. Might be best to run it through XfD and get consensus on the questionable status of the template. Hiding talk 15:21, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
There's no point taking it to TfD. TfD can't delete userboxes, for the obvious reasons. -Splashtalk 15:23, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Umm yes it can. It would have deleted that pedophile one if people had been prepared to wait. If a userbox is userspace based then there is always MfD.Geni 16:16, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Since when is a vote invalid if it doesn't produce the result you want?--God of War 00:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
When you see the chads hanging, it may be resonable to question the validity of the result. --Doc ask? 01:05, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

It's a bit premature to say "wheel warring" just because an administrator reverts a deletion. There are many circumstances in which an administrator might do this--one such is the exception clause in the undeletion policy. Obviously if you ended up fighting over it, you could have a wheel war situation, but it looks like you're both being fairly mature over it even if you disagree.

If you really think it should be speedied, I'd try to convince another administrator to do so, or else convince Grue that it should be, in which case he'd probably be happy to do so himself. --Tony Sidaway 17:01, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

'Premature' may be your view, but it does not appear to be arbcom's. I quote the policy finding from the pedo-userbox wheel war case: 8.2) Wikipedia:Wheel warring (undoing an administrative action by another administrator) without first attempting to resolve the issue is unacceptable; see Wikipedia:Resolving disputes#Avoidance, "Do not simply revert changes in a dispute." --Doc ask? 01:02, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
That's ok. Arbcom doesn't have the power to set policy.Geni 01:12, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

*Sigh* Do we really have nothing better to do? Are the bottled up admin powers just itching to get out, and our heads will explode if we don't use them? Can everyone just please stop? For the love of mike, can everyone quit deleting/restoring/redeleting/making-sweet-love to the silly userboxes for five minutes? And why was this a "wheel war" to restore something that was deleted after having been restored several times before? Surely the admin who deleted it last was just as guilty? - brenneman{T}{L} 06:16, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

  • I agree with Aaron on this issue. Stop bickering over userboxen, go sort some stubs or something. — Feb. 20, '06 [20:05] <freakofnurxture|talk>

Moving Page, confused process?[edit]

The article WBOB needs to be changed/moved to WDJO, which is the new callsign for the radio station. The radio station has changed hands last week, and the entire article became invalid. I am in the process of rewriting the article to describe the change, and the future for the station, but obviously the callsign needs to be modified to fit the change, and possibly a redirect from the now defunct WBOB callsign so that users may find the new station.

After reading the help guides, I have become thoroughly confused as to the process of modifying this page, so I thought it best to let some experienced users and administrators know of the issue, so that they could take care of it, rather than me screwing it up royally.

For reference of the name change, you can go to [30] which contains a local newpaper article on the recent change. Or, if you live in the Cincinnati area, tune into 1160AM to hear for yourself!

I've moved the page for you. In order to have the ability to move pages, you must be registered; it's fast, free, and easy. All you need is a username and password, and you get multiple benefits. I hope you join us! Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 17:46, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Note that due to vandalism problems you don't get the ability to move pages until you've been a member for some time. Plugwash 18:11, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
<pulls dirty face> so is it even still possible for me to log out to edit much at all? :-/Kim Bruning 18:15, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
No, only 950,000 articles are still left unprotected! :) Superm401 - Talk 06:09, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


What is going on ? Wiki is acting like dial-up is faster. Do you have a server down ? Now I get "Operation has Timed out" Martial Law 22:38, 19 February 2006 (UTC) :)

I second that opinion. About 1 in every 5 page loads times out, and the rest are super-slow. This reminds me how glad I am I don't have dial-up anymore, else all websites would load like this. --M@thwiz2020 23:41, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Strange ... I don't see any delay ... at least not now. --Ragib 23:43, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
For me, it's been slow for hours! --M@thwiz2020 23:47, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Is this really a topic for the admins' noticeboard? Wouldn't it be better placed at the help desk? Hermione1980 00:13, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I just timed a lag time of 30 sec.s and a "Operation has Timed out" has finally appeared. My watch has a stopwatch function. Martial Law 01:02, 20 February 2006 (UTC) :)
<sigh> I have dial-up and a lag-time of 30 sec., it really sucks. ;-) Moe ε 02:59, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm on DSL, that should'nt be happening. 30 sec. lag time ? Martial Law 03:00, 20 February 2006 (UTC) :-)

