Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive51

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

Noticeboard archives


Contents

New WP:V template - just for you! STOP - HAMMERTIME![edit]

Ever come across those users who either edit war or are combative because you're trying to remove information they think deserves to be in their favorite article? Although they act in good faith they feel attacked, and being backed into a corner with 4 editors reverting you and not explaining why you contribution can't be there doesn't feel good.

This is not to be used between experienced editors of Wikipedia. It to EXPLAIN.

I recently used this on an edit warring IP user and he immediately stopped and I thought "Hey, other people could use this!"

This can be used on

  1. The top of an article's talk page
  2. In a subtopic in a talk page
  3. The user's talkpage

which makes it very versatile.

What do you want them to do? {{stophammertime}} or {{verifiability}} or {{wp:v}} !!!

Remember to personally thank him for his contributions below the template and that you hope they will continue to edit our encyclopedia. Don't be seen as a big meanie - even to the bad acting ones!

Diamond-caution.svg

These quotes are straight from Wikipedia:Verifiability, which is an official and founding policy of Wikipedia.

1. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources.
2. Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reputable source, or it may be removed by any editor.
3. The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it.
"Articles should rely on credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. For academic subjects, the sources should preferably be peer-reviewed. Sources should also be appropriate to the claims made: outlandish claims beg strong sources."
"The burden of evidence lies with the editors who have made an edit or wish an edit to remain. Editors should therefore provide references. If an article topic has no reputable, reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on that topic."

--mboverload@ 22:50, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I mean, I too have the tendency to say "Hammertime" everytime I get to a stop sign... okay, nobody else? Just me... okay. But I don't understand why the template is called {{stophammertime}}. It doesn't say that in the message and the template is not even comedic. It's a great template, but the name doesn't really fit the style of it. joturner 22:55, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Heh. I have a hard time remembering the names of templates, and I thought - hey - why not use my favorite phrase when telling fellowikipedians to stop? If ANYONE has a suggestion about a better name, I am more than happy to move it. In the end it's just the name. --mboverload@ 23:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
I moved it to Template:Verifiability.[1] How's that? {{Stophammertime}} still works as a redirect, obviously. I also created a shortcut at {{wp:v}}. --Sam Blanning(talk) 23:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Nice template, Yayyyy for Samuel Blanning's move! :-) (Netscott) 23:23, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Samuel! --mboverload@ 23:29, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Wow. Please don't tell me that's the correct number of ohs. joturner 23:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Haven't the faintest, it was a "repeatedly mash Ctrl-V" job. --Sam Blanning(talk) 13:26, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
It's two too many ... *shame* Proto///type 13:36, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Proto is 2 legit 2 quit. Syrthiss 14:08, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Blocks can now be made on only anonymous users.[edit]

Just in case anybody didn't notice. Werdna (talk) 09:37, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Woo-hoo! Are there instrucitons on what "Block anonymous users only" and "Prevent account creation" mean, exactly? Just zis Guy you know? 12:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I would guess that once an IP block is set then to prevent anyone from that IP from getting around the IP block by simply creating an account, the second option allows an admin to prevent account creation from the blocked IP to ensure that the block stays enforced. Thereby any accounts that were created from the blocked IP prior to the IP's blockage are not themselves automatically blocked. (Netscott) 13:06, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • excellent! a toast on the developers! dab () 13:08, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • It's about time! :) Haukur 13:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Excellent... no more being blocked at school. And I thought the best thing about July 11 was the free slurpies at 7-Eleven. Cookies and milk for the people who made this happen! joturner 13:16, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Now it's time to take a look at what we can do about those pesky vandalism-only school IPs. And maybe finally blocking some AOL proxies for longer than fifteen minutes. And having unblock requests on the mailing lists reduced by about 80%. And... --Deathphoenix ʕ 13:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • No more collatertal damage! :))) - Mailer Diablo 13:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Question - if an IP range is blocked, is someone able to create an account if they are using an IP in that range? Proto///type 13:29, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • If the "no account creation" box was checked (default is to check it), then no. If it was unchecked, then yes, they will be able to. Essjay (TalkConnect) 13:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Someone with a good understanding of just how this works and the options we have in blocking should update WP:BP and related pages. NoSeptember 13:33, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, I don't know about updating, but certainly discussing it would be a good idea. Or perhaps we should discuss it here first because there would be more admin feedback. For instance, permablocks would no longer be taboo, and are best for vandalism-only IP addresses, but we should not apply a "prevent account creation" on an IP permablock. AOL IPs can probably be treated like any other IP address, but should only block anonymous users only. --Deathphoenix ʕ 13:54, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Much of WP:BP merely discusses the procedure and consequences of blocking, the same is true for the Special:Blockip page. The first step is to help everyone understand how many options we have from a technical standpoint and how they will affect users. Only then can we really get into discussing policy changes. NoSeptember 14:06, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
        • Ah. Well, since Tim and Brion are likely busy doing other stuff, I think anyone can do so, thanks to your suggestion. :-) I'll take a gander and see if I can offer a penny or two. --Deathphoenix ʕ 14:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree that we need a policy update. Would it be OK, for example, to block a long-time IP-changing vandal by blocking all anons coming from a large ISP? Rhobite 14:37, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
    • "Expiry times and application" talks about the blocking times. We need to update this, but I also tihnk we need to discuss it first. --Deathphoenix ʕ 14:40, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Does an autoblock automatically disable new accounts now? Will (message me!) 15:24, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • My understanding is that autoblocks are set as default blocks, that is, blocks all users on the IP and prevents account creation. Tim could clarify if he changed this. Essjay (<small>TalkConnect) 15:35, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • AFAIK, autoblocks continue to work as usual, that is they block everyone on the IP. However, because of the new block precedence feature, an autoblock affecting an IP can be overridden by a block specifically on that IP. For example, if that block is set to "block anonymous users only" then registered editors can still edit, even though the autoblock would have blocked them, because the IP block takes precedence. --bainer (talk) 16:02, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I've updated the wording of WP:BP to explain the new options. I also moved around the paragraph about administrators with known shared IP addresses requesting notification before blocks on those shared IP addresses, and changed the wording to suggest that blocking anonymous users only is appropriate in this context (I think that's compatible with existing policy and practice). However, there needs to be discussion on other circumstances in which the enabling or disabling of these options is recommended, for example, should it be recommended that "block anonymous users only" be applied to all blocks of AOL IPs? --bainer (talk) 15:52, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

That'd not be such a good idea, it will prevent any new user from AOL from joining Wikipedia. --WinHunter (talk) 16:00, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
You seem to have missed that there is also a setting to allow new user creation while the IP is blocked. Essjay (TalkConnect) 16:13, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


Questionable username[edit]

How do we feel about Kim jong il (talk · contribs), whose only contribution was a nonsense article and was deleted? Is this a permissble username? - CrazyRussian talk/email 16:22, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Probably not. Real people are to be discouraged, and more than likely, this account is not going to be constructive or good. I'd say username block. --LV (Dark Mark) 16:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Eh, based on 김정일 (talk · contribs), I'm going to go out on a limb here and say BLOCK, BLOCK, BLOCK, thank you--64.12.116.200 17:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Abusive message left on my page by user[edit]

Have fun reading it, don't forget the image. User's computer settings are screwed up - his text size is far too big. I have told him how to fix it. He says he'll never edit WP again until I revert it...Yeah I'm not really sure what I'm supposed to do here.