False reports of vandalism[edit]

Both Hipocrite, and Colle have called my contributions vandalism (each on more than one occasion) and it is really starting to bug me. I'm not sure if wikipedia can do anything, but I've spoken with Hipocrite telling him it would be a content dispute and not vandalism - and I have also posted a message explaining my frustration on the Abortion talk page. Is there anything else that can be done? This is really upsetting. Chooserr 02:14, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Well, you might start by being more cautious in your presentation of information. For example, in Abortion, you added, It has been reported that abortion is the leading cause of death for women reproductive age in most third world coutnries [31]. However, looking at your citation, we find it saying, In developing countries where abortion remains illegal, unsafe abortion is a leading cause of death among women of reproductive age. So what's wrong about your interpretation?
    1. It's a leading cause, not the leading cause.
    2. The article was talking about illegal abortion.
    3. The article said nothing about most third world countries. It refers specifically to developing countries where abortion remains illegal.
If we assume good faith, we must assume that you did not understand that your presentation of the data was distorting the data; that it was an honest mistake on your part, and that when the mistake was pointed out you understood the correction. Calling it "vandalism" was incorrect; WP:VAND makes it clear that NPOV violations are not vandalism. However, it is blatant and (if my good faith is unwarranted) disingenuous POV editing, and Hipocrite and Colle would be more correct barking up that tree instead. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:35, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
    • (On the other might suggest that deliberate distortion of data and information is vandalism.) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 06:05, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


Um, we're currently the lead headline in the online edition of the Washington Post. Here's the article. Just thought I'd mention this. Chick Bowen 04:40, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Not us, the Chinese Wikipedia. :) --AySz88^-^ 05:13, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
True. is actually mentioned briefly. Well, reflected glory, perhaps. Chick Bowen 05:21, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
At the risk of sounding like a Wikipedia fanboy - when it's described as "Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia that anyone can edit", it shows how well the Wikimedia Foundation's branding and publicity efforts have worked. Because that's really the key, and it's good to see an article that doesn't focus on criticisms of Wikipedia's reliability and accuracy. It's also interesting to read about the Chinese Wikipedia - due to the language barrier, many of us have no idea what's going on there. Rhobite 05:31, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Cjmarsicano/UDUIW deleted[edit]

I have speedied this userbox under CSD T1. Category:Users in Defense of Userboxes and Individuality on Wikipedia (UDUIW) should be enough to tell anyone that this is blatantly divisive and polemical -- and it's clear factionalism, IMO. Johnleemk | Talk 15:31, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

agree, there's been quite enough of this already.--Alhutch 16:40, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
It was recreated, and I have re-speedied it. User:Zoe|(talk) 01:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Yarr, 'tis now on DRV. Johnleemk | Talk 14:42, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Wheel warring by Guanaco[edit]