My best guess is that this user has severe vision problems that I have never heard of (needing everything to be small and purple with extremely low contrast?) --mboverload@ 01:44, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Latest message after he "disrupted" MY page with a huge image and I removed it. Please do not continue editing my comments. I intend to report this matter and removing this from your Talk Page instead of correcting the damage you did to mine is only covering up what you did. Ste4k 01:53, 11 July 2006 (UTC) --mboverload@ 02:00, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
He left a similar message on my page. By the way, I removed the image - Image:Mboverload.jpg - because it's actually copyrighted (due to the Microsoft interface visible). joturner 02:00, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
However, that's not vandalism mboverload. joturner 02:00, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Which is why I put it in quotes. However, he did insert an overly large image multiple times into my talk page in the goal to disrupt it. --mboverload@ 02:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
No she put it on your page to show you what your comments looked like just as she believed you and the other two admins were showing to her by putting a screenshot image on her talk page. She isn't an expert on images at all and this was the first time she had ever posted a screenshot. Ste4k 11:23, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Me and many other users are discussing this on the IRC channel incase you wish to join in, which I wish you would. --mboverload@ 02:11, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Did you notify her in any respect to this conversation, or the conversation on IRC before unilaterally deciding to take matters into your own hands? She certainly would have appreciated it if you had done so instead of blinding her to communications which were coming in faster than she could handle. Ste4k 11:26, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Do you remember writing this statement in the next section on this page? "Although they act in good faith they feel attacked, and being backed into a corner with 4 editors reverting you and not explaining why you contribution can't be there doesn't feel good." Try four people who appear to be admins who won't even allow an editor to read their own talk page. It's hard to believe that you have anything else on your mind, in my opinion, other than vandals. I may be slow, but I will eventually respond to a comment. Ste4k 11:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Monobook.js and Monobook.css would solve this problem. See these examples. (Netscott) 02:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Just as a comment. Ste4k took this objection to Mboverload's rfa. I'm sort of alarmed by that response. Alphachimp talk 02:39, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand why you are alarmed since nobody told me where any of these discussions were taking place and I had to find them on my own. Ste4k 09:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

If that user really wants their talkpage to look like that, they can do it through css by adding an inner div id "MyTalkPage" and styling it the preferred way, while everyone else can read. GeorgeMoney (talk) 03:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I have decided on a more optimal solution, but thanks GeorgeMoney / Netscott. Ste4k 11:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Excuse me for stumbling into this mare's nest, but I can't help wondering, if she can only read her talk page if it is tiny and purple, how does she read the rest of the encyclopedia? Thatcher131 16:09, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
FWIW, I wish, Mboverload, you hadn't done that. I brought this here after a conflict had already arisen (as I said, I changed it and Ste4k reverted it back), so I think we should have had more discussion before doing anything. *sigh* Mangojuicetalk 17:01, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Absolutely. This user is not in any way malicious. She is doing her best to sort out a walled garden which needs some long and patient work. I am already in dialogue with her over various things, and if people had left it to me, or employed tact, we would not have this problem. As it is we have one person whose faith in WP has been dented. She has not "left the building", which is good. But now would be a good time to stop this discussion and archive it out. There's no problem with taking what is perceived as a heavy-handed action to an RfA (it's exactly the sort of thing whihc does and should get discussed there), and above all we need to remember that Ste4k has only been with the project for under a month, so we have to cut some slack while she learns the ropes. Of course people will now embarrass me by posting diffs to places where I have done the same and worse. I throw my weight around too. But was it really necessary to be so harsh so soon? I don't think so. Just zis Guy you know? 20:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. I think this user is very malicious. She does it often in a very sneaky way abusing WP policies.--Who123 15:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
ALL she had to do was revert it back if she didn't like it. I wouldn't have removed it again. --mboverload@ 00:31, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

finally[edit]

but now the real question, does it work on autoblocks?--AOL user 15:54, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

AFAIK, autoblocks continue to operate normally, that is, they block all anonymous and registered users on that IP. However because of the new block precedence feature, it is possible to set an IP block with different options (such as allowing registered editors).
So say that a registered user X gets blocked, and an autoblock goes onto their shared IP. This would block user Y who is innocently using the same IP. But if an admin came along and applied a block to the IP, with the option "block anonymous users only", then the IP would remain blocked (preventing X from evading the block) but Y would still be able to edit. --bainer (talk) 16:02, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
eh? but that's operating on the assumption that an IP block overides an autoblock, but isn't that patently false?--152.163.100.200 16:11, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
The changes to the ways blocking works, in addition to the "block anons only" and "prevent account creation" options, also gave blocks unique identifiers (to prevent more than one block on the same target) and implemented a precedence system, in descending order:
  • Username blocks
  • IP blocks
  • Range blocks
  • Autoblocks
A username block takes precedence over all other blocks, and so on down the chain. --bainer (talk) 16:35, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Um, Tim Starling answered just about all of this a while ago, in this post.

Shouldn't something indicating what type of block was made be added to the block log? Right now the only way to tell is through the block list. I would like to be able to tell through the log. Prodego talk 20:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
New feature, feature requests already :) Auto text like the protection text would be helpful. — xaosflux Talk 01:36, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


Should we block unregistered AOL users?[edit]

Given the new blocking features discussed above, would it now be advisable to block the entire AOL proxy pool from editing by unregistered users? This would have the side effect that AOL users would no longer be hit by random autoblocks.

(Also see this discussion on wikien-l, where Angela notes that the whole issue may soon become irrelevant if AOL does finally start providing XFF headers to us. That said, it might still be a good idea to block unregistered AOL users until this is implemented.)

Ilmari Karonen (talk) 18:47, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

  • No, now please stop harassing random AOL users--172.148.156.116 19:58, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
It's not something that should be done lightly but all things considered I think it might actually be a good idea to block unregistered AOL IP's until XFF headers are provided by us (or AOL stops using their weird dynamic IP system). Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 20:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
No it isn't, because 1) AOL is never going to alter their proxy system, honsetly, that wouldn't be a temporary block, it would be indefinite, 2) unless you're willing to abandon the idea of anon editors all together, you shouldn't, unless of course you want to block ALL IP editors, in which case, go ahead--172.148.156.116 20:09, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Now that registered users won't get whacked, and that they can still create an account if they want, I say block em indefinitely. It would reduce vandalism by at least 50%. I don't see a downside. Proto///type 20:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Then block all IPs, it will reduce vandalism 100%, I don't see the downside--172.148.156.116 20:11, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
I think at least the percieved downside to blocking AOL is that it reduces our openness, the upside of course is a slight decrease in vandalism and a cessation of vandalism that is impossible for us to stop due to AOL's setup. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 20:20, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Why, might I ask, is anyone lumping in the 172.xx.xx.xx ranges in with the rest, the very fact that using wikipedia's secure login yeilds a static 172 address, should exempt this range from any sort of range block, why they're even being lumped in with the rest of AOL's supposed "proxy pool" I don't know--172.148.156.116 20:24, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how it makes sense to block huge swathes of the world from editing the encyclopedia. A little less time feeling overwhelmed in the CVU channel when the bots are almost always on top of it would probably help. If we are to get XFF headers soon, then there's no need at all. -Splash - tk 20:22, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Block 'em all. By blocking the entire AOL IP range, the IP block will override any autoblocks, and we won't need to worry about collateral damage from blocking named AOL users. --Carnildo 20:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree, block 'em all, block each and every user, registered, unregistered, who cares, nothing good can come from editors, they're always editing things, best thing in the world, block everyone, no vandalism, ever--172.162.162.37 21:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


  • Oh please. It's important to understand how the new block works, and I'm not sure I do. If you blocked a range of AOL IPs, but allow registration, you would prevent anonymous edits, but all AOLers could edit by creating accounts. Also, because of the block hierarchy, if a named user who was on AOL was blocked, the IP block would override the autoblock, so any other registered user using AOL would never be autoblocked again. Right? So what is more valuable, allowing AOLers to edit while not logged in or never again having a registered contibutor be autoblocked? (Since new AOlers could always register) Thatcher131 21:08, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Allowing unregistered AOL users to edit, especially since the 172's don't ever trigger autoblocks, they're the static range assigned by wikipedia's secure login--172.162.162.37 21:11, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
The thing is, the 172.xx.xx.xx ranges behave like perfectly normal static IPs, there's no reason I can think of to block anon editing from this range, otherwise what's the point of even having this?--172.162.162.37 21:16, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • OK, so leave that range out of it. I doubt anyone would go through and tag every single AOL IP address tonight, anyway. However, as vandalism incidents occur, the question is how long to block. The old reason of 15 minutes to prevent autoblocks of registered users no longer applies. So if >15 minutes is ok, how far do you go? The point is that if a registered user editing through AOL is blocked, it will still trigger autoblocks. But if we block an IP range for vandalism, registered users on that range will still be able to edit, and newbies will even be able to register. Sounds pretty good, but I may yet be missing something. Thatcher131 21:23, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
(after 6 edit conflicts) As far as I know the 10 account per day per IP rule still exists, so that could restict AOL users ability to create an account. Prodego talk 21:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Actually, it's the 6 account per day rule, they changed it a while back--172.162.162.37 21:18, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Block indefinite. The point is to keep autoblocks from hitting other AOL users. --Carnildo 22:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Strong support on blocking AOL proxy ip#s which have produced significant vandalism. We have long had a very large problem with vandals taking advantage of AOL rotating proxies. This has been one of Wikipedia's most harmful vulnerabilities to long term repeat vandals. Yes, legitimate users will need to log in to edit-- perhaps a minor "inconvenience" for them, but one which thousands of other legitimate Wikipedians have taken care of, with many benifits both for the users and Wikipedia. -- Infrogmation 23:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

NOTE: I've updated the "AOL proxy pool" link above to point to AOL's own list, which indeed mentions that the 172.* range is not part of the proxy pool. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:20, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


User editing after indef block[edit]

There seems to be a problem with blocks. In particular User:Jewbo_WaIes,_LOL has been indef blocked twice today (username violation) yet continues to be able to edit ([2]). I don't know what's happening here. Could someone (a developer?) investigate? Thanks, Gwernol 21:13, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

It's been fixed. Naconkantari 21:41, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, Gwernol 22:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


Talk:New England is broken[edit]

Talk:New England redirects to itself. I don't see a way to fix this as the history is unavailable. Can an administrator please look into this? Thanks. -- Malber (talkcontribs) 01:20, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. Jkelly 01:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks much! -- Malber (talkcontribs) 01:34, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Prevent account creation[edit]

I added a short sentence about the anon-only blocking feature. Now, exactly what does enabling Prevent account creation do? If I apply it to my own account (with IP address 1.2.3.4),

  1. Does it prevent a user logged in as Deathphoenix from creating new accounts?
  2. Does it prevent registered users under the IP address 1.2.3.4 from creating new accounts?
  3. Does it prevent the anonymous user 1.2.3.4 from creating new accounts?

Now, if I apply it to my IP address (1.2.3.4),

  1. Does it prevent registered users under the IP address 1.2.3.4 from creating new accounts?
  2. Does it prevent the anonymous user 1.2.3.4 from creating new accounts?

--Deathphoenix ʕ 14:39, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it's an IP only feature; if you apply it to your account, it does nothing, if you apply it to an IP, it prevents any new accounts from being created on that IP. I could, of course, be wrong, but my reading of Tim's email was that this, like the anon only feature, is only related to IP blocks. Essjay (TalkConnect) 14:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
If this is the case, how would we stop someone who is creating a large batch of blockable usernames? Use checkuser, find the IP, and block that IP from creating new usernames? EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 21:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Loged in users can not "create account" — xaosflux Talk 01:35, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Actually they can, by going to Special:Userlogin while still logged in, though it's relatively rare. I guess the question worded better would read, "If I block User:BadUserName, and click 'Prevent Account Creation,' does this prevent the user from making bad usernames, or would I have to find out their IP address and block that?" EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 01:57, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Blocking the username will stop account creation automatically, regardless of the check settings, as I understand it; this is something that has been the case for ages and has not been changed. Likewise, trying to create a new account from an IP used by someone who has been {{unsernameblock}} will trigger an autoblock, which continues to function like any old block, preventing account creation. So, stopping users from creating accounts is as easy as blocking one of them, and if they're smart enough to evade the autoblock, having a checkuser pull the IP and set a "no account creation" block on it. Essjay (TalkConnect) 09:34, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Essjay, that's what I figured. These extra tools should give us a lot more options on how to combat certain occurrences, and I'll join in with everyone else in applauding the developers in providing these much desired changes. EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 09:38, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


Signature Transclusion[edit]

I noticed a relatively new user Sean gorter (talk · contribs) was transcluding his signature, and explained why they shouldn't (and untranscluded their signature for them in a handful of locations (1, 2, 3, 4); despite the note, they appear to be ignoring the note and going ahead with it anyway ([3]). I know it causes strain on the server so figured I'd give you guys a heads-up. The user in question is not exactly disposed towards taking my advice (link). — Mike (talk • contribs) 12:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC) Changed to {{user}}. --kingboyk 15:53, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I've had a word with him on his talk page. He already knows he shouldn't be doing it (and that last link you provided is asshattery that could get him a short block). Proto///type 12:54, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Damn, I was hoping what I saw the other day was an isolated incident. This is an oversight within the software which can catch and auto-transclude a signature if it has a backslash, but not a forward slash. Is this something worth submitting a bugfix for? I spoke to CrnaGora about it as well, but he doesn't use Talk pages evry often so I can't tell if he's actually using that page or not [4]. -- nae'blis (talk) 15:23, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Small question: At which level of privileges is signature editing enabled? Is it a manual-edit-in-the-database thing? --mboverload@ 02:31, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


Litch[edit]

I blocked Litch for personal attacks. He asked for unblock. This was reviewed by Samir and the block confirmed. Unblock was placed immediately. I protected the page, as my experience of Litch is of endless trolling. I'd be grateful for other opinions, and if any admin thinks the page should not be protected, please reverse this. Tyrenius 03:57, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Samir and Capitalistroadster are on the case, so I think this should be sufficient. Tyrenius 04:28, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


User WIN[edit]

User:WIN has been a scourge of the Talk page for Indo-Aryan migration for months. He tries to start arguments about the validity of the theory with the goal of trying to prove it wrong. Repeated attempts to show him that Wikipedia isn't about proving a theory wrong or right (since that's original research), but rather about mirroring outside scholarship have failed. The admin User:Petros471 blocked him before, but after the block was released WIN is up to the same old thing. Look at the diff here to see a sample WIN addition to the Talk page. He blatantly says that no references are required, and admits that he's trying to argue whether the theory is right or wrong. Petros471 currently has difficulties with the Internet, so he can't take action, so I humbly ask another admin to step up. CRCulver 08:47, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


Need help checking a category[edit]

So it appears that at somepoint for a couple of days towards the end of May, Category:Wikipedia indefinitely blocked users with a significant edit history was plugged into the {{indefblockeduser}} template. Problem being, anyone indefblocked and tagged as such ended up in the category whether or not they had a significant edit history. I've started to go through all the pages in the category alphabetically, and most of the names do not belong (I just got through the letter E, with only ten pages of about ninety checked belonging in the cat). I could use any available assistance in digging through and checking the pages/users in the cat. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 13:18, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Can somebody review the blocks[edit]

I have an opinion that blocks of Irpen (talk · contribs · checkuser · block user · block log · edit count) and Grafikm_fr (talk · contribs · checkuser · block user · block log · edit count) by Dmcdevit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) are too harsh and not warranted. Please see the discussion on User_talk:Irpen#Edit_warring_2, User_talk:Dmcdevit#Tag-removal_edit_war, User talk:Alex Bakharev#Irpen, etc.. Can somebody review the blocks? abakharev 06:31, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I second the request to review the blocks but this might take some time, as I believe the blocking admin is off to get some sleep now. --Lysytalk 07:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Dmc does sleep occasionally. ;-) --Woohookitty(meow) 08:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Hope it's not hibernation ;-). Apparently nobody cares to take a look at the situation. I'm only glad Irpen takes the block so lightly. --Lysytalk 19:29, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


Help or second opinion needed[edit]

User FrancisTyers (an administrator) moved Individualist anarchism in the United States to Anarchism in the United States without disscusion and dispite oppositon to the move. Since I don't want to edit war by moving the page back and fourth, I ask for advice/help on this matter.