Guanaco (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) undeleted Template:User disBush without discussion. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 02:21, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Deletion review/Userbox debates/Archive#Template:User disBush for the discussion. —Guanaco 02:25, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure if I'm looking at the same discussion as you are, because I see nothing close to consensus, and a good portion of undelete votes with comments such as "permanently block these divisive and inflammatory admins" (I guess once we get consensus on that, Jimbo needs to go, huh?). —bbatsell ¿? 02:45, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
And that's forgetting that it's not up to community consensus to decide what Wikipedia is fundamentally about. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 02:56, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Hard policy is fairly limited in fact NPOV and NOR are the only bits I can think of off hand.Geni 03:20, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Maybe you should revise WP:RULES :) Physchim62 (talk) 03:26, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
the phrase "Hard policy" does not appear on that page.Geni 00:38, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, the consensus for undeletion seems slim to non-existant there. I trust that the admin who closed the DRV will be relisting the template on TfD. Physchim62 (talk) 03:02, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it was relisted on TfD, at Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_February_19/Userboxes. --AySz88^-^ 03:30, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
He already listed this on TFD. See here Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_February_19/Userboxes#Template:User_disBush. As per WP:DRV#Decisions_to_be_reviewed 50% is all that is required to get deletion overturned and listed on TFD. As you can see here disBush had 10 undeletes to 6 deletes. Guanaco has followed all the rules in undeleting this.--God of War 03:31, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Looks like someone re-speedy-deleted some of the boxes listed on TfD on that page..... --AySz88^-^ 03:35, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
That would be User:Drini. Look at the log here. [32]. These undeletions were valid by the DRV and can't just be ignored. No matter how much you hate userboxes.--God of War 03:40, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Eh, is there any evidence that Drini was aware of the TfD or Deletion Review? --AySz88^-^ 03:46, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes I informed him and he replied with a dismissive "no" [33]. DRV is not a suggestion, these should be undeleted right now.--God of War 04:01, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
DRV is not a straight vote either, that's why I suggested that the consensus was weak to nonexistent. Physchim62 (talk) 04:22, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Consensus isn't required on DRV. A majority in favor of undeletion is a clear indicator that there are significant concerns about the deletion. —Guanaco 04:30, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Physchim62, please read this: WP:DRV#Decisions_to_be_reviewed. Quoting, "If there is neither a majority to endorse the decision nor a three-quarters supermajority to overturn and apply some other result, the article is relisted on the relevant deletion process." Isn't that clear enough for you?--God of War 04:35, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Well....hmmm. I would say that consensus is needed for deletion the 1st time. So during the 1st AfD/TfD consensus, you need ~60-66% to delete (depends on socks/arguments/consensus too), anything less is keep/redirect/merge. DRV is a challenge to a should require consensus to overturn...not just "some people disagree with deletion" or a even weak majority. Otherwise DRV becomes useless and gets flooded, because if ~40% is needed to keep for TfD and ~51% needed for DRV...anyone might as well challenge almost every single TfD/AfD if they disagree with the decision; when only a 7-12 people vote (like most normal AfDs/TfDs) that 40% could too easily be 50%, especially when people "rally" or it is seen as just "a vote".Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP 04:40, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  • That is not what's happening here. Here userboxes are being speedied and then brought to DRV. I don't know of any properly closed TFD discussions that were later brought to DRV. Key words being "properly closed"--God of War 04:52, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Opps....well hopefully my lecture is still usefull. In this case though...then DRV is like the 1st time, since Speedy is then they should be undeleted. Normally 1+ admin objection to a speedy means undelete (though not for usertemplates...which are somewhat exceptional). Several admins should be enough. So yes...they should be undeleted.Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP 04:55, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Key words indeed being "properly closed". Many userbox keep votes on TfD should be discounted as per Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Discussion and/or Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators#Rough consensus. The same applies for some votes on the relevant deletion reviews. Physchim62 (talk) 05:00, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
I would say that the template is inflammatory and it should be deleted...however T1 is a bit shaky now. Even subst templates that violate the idea of T1 should be removed. However...we have no agreement we should not be deleting just yet. I like the idea of having a list of what templates can stay, which is already being proposing on the talk page.Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP 05:06, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Maybe the time to remind people of Wikipedia:Proposed policy on userboxes. Physchim62 (talk) 05:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Copyright infringment[edit]

Just now I got a message from User:Deiz about a possible copyright infringement of Image:HIM logo.jpg. Here is his message:

How are you the "creator of this work"? This is as clear-cut a case of copyright violation as I've yet seen on WP. It's the intellectual property and trademark of HIM, which in turn Bam Margera has sub-licensed for a fee. Just because you drew a copy of it in MSPaint doesn't mean you created it, much less have the right to release it into the public domain under the GDFL - what if you did the same to the McDonald's M? You even gave it the filename "HIM logo". There is a tag for "logo" which you should immediately apply to this image. Copyrighted images can only be used on WP to identify the artists and works they belong to, which does not include being part of a WP editor's signature. This is exactly what all the picture licensing controls are designed to avoid. ++Deiz 05:07, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

My response to this is didn't I draw it? Meaning, if I draw an image, whatever it may be doesn't mean that I created it? Now, I know it's HIM/Bam Margera's log and all but does that stop people from drawing a heartagram? If it is copyright infringement, I'll be happy to remove it where needed. I'm not to clear on if it's copyrighted or not, can someone here help? Moe ε 05:26, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

This sentence from the image policy is useful: However, simply re-tracing a copyrighted image or diagram does not necessarily create a new copyright — copyright is generated only by instances of "creativity", and not by the amount of labor which went into the creation of the work. I did a search for the logo on the web and I'm afraid that yours doesn't seem to be sufficiently different to be considered your copyright. A parody would be fine, but not a copy. I can't help but point out that images in sigs aren't so great anyway. . . Sorry, Moe. Chick Bowen 05:34, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
So how should I go about removing all of them? Moe ε 05:37, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
You might want to ask Bluemoose if he'll do it with his bot. Carnildo also has a bot specifically designed for removing images. Chick Bowen 05:40, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Can't we just color it pink and call it a parody? lol Sasquatch t|c 05:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
There was a discussion on the use of trademarks a while back, but I can't seem to find it for the moment. Trademark protection is of course different from copyright protection: my call would be that the original image lacks sufficient creativity to be copyrighted, but it's a close call so I'd rather not just leave it at that. Physchim62 (talk) 05:43, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Actually, that's not a bad idea Sasquatch. Could I jazz it up a bit and it not be copyright? Moe ε 05:49, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
No, IANAL, but it's only fair use if you're commenting on or criticizing the logo. Please just make a bot request to remove the image. Superm401 - Talk 06:14, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Darn, and I just made another sketchy image too. :-( Moe ε 06:20, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
<huffs> Well, I never. :-( I went ahead and asked Carnildo if his bot could go through and remove it. You are all lucky I take critisism to my art so well. Or maybe it's not my art ;-) Moe ε 06:40, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Will do. --Carnildo 08:06, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

WP:SB Fouled up[edit]

Something has fouled up the WP:SB. Last time I've seen this, HTML Tidy fouled up.Martial Law 06:57, 20 February 2006 (UTC) :)

The WP:SB page is really fouled up. Martial Law 06:59, 20 February 2006 (UTC) :(

Now the WP:SB appears to be functioning correctly. WHAT is going on ?! Martial Law 07:09, 20 February 2006 (UTC) :)

I did a manual reset between your last two posts, but I have no idea if it was that that helped or not (it's the first time I've been to the sandbox as far as I can remember :). Physchim62 (talk) 07:15, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Theodore7[edit]

This arbitration case has closed. Theodore7 is banned for six months from editing astrology- or astronomy-related articles. He is also placed on personal attack parole for a year, and is required to use edit summaries for the next six months. These remedies will be enforced by blocking. For further details, please see the case. On behalf of the arbitration committee, Johnleemk | Talk 09:34, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I screwed up. :([edit]

I didn't know there was a naming convention for [State] Senate and found a new article that was created for Rhode Island. I promptly moved it to fill in a red linked "see full article" spot on the Rhode Island article. I need someone to revert back the page move as it actually wasn't as helpful as I thought it would be. Sorry to make you deal with history merges. I promise to be more careful. —WAvegetarianTALKCONTRIBSEMAIL 19:55, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Not sure what to do with this....[edit]