My suggestion is to either move Anarchism in the United States back to its original location and leave FrancisTyers to start a normal "Requested moves" procedure or to restore Individualist anarchism in the United States with its revision history and leave Anarchism in the United States as it is. -- Vision Thing -- 16:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


Can someone fix[edit]

Hi someone moved the article Pod_Slurping but did a copy and paste move, can an admin fix this please? Mike (T C) Star of life2.svg 16:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

All history is now at Pod slurping. Jkelly 16:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


User impersonation[edit]

I'm not entirely sure as to whether this is the place to post this, but User:Sharpdust signed with my name while adding a license tag and a fair use rationale (which he by the way copied from one of my uploaded images) [5]. This was done after I removed the image from the New Found Glory article for having insufficient copyright information [6]. Is there a special method in dealing with user impersonation? Thanks! --HarryCane 18:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

The user in question was sent off for 24 hours. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 19:55, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


Continuous IP vandalism[edit]

I and other editors have reported this user (24.12.158.51 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)) multiple times for the past half year. He has been blocked on and off again (three times as of now, couple of more times with his sock puppets), but continues vandalism the day block expires. I'm requesting a permanent block, as he seems unimpressed by warnings and temporary blocks. This notice was written today on WP:AIAV, but immediately removed by User:Redvers, saying "24 hasn't edited for 2 days", which is incorrect. He has vandalised pages and will most definitely continue unless he's stopped. --HarryCane 18:43, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, his last edit was yesterday. If he starts up again, I'll look into it. --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 19:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Can somebody review the blocks[edit]

I have an opinion that blocks of Irpen (talk · contribs · checkuser · block user · block log · edit count) and Grafikm_fr (talk · contribs · checkuser · block user · block log · edit count) by Dmcdevit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) are too harsh and not warranted. Please see the discussion on User_talk:Irpen#Edit_warring_2, User_talk:Dmcdevit#Tag-removal_edit_war, User talk:Alex Bakharev#Irpen, etc.. Can somebody review the blocks? abakharev 06:31, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I second the request to review the blocks but this might take some time, as I believe the blocking admin is off to get some sleep now. --Lysytalk 07:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Dmc does sleep occasionally. ;-) --Woohookitty(meow) 08:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Hope it's not hibernation ;-). Apparently nobody cares to take a look at the situation. I'm only glad Irpen takes the block so lightly. --Lysytalk 19:29, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


Help or second opinion needed[edit]

User FrancisTyers (an administrator) moved Individualist anarchism in the United States to Anarchism in the United States without disscusion and dispite oppositon to the move. Since I don't want to edit war by moving the page back and fourth, I ask for advice/help on this matter.

My suggestion is to either move Anarchism in the United States back to its original location and leave FrancisTyers to start a normal "Requested moves" procedure or to restore Individualist anarchism in the United States with its revision history and leave Anarchism in the United States as it is. -- Vision Thing -- 16:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


Can someone fix[edit]

Hi someone moved the article Pod_Slurping but did a copy and paste move, can an admin fix this please? Mike (T C) Star of life2.svg 16:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

All history is now at Pod slurping. Jkelly 16:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


Restoring an Edit Count to Some Normalcy[edit]

I've had to perform an extremely high frequency of edits on my monobook.js file over the past couple of weeks, pulling out modules, putting them in, trying to track down an error that had been screwing up part of my interface. As a result, I'm a bit concerned that my edit count may have been artificially inflated by the multitude of edits associated with same — and although I don't mind a high edit count, I'd rather not cheat my way into it. :-) (An unusual situation, given that when you're tinkering with monobook.js, you can't really "use preview.)

Am I correct in saying that if I wanted to "resolve" this problem, I could locally save a copy of the file the way it currently is, and then tag it with a {{db-owner}}, meaning that once the file was zapped, the edits I've made to that file wouldn't count? (Yes, I know that the count would show in User space anyway on VoA's breakdown, but still.) — Mike (talk • contribs) 18:01, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about it. Nobody uses edit count for much of anything. --Carnildo 21:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
I appreciate your response, but I hope to someday file a second RfA (not anytime right away, but perhaps in the fall or winter) ... and it's definitely used by many people in that particular forum as a metric. — Mike (talk • contribs) 21:21, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Taken care of by Kungfundam, thanks! — Mike (talk • contribs) 21:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

User impersonation[edit]

I'm not entirely sure as to whether this is the place to post this, but User:Sharpdust signed with my name while adding a license tag and a fair use rationale (which he by the way copied from one of my uploaded images) [7]. This was done after I removed the image from the New Found Glory article for having insufficient copyright information [8]. Is there a special method in dealing with user impersonation? Thanks! --HarryCane 18:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

The user in question was sent off for 24 hours. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 19:55, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


Continuous IP vandalism[edit]

I and other editors have reported this user (24.12.158.51 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)) multiple times for the past half year. He has been blocked on and off again (three times as of now, couple of more times with his sock puppets), but continues vandalism the day block expires. I'm requesting a permanent block, as he seems unimpressed by warnings and temporary blocks. This notice was written today on WP:AIAV, but immediately removed by User:Redvers, saying "24 hasn't edited for 2 days", which is incorrect. He has vandalised pages and will most definitely continue unless he's stopped. --HarryCane 18:43, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, his last edit was yesterday. If he starts up again, I'll look into it. --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 19:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


Backlog at Wikipedia:Requested Moves[edit]

I am digging through the backlog at Wikipedia:Requested Moves, but I just seem to keep the balance with the new requests. If there is a non-admin (or more than one) who want to assist me with some tasks that non-admins can do? That would be tasks such as fixing double redirects left after a move, doing uncontroversial and unobstructed moves, closing clear no consensus cases as well as clear opposition cases). -- Kim van der Linde at venus 21:52, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


AOL range blocks[edit]

There has been recent identical vandalism from 3 AOL ranges (64.12.116.*, 64.12.117.* and 152.163.100.*) consisting of rapid tagging of user pages with the WoW and a different IP address each time. I have blocked the three ranges, for 1 hour, with an "ANON ONLY" /24 range block. Cheers TigerShark 22:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Can somebody review the blocks[edit]

I have an opinion that blocks of Irpen (talk · contribs · checkuser · block user · block log · edit count) and Grafikm_fr (talk · contribs · checkuser · block user · block log · edit count) by Dmcdevit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) are too harsh and not warranted. Please see the discussion on User_talk:Irpen#Edit_warring_2, User_talk:Dmcdevit#Tag-removal_edit_war, User talk:Alex Bakharev#Irpen, etc.. Can somebody review the blocks? abakharev 06:31, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I second the request to review the blocks but this might take some time, as I believe the blocking admin is off to get some sleep now. --Lysytalk 07:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Dmc does sleep occasionally. ;-) --Woohookitty(meow) 08:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Hope it's not hibernation ;-). Apparently nobody cares to take a look at the situation. I'm only glad Irpen takes the block so lightly. --Lysytalk 19:29, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


Help or second opinion needed[edit]

User FrancisTyers (an administrator) moved Individualist anarchism in the United States to Anarchism in the United States without disscusion and dispite oppositon to the move. Since I don't want to edit war by moving the page back and fourth, I ask for advice/help on this matter.

My suggestion is to either move Anarchism in the United States back to its original location and leave FrancisTyers to start a normal "Requested moves" procedure or to restore Individualist anarchism in the United States with its revision history and leave Anarchism in the United States as it is. -- Vision Thing -- 16:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


Can someone fix[edit]

Hi someone moved the article Pod_Slurping but did a copy and paste move, can an admin fix this please? Mike (T C) Star of life2.svg 16:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

All history is now at Pod slurping. Jkelly 16:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


Restoring an Edit Count to Some Normalcy[edit]

I've had to perform an extremely high frequency of edits on my monobook.js file over the past couple of weeks, pulling out modules, putting them in, trying to track down an error that had been screwing up part of my interface. As a result, I'm a bit concerned that my edit count may have been artificially inflated by the multitude of edits associated with same — and although I don't mind a high edit count, I'd rather not cheat my way into it. :-) (An unusual situation, given that when you're tinkering with monobook.js, you can't really "use preview.)

Am I correct in saying that if I wanted to "resolve" this problem, I could locally save a copy of the file the way it currently is, and then tag it with a {{db-owner}}, meaning that once the file was zapped, the edits I've made to that file wouldn't count? (Yes, I know that the count would show in User space anyway on VoA's breakdown, but still.) — Mike (talk • contribs) 18:01, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about it. Nobody uses edit count for much of anything. --Carnildo 21:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
I appreciate your response, but I hope to someday file a second RfA (not anytime right away, but perhaps in the fall or winter) ... and it's definitely used by many people in that particular forum as a metric. — Mike (talk • contribs) 21:21, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Taken care of by Kungfundam, thanks! — Mike (talk • contribs) 21:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

User impersonation[edit]

I'm not entirely sure as to whether this is the place to post this, but User:Sharpdust signed with my name while adding a license tag and a fair use rationale (which he by the way copied from one of my uploaded images) [9]. This was done after I removed the image from the New Found Glory article for having insufficient copyright information [10]. Is there a special method in dealing with user impersonation? Thanks! --HarryCane 18:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

The user in question was sent off for 24 hours. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 19:55, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


Continuous IP vandalism[edit]

I and other editors have reported this user (24.12.158.51 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)) multiple times for the past half year. He has been blocked on and off again (three times as of now, couple of more times with his sock puppets), but continues vandalism the day block expires. I'm requesting a permanent block, as he seems unimpressed by warnings and temporary blocks. This notice was written today on WP:AIAV, but immediately removed by User:Redvers, saying "24 hasn't edited for 2 days", which is incorrect. He has vandalised pages and will most definitely continue unless he's stopped. --HarryCane 18:43, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, his last edit was yesterday. If he starts up again, I'll look into it. --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 19:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


Backlog at Wikipedia:Requested Moves[edit]

I am digging through the backlog at Wikipedia:Requested Moves, but I just seem to keep the balance with the new requests. If there is a non-admin (or more than one) who want to assist me with some tasks that non-admins can do? That would be tasks such as fixing double redirects left after a move, doing uncontroversial and unobstructed moves, closing clear no consensus cases as well as clear opposition cases). -- Kim van der Linde at venus 21:52, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


AOL range blocks[edit]

There has been recent identical vandalism from 3 AOL ranges (64.12.116.*, 64.12.117.* and 152.163.100.*) consisting of rapid tagging of user pages with the WoW and a different IP address each time. I have blocked the three ranges, for 1 hour, with an "ANON ONLY" /24 range block. Cheers TigerShark 22:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikiproject notices[edit]

Back in the day I remember there being quite a fuss made when WikiProject CSB covered talk pages with wikiproject notices. This is happening more and more with current projects, is there actaully any guidelines to say which talk pages projects should and shouldn't tag - or was the response to CSB back in 2004 exceptional?--Peta 03:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

The only guideline as far as I know is Wikipedia:WikiProject/Best practices#How to attract contributors (Advertise!), but it does not say which talk pages should and shouldn't be tagged. Of course, it did not stop someone from creating Wikipedia:Avoid using WikiProject talk page templates (see the discussion when is was initially a policy proposal). Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I "resurrect"[edit]

Hello! Appearently, I have died in a car accident and my account got stolen (I tried to explain it at User:HRE). User:Gurch suggested to me that it would be a good thing to note here... --HRE 16:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Glad to see that the news of your demise was greatly exaggerated. Syrthiss 17:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
As I understand that you meant only good will/joke, I must incline that I'm insulted by that. This gave me a lot of trouble. --HRE 00:34, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
I too, must incline, at a 45 degree angle, so that small animals can climb up me to reach a higher position. The wonders of simple machines. Deco 00:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
What animals are those? I've found that most small animals, up to and including cats, are perfectly capable of climbing up a human standing in vertical position. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 02:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand... --HRE 08:28, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
I believe a goat would be a good example. --Lysytalk 08:38, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
HRE, I think Deco is having a joke at your expense on account of your English. You said "I must incline...". But "incline" means to raise something at an angle, like a ramp. I guess one use of inclined ramps is to allow animals to climb to elevated positions. A series of irrelevant noise followed about ramps and animals. Presumably you meant to say "I must confess..." or "I must admit..." or something similar. I think perhaps having a joke at your expense was in poor taste under the circumstances, especially considering that you'd just registered your offense at the first whimsical reply. -lethe talk + 10:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
I am certainly not having a joke at anyone's expense. Maybe I just don't understand the situation. Surely he was joking when he said he died in a car accident and his account was stolen? I thought his response about being insulted was also a joke. Is this a serious thread? Deco 17:32, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Check his user page. Apparently his account was indeed stolen, and the person who stole it used it to indicate (falsely, as you may have surmised) that he had passed away. As you can imagine, this has caused him a considerable amount of trouble. --Aquillion 20:09, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
In that case I apologise - I didn't look at his user page. Sorry. Deco 08:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

HRE - You can feel insulted or not. My whimsical reply was continuing the tone of your post - "Apparently I have died of a car accident" and I "resurrect". Syrthiss 12:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


Phantom images?[edit]

Is this a bug? Feature?

Take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Abcsports98.jpg and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Bokken.jpg. Neither one shows up if you just type the image name into go/search ... but if you click on the URL, you will see a page with a redlinked "Image" tab. The former was deleted recently at IFD. The latter is very old. What in the world are these pages? BigDT 23:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Ditto for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Jammin80.jpg and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Ayaan_hirsi_ali_parliament.jpg, both also deleted at IFD BigDT 23:29, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
At a guess I'd say User:Howcheng is useing the classic skin which may cause problems.Geni 00:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I think something weird really is going on with Image:Bokken.jpg which renders for me, but the software doesn't recognise that there is a file there. It is not a mirror from Commons, either. Jkelly 01:29, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't know about the others, but the uploader of Bokken.jpg is listed as "(Automated conversion)", which as far as I know means this is an old image dating from pre-MediaWiki days. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 01:56, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
I've tagged the Bokken image as {{GFDL-presumed}}, so it now has a description page and should show up as a bluelink. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 05:06, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
It looks to me like the image files are there but there is no description page. The problem might be that Howcheng might not be deleting them correctly? I think you are supposed to "Delete all revisions of this file", not delete the image description page. --Fastfission 01:37, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
What I could suggest is just upload a blank image using the same file name and delete the image correctly. If that does not work, I am not sure what will. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 03:59, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe only the image descriptions were deleted, the images themslfes were not. Restored and deleted the right way (I left Bokken untouched, as it seems to have a valid copyright tag) abakharev 08:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


User:Footemps[edit]

Footemps (talk · contribs) created the page Head-fi which was speedily deleted due to lack of notabiliy, and afterwards proceeded to recreate it and has stated on its talk page that he saves it outside of Wikipedia after every edit with the intent of recreating it if it is deleted again.--Conrad Devonshire Talk 02:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