On the page Categpry:Freemason Wikipedians, there is a subcategory Freemason wikipedians (with a small w) that has nothing but the user template on it. Is this something that should be AfDed, or is it supposed to be there for some reason? Also, as it is really an empty subcategory, how can it be AfDed without people getting confused with the "capital W" category, which is correct and should stay? MSJapan 20:26, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Anon makes legal threat[edit] (talk · contribs) just made a legal threat against Wikipedia here. I already reported this user once for vandalism but nothing was done about him. Moe ε 03:49, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Hit with a one-month {{threatban}}. Essjay TalkContact 03:57, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Essjay. Moe ε 04:00, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't read the cite as a legal threat. Shouldn't we AGF? -- Samuel Wantman 09:29, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
I would normally, but when I saw the text, "I would hate to see this go to court", that got me a little worried. Moe ε 18:06, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Same here. You don't say "I'd hate to see this go to court" unless you're planning to go there (or want the other person to think you are). The entire point of mentioning court is to scare the other party into submission, or in other words, to get your way by alluding to legal action, so it counts as a legal threat in my book. Essjay TalkContact 06:30, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Brian Peppers[edit]

This article has been deleted by Jimbo, who left a note asking that it not be recreated for at least one year. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:42, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Lagtime[edit]

Wikipedia must be freezing up again. Timed a 120 sec. lagtime w/ a "operation has timed out". Martial Law 22:01, 20 February 2006 (UTC) :(

Seems to be getting better now. --Nlu (talk) 22:03, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
I can finally edit after hours of not working! --M@thwiz2020 23:05, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Its still fouled up. Martial Law 01:24, 21 February 2006 (UTC) :(
Yeah...some pages load fast though. When is lags...there is always at least one image lagging which drags everything else down.Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP 02:38, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Sometimes when my computer lags, I just restart it. It seems faster sometimes. ;-) Moe ε 21:25, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

persistant AOL Denial of Service Vandal[edit]

Dante26 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) has been the cause of wave after wave after wave of AOL autoblocks, and it's been weeks since he was indef blocked, it's clear at that this point that he/she is intentionally disrupting AOL users from editing, by seeking out large numbers of autoblocks, is there anything that can be done? maybe delete the entire account? Any suggestions other than cleaning up the dozens of 24 hour ip autoblocks it leaves in it's wake?--an AOL user 01:19, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Uir (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) almost certinaly the same person as above, same style of intentional autoblock phishing, it would be nice if someone could cleanup the collateral damage, these vandals exist for one reason, to get blocked, and trigger as many autoblocks as humanly possible--an AOL user 02:04, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Please see WP:ANI#User:Uir and note the date and time that it was submitted, and by whom. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:59, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Ah yes, nevermind, should have checked there first--an AOL user 03:03, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Of course, we could just treat AOL IPs as open proxies, explain why, wait for the flood of complaints to AOL (hopefully) to get them to change their IP allocation policy... No? We can't do that? :( .... Rd232 talk 08:16, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


As I posted a few days ago, I am a blind administrator and I often do new page patrol, but do not know what to do with images that I am fairly sure can be deleted becasue the user's only contributions are nonsense articles and these images which have similar names to the nonsense articles. The latest is User:Comidahindu who uploaded two images about someone about Carla, whose article I deleted. Can someone check these out? Academic Challenger 05:10, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Image:Carla.JPG and Image:Carla with the hair back.JPG are both pictures of a young woman. It's nothing indecent. I don't know how they would be used in articles, but perhaps they could be for a user page. -- Kjkolb 05:30, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
I deleted them as non-encyclopedic. Also, if the contributor lied in their article, why would they not have lied about the copyright? --maru (talk) contribs 05:55, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Kjkolb, you placed the full images in your message, instead of a link to them. I've just changed them. Raven4x4x 06:30, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Oops. Thanks, for fixing it. -- Kjkolb 06:56, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Is there a counsellor in the house?[edit]