The article wasn't an obvious speedy candidate. I've warned him, but I don't feel it's necessary to take further action unless he continues to recreate after the AfD closes. --Sam Blanning(talk) 09:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


User-undeletion of Wikism[edit]

I would like to move the deleted Wikism to Meta. Could someone either do a direct transwiki or move it to a user subpage so that I can do it? SeahenNeonMerlin 05:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


Unemployed Vandal (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · checkuser (log))[edit]

This user has apparantly misused {{unblock}} to (slanderously) attack Kungfuadam (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). What do you think? Myrtone:-(

  • Protected his userpage abakharev 08:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

We need to scour the Image namespace[edit]

At User:ESkog/ImageSurvey, I summarize the results of a 100-image spin through the namespace. I found that roughly 41% of our images are fair use, and of those, about 93% do not meet the requirements that a rationale and source be provided. More administrators need to be checking on image copyrights and trying to keep the namespace clean. If you don't feel comfortable with copyright issues, there are quite a few resources on Wikipedia to explain our policies - get informed and get involved. (ESkog)(Talk) 06:14, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

And anybody who is not an admin but feels qualified to make these judgments should feel free to tag the images for deletion or list them here. There's nothing stopping folks from bagging the trash and leaving it outside the janitor's office :-) Just zis Guy you know? 09:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
41% of images as fair use is a lot lot higher than most other estimates, which tend to give the figure as less than 10%. Granted that many free use images are now on commons, so the proportion of fair use (which are kept on English Wikipedia) will automatically rise. Physchim62 (talk) 09:10, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
41% is reasonably consistent with the check of 1800 recent uploads I did back in March: I found just over 50% of new uploads had a fair-use variant license tag. Even if it was only 10% a year ago, the flood of new image uploads would be enough to raise it to 40% today. --Carnildo 18:03, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Is there a Random article function for images.Geni 18:07, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Special:Random/Image. Prodego talk 18:14, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

well my servey of 32 images found 46 percent fair use and one unlabled.Geni 18:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Alot of fair use images are being uploaded now and that isn't good in my opinion Jaranda wat's sup 18:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Seven percent meeting the bare minimum of compliance with policy is higher than I expected, but then I spend most of my time looking at the ones that don't. Our sorting and warning about deletion projects could certainly use more involvement, and don't involve admin actions in any way. Jkelly 18:55, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Fair use isn't the only problem though. I know User:Kiwidough is lieing in him image uploads but since he isn't responding to comments on his talk page there isn't much I can do without going through WP:PUI which is time consumeing.Geni 20:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
With image undeletion, there's no need for PUI to take two weeks for the obvious cases. That still wouldn't change the fact that it takes longer to go through the steps to get an imagevio deleted than it does to upload it. Jkelly 20:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Statistics:

Type Count
Category:Free images 853215
Category:Fair use images 374304
All images 1376546

N.B. these numbers have many caveats, more information at User:Kotepho/reports/Images by copyright status statistics. I haven't really looked into the numbers much, but I would say that the number of free images is overinflated more than fair use.

Image: is a huge mess, and with the wait times on PUI and CP (and the frequent backlogs on orfu and such), it really isn't going to get better anytime soon. I think the worst thing right now we have is {{Coatofarms}} (12680 images) (and other Category:Semi-free images (16205 total)). Kotepho 22:57, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

As a point of information, Wikimedia Commons has 676,218 media files as of this timestamp. Jkelly 23:03, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Actually, the worst things we've got right now are {{promophoto}} (a dumping ground for 82,000 "I found it on a website somewhere so it's got to be promotional" images), {{magazinecover}} (100,000 "this person appeared on this magazine cover so it's fair use" images), and {{GFDL}} (328,000 mixed genuine GFDL licenses and "the project is GFDL so I'd better stick that tag on the image" cases). {{PD-ineligible}} and {{No rights reserved}} are also pretty bad. --Carnildo 07:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I suggest that the Coats of Arms are the easier problem to solve. Sort them into ones in which the design is public domain and ones in which it is not. All of the ones that have PD designs can be drawn by Wikipedians and thereby be as maximally freely-reusable within the constraints that local governments put upon their use. People don't upload unfree Coats of Arms when there is a free one available. That's not true for magazine covers and other photographs of people. Jkelly 17:26, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I suggest that the magazine covers are the easier problem to solve: shoot 'em all and let DRV sort it out. :-) --Carnildo 01:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


List of commercial seduction teachers[edit]

I deleted this although it probably wasn't a cadnidate for speedy deletion. Posting this here for review. - brenneman {L} 12:24, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

No, it wasn't. What would have been wrong with AfD? --Sam Blanning(talk) 12:50, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
agreed. brennnemann is clearly abusing his admin powers. he deleted a ton of articles without afd. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.225.167.24 (talkcontribs) .
Yeah, he's so abusive he even had the audacity to post his actions on the Administrators' noticeboard for peer review. *gasp* --mboverload@ 14:39, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
What exactly did the "commercial seduction teachers" list have? I'm envisioning my hot highschool english teacher in 3...2...1... --mboverload@ 14:40, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
exactly, by protecting it instead of afd, he makes it so people cant see the previous page he purports to be fit for deletion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.225.167.24 (talkcontribs) .
To save anyone the trouble of combing through my log:
  1. 12:28, 9 July 2006 Aaron Brenneman (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Commercial Seduction Teachers" (redirect to deleted page)
  2. 12:19, 9 July 2006 Aaron Brenneman (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "List of commercial seduction teachers" (spam)
  3. 12:13, 9 July 2006 Aaron Brenneman (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Englandlair" (does not assert notability serves mostly to support external link)
  4. 11:45, 9 July 2006 Aaron Brenneman (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Pickup Artist" (per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pickup artist)
  5. 11:43, 9 July 2006 Aaron Brenneman (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Talk:EnglandLair" (talk page of deleted article)
  6. 11:43, 9 July 2006 Aaron Brenneman (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "EnglandLair" (group with no indications of notability, also served mostly to support external link)
The only one that was even a stretch was the "List of..." which I posted here. I didn't AfD it because I was already cranky and tired and it was an obvious delete, failing the spirit of the law if not the letter. There in fact would have been nothing wrong with sending it to AfD, and I promise to be more circumspect in the future. I also should link to the criterion for speedy deletion as opposed to simply naming it, I see now. I'll take it to DRv then. - brenneman {L} 14:52, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

re Pickup Artist that discussion was from LAST YEAR. the new article is not necessarily the same as the old one. this is the SAME situation as Seduction Community where a new article was written to satisify detractors. the same process should hold for Pickup Artist

  • The article as deleted was a steaming pile of poo, and frankly the entire thing only existed for a few vain and shallow people to engage in self-aggrandisement, so deletion was the best solution all round. Just zis Guy you know? 20:17, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm impressed. You're obviously working hard with the best motivations with the project in mind. There are judgement calls. You had the self-awareness and integrity to question one of your own and bring it here. Keep up the good work. Tyrenius 22:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


This problem continues[edit]

Ste4k has now tried to stop using her talk page entirely, saying she will ignore and delete messages left there. She has also been deleting my comments there as "personal attacks". For someone who quotes so much policy, she still doesn't understand the part that says "your user talk page has the important function of allowing other editors to communicate with you. People will get upset if they cannot use it for that purpose." --Nscheffey(T/C) 21:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


marriage.about.com[edit]

This about.com microsite is linked in a few hundred articles - is it actually a reliable source or are we being used to promote someone's pet project? Just zis Guy you know? 12:31, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

What is a microsite? about.com has Alexa rank of 72. Quarl (talk) 2006-07-13 03:32Z
A subdomain. About.com has all kinds of content maintained by different folks. Just zis Guy you know? 22:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


WAM![edit]

I go to look at a page history, and then all of a sudden.. WAM!

All versions of this article are listed here in reverse-chronological order.
  • To view a specific version, click a date.
  • To compare an old version with the current version, click cur.
  • To compare a version with its predecessor, click last.

Minor edits are denoted as m. For more help, see Help:Page history.

Talking up half the page, can whoever did that put it back the way it used to be?--64.12.116.200 17:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

This is being discussed here: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#History_Tab_usability. Keep further discussions there, please. Shanes 18:06, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I have been blocked for no reason...[edit]

I think it’s due to an IP address problem.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.188.116.200 (talkcontribs)

No, you aren’t, because you were able to post here. Happy editing. (ESkog)(Talk) 15:40, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
This was posted by an AOL user it seems, which means either one of those floating AOL range blocks that have become so popular in the last few days, or autoblock collateral--64.12.116.200 17:28, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
The side effect of long range blocks on AOL is that it forces the vandals to register user names if they want to vandalize anything, which of course leads to more and frequent autoblocks--64.12.116.200 17:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
This might be a good way to test the new system, if it works, it means that a 1 second block across all AOL ranges might actually work to clear autoblocks, and if it still doesn't work, nothing gained, nothing lost--64.12.116.200 17:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
The range block is supposed to override the autoblock, I thought. Thatcher131 02:44, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
That's the point, a 1 second range block would clear most if not all autoblocks on a given range (assuming it works the way it's supposed to, which it probably doesn't)--152.163.100.200 02:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
No. Under the new system, a one-second range block will block the range for one second. No more, no less. If it's an anon-only block, then for one second, registered users from the autoblocked IP will be able to edit. --Carnildo 03:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


um, hello, what just happend?[edit]

repeated vandalism from this range, sorry; please log in if you wish to edit - AO
Account creation from this IP address (152.163.*.*) has been blocked. This is probably due to persistent vandalism from your school or Internet service provider.

What was that all about?--172.149.233.183 05:10, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

  • must be restricting account creation--AOL user 06:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Protected, deleted pages[edit]

There is a discussion at Template talk:Deletedpage#How temporary is this? about deleted, protected pages that should not remain protected after several months, with no reason to think they will be recreated, and whether there should be some automated system or guideline for getting rid of them. —Centrxtalk • 04:36, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

No idea how to work backwards to solve the existing instances without running a bot over the categories, but if the {{deletedpage}} template was dated like {{prod}}, it might help. -- nae'blis (talk) 04:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
If there is no reason to think they will be recreated is there in harm in having them there? --pgk(talk) 17:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
There is reason to believe that they could be recreated as legitimate encyclopedia articles. I provided one example, Paris Flood, and there are undoubtedly others like that. Less obvious are articles about persons, which is one of the common uses for protecting a deleted page. There are always many people with the same name, some of whom could warrant an article, or the original person could become notable. There are more than a thousand protected-deleted pages, and the default on Wikipedia must be for it to be editable, not protected. If there is no reason to think that an article will be wrongly recreated, then it should be unprotected. Even if there is some minor reason to think that it will be wrongly recreated, it should be unprotected for the same principle by which we don't just protect every page that has more than average vandalism. —Centrxtalk • 06:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Another important point is that we want to avoid metadata clutter in the article space. For one thing it uselessly shows up in search results. Haukur 08:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

please investigate vandal administrator KillerChihuahua[edit]

The following pertinent and highly researched links keep getting removed by birdmessenger. I have been blocked a few times by a rougue administrator that vandalizes by the alias: KillerChihuahua

Someone please investigate KillerChihuahua's history in reference to the prayer page.Spicynugget 18:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


US Military Bases[edit]

The unblock list has received an e-mail from a US serviceman. It claims that editing from that base is banned because of the actions of one particular user. Are military bases s special cases like schools or AOL users?Capitalistroadster 19:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Luis Jiménez (sculptor) needs help[edit]

The article about Luis Jiménez (sculptor) really should be Luis Jiménez and then one of those pages that allows the seeker to choose between the sculptor and the footballer. Currently googling Luis Jiménez to find the sculptor [who is probably (opinion) getting more searches than the footballer] does not lead one to wikipedia. Help. please. Carptrash 18:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, we can't be responsible for Google, but Luis Jiménez is and should be a disambiguation page. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 20:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


216.143.138.153 (talk · contribs) troll at large[edit]

FYI. Phr (talk) 20:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


Impending edit war at Republika Srpska[edit]

I am going on vacation and will not be able to monitor this page. I had it protected and it clearly needs some effort to deal with some obvious edit warring. It's unprotected right now, but heads up, if some admins want to go take a look it would probably be a good idea. Thanks. Wikibofh(talk) 23:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


User talk:Wipfeln[edit]

[11] User talk:Wipfeln [12] [13] I smell trouble. WAS 4.250 23:45, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


PoolGuy again[edit]

User:NavyBlueAnkletMarionette. Some people never learn do they.... Raven4x4x 01:06, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

userpage copy[edit]

It appears that User:Pido1337 has dropped a slightly older copy of my userpage into his, subsitituting his name for mine. Is there any problem with my removing that? Joyous! | Talk 17:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

  • I'm not sure why Pido1337 shouldn't simply be blocked. No useful contributions; he started with penis vandalism, and now this. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:35, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Your userpage is released under the GFDL. As long as he complies by those terms (through attribution), there's absolutely nothing you can do to get him to stop "ripping off" your userpage. Hell, I do believe I copied my talk page from someone else awhile ago ... I no longer remember who, though it is somewhere in my talk page history. --Cyde↔Weys 17:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but IMHO copying the barnstars and the contrib list is at best uncool. Just my 2 cents. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 17:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm not concerned about my layout being copied. If someone feels that the design of the page works for them, then more power, and all that. I am concerned that he's copied the "I'm an administrator" note. And I'm missing any attribution from the article history, or elsewhere. Joyous! | Talk 18:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Copying userpages is not really all that big a deal, I copied my first real design from Cool Cat. After all imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. I did remove the reference to being an admin however, and left a note. Prodego talk 19:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I can't see attribution anywhere, and apart from the barnstars and contributions he also copied some lyrics by Yusuf Islam, which are most certainly not GFDL, under the heading "Some of my works". There's also what I assumes to be the US constitution <edit> and the lyrics to The Battle Hymn of the Republic</edit>, but presumably both those are public domain. I removed the barnstars, the contributions list and the copyvio lyrics, but as far as I can see the whole thing is technically a copyvio. --Sam Blanning(talk) 23:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Not by the editor, as the editor doesn't own the page anyway. Copied user pages have come up before and been OK'd. Maybe strictly speaking for GFDL purposes the edit history of the page might need to be copied across as well. Tyrenius 04:45, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


thecelebritycafe.com[edit]

I came across this website when doing some cleanup; it's linked from several Wiki pages and does contain some original content (such as an interview with Oz Garcia) but the site is as advert-laden as any I've ever seen. I'm tempted to go through each one and keep or delete based on relevance and original content. Thoughts? RadioKirk (u|t|c) 12:57, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Makes perfect sense to me; it's what should be done with any website, really. That link is currently used on 23 pages; anyone interested can find a full list here. Essjay (Talk) 16:12, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Okay, 14 links remain, and each appears to be an original interview specific to the site. The rest have been replaced with a legitimate news site link or, where appropriate, nuked altogether. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 18:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
I didn't know about that feature. Thanks, Essjay. -- Kjkolb 03:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


Privacy policy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)[edit]

This page was previously requestd for page protection but the request was not properly fullfiled or denied. Myrtone