Over at the science reference desk there's a 13-year-old Wikipedia editor (User:Bowlhover) who's talking about committing suicide and seems serious about it. Without getting into the ethics of whether or not to let him, I think it would be a very good idea if we could let some professional counsellors know what's going on. We're doing okay at the moment I think, but none of us are trained in this. Any suggestions as to what to do? Are there any trained counsellors here - or can we get one involved in this somehow? Grutness...wha? 07:39, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Whether the individual is serious or not, this is something that must be taken very very serious. It's time to call in the legal people and have them do what they do on it. Essjay TalkContact 07:53, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
How can you call anyone? We don't know who this guy is in the real world.--God of War 07:56, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
When I said "the legal people," I meant the Foundation lawyers. They can have a checkuser run and contact the ISP so the police may be called. Essjay TalkContact 08:03, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm going to request a CheckUser, but reference this threat in the CheckUser request as well. --Nlu (talk) 07:57, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm. I didn't realize he was 13 when I posted the link to the (pro-choice) alt.suicide holiday FAQ. He seems awfully eloquent for a 13-year-old. moink 07:58, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
I am suspecting a hoax, but this is why I think a CheckUser would be helpful. --Nlu (talk) 08:01, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Even if it is, it must be treated seriously. Any threat of suicide should be treated as real. Essjay TalkContact 08:03, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Look at this guy's very first edit. He makes a large addition with extensive wikiformatting and so forth. [34]. I think this guy is proably a re-incarnation of some other user. Also look at this edit. [35].--God of War 08:07, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

CheckUser request has been made. It's now in the hands of those users with those privileges. I must say that I am fairly skeptical, but I do agree with Essjay that the matter should be treated seriously until and unless shown to be not real or circumstances make it that there is nothing we can do (untraceable IP, &c.). --Nlu (talk) 08:12, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Note this: [36]. Whatever is done, should be done privately and without fanfare, or else we invite trolls to use this new tactic to waste our time. NoSeptember talk 08:17, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
For what it's worth, no association with another user can be discerned with CheckUser. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 09:10, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
I think people were hoping we'd get an IP address, which could then be traced to a specific ISP and geographical location. moink 09:17, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Ah. User:Morven has the IP, but has decided not to share it publicly. Anyone who thinks they would know what to do with it should get in touch with him, I guess. moink 09:25, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, that's the legalistic, panic panic way. In the mean time, try talking with the guy and be nice to him. :-) DON'T PANIC. :-) Just keeping him talking might be enough to change his mind even, :-) but even if it doesn't , you'll buy plenty of time to think of something else :-) . Kim Bruning 09:38, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
what do you think we've been doing for the last three days? I came here because we didn't seem to be moving him that far away from the ledge. Grutness...wha? 23:30, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
I've forwarded it to Jimbo, Danny and Brad Patrick per User:Essjay's suggestion. It's a fairly static cable modem address and thus should be trace-able by the ISP with little difficulty, I would think. I decided against breaching our privacy policy to post it publicly. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 09:41, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, I personally am not panicking. In terms of suicide, I am normally pro-choice, though most likely not for minors. I just thought those who seemed to think they wanted to do something might find the information useful. It sounds like Morven is handling it well. moink 09:42, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Well let Morven handle it, and maybe let him call some help when he has enough information on the user. The preceding unsigned comment was added by Soufron (talk • contribs) .
Didn't say you were, just suggesting to not forget your towel.
Soufron suggests contacting the police as soon as practicable. You'll probably need to narrow down the IP addy to some location first though. Even if you don't contact the police, just be nice to the dude :-)
Finally, give morven as much help and support as you can, even if just talking a bit. Leaving him on his own would be seriously uncool. Kim Bruning 09:53, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Um, Kim, I'm the guy running CheckUser, not the prospective suicide! Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 10:00, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
<Innocent look> You mean that could be read two ways? Oh, Hmmm, but actually, if you're dealing with a dude who is suicidal, typically I find that it's nice to have some moral backup for yourself as well. :-) Kim Bruning 13:48, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Calling the police is not a helpful move. Have him use the Samaritans (Its email support if he's not British). They're the best trained support out there for this kind of thing by a long shot, and on the basis of a few talks I've seen by them, I'd say you're going about this the