As the article has only been vandalised 13 times in the past year (albeit 6 times in the last two weeks), I don't think it necessarily needs page protection. Proto::type 14:36, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
I've just semi-protected it for now, but will remove within a few hours. Flcelloguy (A note?) 14:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for the response. It was I who listed it for semi-protection. A few hours protection will make absolutely no difference, you might as well unblock it now. The problem is with a proxy spammer over several weeks. The article is low-traffic, with few regular editors, and all the edits within the last month have been the spam, or (mainly my) reverts. I was hoping protection would serve to foil the spammer's plans, but it might as well serve as a proxy honeytrap for now. Please add it to your watchlist. -- zzuuzz (talk) 14:57, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the spammers are all beleived to be open proxys or Zombie computers and have been forever blocked. Myrtone

Indeed a different one each time. Just like in the films it doesn't matter how many you kill, they just keep coming. :) -- zzuuzz (talk) 02:33, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


User:Wikipedia is fucking shite[edit]

isnt that name a policy violation?Wikipedia's False Prophet holla at me petition 03:20, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Already blocked. Thanks Naconkantari 03:26, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Why do I get the feeling that wasn't a question? hehe --mboverload@ 04:41, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


Infobox Actor[edit]

We need some help with the actor infobox template Template:Infobox actor. We need the image field fixed so you can simple put "example.jpg" in the field and it will image tag it and resize- I'd say 200px seems to be the norm for infoboxes. Once that's done, we'd love a bot to fix all the exiting ones, where users have been using [[Image:Example.jpg|200px]] inside the field, as the fix would cause duplicate pictures. Thanks a lot, I think it's an important infobox that just needs some professional TLC, as it will be useful on hundreds of wiki entries. --TheTruthiness 06:03, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

User:PIO blocked on it.wiki[edit]

Hi, I saw you also had some similar troubles with this user, so better to let you know that this user has been blocked for one year in it.wiki for personal attacks and verified use of sockpuppets ([14], [15], [16], [17]) enforcing a political agenda. We removed some malicious comments on his userpage which could eventually lead to legal troubles. He escaped the accusation of legal threats only because expressed in a wrong form. He might also be proposed for definitive ban, we are at an early stage of discussion and we are still ckecking his edits. Greetings, Sn.txt --151.44.43.149 12:33, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Tyrenius[edit]

User:Tyrenius is using his new-found admin powers to edit my talk page and delete a relevant link that has been approved/endorsed by other more experienced admins, and is threatening to use his new powers to block me if I do not subject myself to his censorship. - Chadbryant 03:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

As Chadbryant is effectively claiming he has a community consensus for his viewpoint, I am leaving his page as it is, so we can see what the community consensus is. He has posted a link (the link can be found here) to what he claims is the real identity of another editor. It is obviously forbidden to post personal details of another user, and a link violates the spirit of this, even if the letter might be deemed to have been observed. Chadbryant claims this user is a vandal who has harrassed him and admins have therefore approved this link. There are procedures for dealing with vandals, and this is not one of them. Even if all that Chadbryant claims is true, it is still unacceptable, and furthermore leaves the door wide open for this "loophole" to be completely misused. Tyrenius 04:13, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
This may be one stepped removed from actually posting the content of the link on Wikipedia but that argument is sophistry and it may be that this incident invites a clarification of the policy section posted above—something to the effect of: "Note that edits which have the effect of releasing personal information, such as posting a link to an external source where personal information is contained, with the intent of disseminating that information, will be treated the same as if the content was directly posted on Wikipedia." Though it should be clear by context, I endorse Tyrenius' actions, and would be interested in seeing substantiation that the "link...has been approved/endorsed by other more experienced admins."--Fuhghettaboutit 04:34, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
I think that the link should be removed, as well. In my opinion, personal information should only be released when necessary to prevent harm, such as serious vandalism. The intent of the page linked to appears to be to embarrass the subject. There are enough admins that you can find a couple who will endorse almost any position (although not the same admins for every issue), but I doubt that there is a consensus among them that the link is fine. -- Kjkolb 04:59, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
The link should be removed. A user talk page link to a webpage claiming to expose the identity of any other editor, and defaming the individual in question (dink or not, abusive sockpuppet master or not) is inappropriate -- Samir धर्म 10:17, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I have removed this link. See user talk page. Tyrenius 16:34, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Support. There is plenty of precedent from ArbCom re revealing personal details, it's something which the project takes seriously. Just zis Guy you know? 19:30, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


Looking up the discription of a Image moved to the commons[edit]

Hi! I found this image on the commons, which hasn't a proper source discription. It only states the English Wikipedia as a source, but since the image is deleted here, this is not enough. Could an administrator please look up the deleted discription page of that image an tell me, if there is the real source given? Thank you? -- iGEL (talk) 09:22, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

03:09, 14 August 2005 . . Wikiman86 (Talk | contribs | block) 1,489×1,164 (267,709 bytes)
(Hapkido students practice throwing and locks in a dojang. {PD}) 

-- Drini 15:42, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Original descriptive text: Hapkido students practice throwing and locks in a dojang. {{PD}}
Someone later changed that to PD-US, but same difference. No source or anything given, so I wouldn't trust the claim of PD much... Shimgray | talk | 19:30, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


User uploading a lot of images without tags[edit]

User:Fame has uploaded numerous images without copyright tags in the last month+ (about a month and a week or two). Since June 8, the user has received 18 different notices about them from OrphanBot. Some of the images have been tagged by other users, but I don't think I've seen the user go back and correct the tags on his or her own. What's the best way to handle something like this? Metros232 16:22, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I went through all his uploads and tagged for orphans and nsd's so most of them are tagged now. I'll leave a message on his talk page about uploading Images without tags. Best way to handle it is to talk to them. — The King of Kings 17:07 July 15 '06


I am begging an admininstrator for help.[edit]

I am begging an administrator to give me a little help. I seem to be under attack. I believe a lot of false accusations have been leveled against me. I am ready to leave the Wikipedia project. I feel as if I have entered a vicious insane asylum. Please email me at MichaelDWolok@aol.com Michael D. Wolok 17:39, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Since you apparently have a Request for comment currently ongoing concerning your conduct, you might be better off explaining there - you don't seem to have given your side of the story... -- ChrisO 17:47, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

AfD closing review[edit]

As I feel I might possibly get some heat and questions regarding an AfD I just closed, I figured I'd report it here for community review. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kent-Meridian High School. I am not an administator and I was involved with the discussion at this AfD, but I closed it several days early as keep. The article that was nominated is now far removed from the article that exists (it was improved dramatically. The discussion in the AfD has digressed to sarcasm and personal attacks. There is no point in this remaining open for those reasons. So I'm offering this here for review of others. Thanks, Metros232 20:40, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

You didn't remove the tag from the article; by all means be bold, but please also be careful. -- 86.131.218.85 21:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Done with my apologies. Metros232 21:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

You state good reasons and the nom was withdrawn as well. I'd recommend still letting something in dispute run for the 5 days. You can put up a note asking for civility. Check out non admins closing. There doesn't seem to have been much heat to date. Tyrenius 16:51, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

The issue, however, seemed to be that no one was reading the entire discussion, so a civility request would have been easily missed. If people had read the whole discussion, they would have seen her withdrawl of the nomination. They also would have seen that the article had dramatically changed since its nomiation. I don't think the discussion was still in dispute, I think the consensus was not in doubt based on the updates to the article. After the article was changed and updated (around 00:00 13 Jul) 1 delete vote was added, a couple of deletes were changed to keeps, and 13 keeps were added. And yes, I probably shouldn't have closed the discussion since I was involved, but it had barreled into a forum of sarcasm, finger-pointing, and personal attacks that probably wouldn't have been solved with a civility note. And fortunately, aside from one apparent troll, I haven't gotten heat over this. Metros232 17:03, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I noticed the points you have made, and this is doubtless why no one is creating a fuss. However, I suggest in a future similar situation to make all those points in the discussion, particularly drawing attention to NPA and CIVIL. If things are getting particularly nasty