Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive56

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User:TruthbringerToronto and page deletions[edit]

I just wanted to make a note of this user and their usage of removing of deletion templates/opposing pretty much any deletion request. This user keeps removing speedy delete templates on grounds such as "possibly notable" or removes them and adds stub tags to articles or an external link while not expanding the article. The articles themselves still maintain no sense of notability but the user believes that by adding stub tags it makes them notable.

Contributions here: [1]

More specific examples are available at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/TruthbringerToronto#Oppose

I was wondering what the administration view of this seemingly willingness to save any article? --- Lid 13:13, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Anyone can challenge speedy deletion or WP:PROD. If deletion is challenged, take it to AfD. Yes, uncritical inclusionists are a bore, but sometimes they are right and the cost to the encyclopaedia of thinking about a deletion rather than just doing it is relatively small. Once at AfD the articles will either be rapidly fixed up or nuked, either is acceptable. Just zis Guy you know? 13:22, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
TruthbringerToronto typically expands or sources the articles that he removes speedies from, which is very useful. I hope he continues: he helps us not delete notable topics and his research can only improve the quality of an eventual AfD discussion about the articles. Kusma (討論) 13:37, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
As I mentioned on his RfA, he'd do better to explain why he's done something when he pulls a tag off an article, rather than just saying "probably notable." That cost me 45 minutes of research and things to get the (since successful) AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MetaPhase organized. Scattershot tag removal can cause more problems than help, I suggest. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:54, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
I took a look at TruthbringerToronto's contributions and it seems like he's saved a lot of valid articles from being deleted. Some of the users who originally posted the CSD tags on some of the articles acted rather hastily (he recently removed CSD tags from articles on an author with multiple published works, a professional basketball player, and a high school). hoopydinkConas tá tú? 13:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments, now I have a view of the situation and the admins view. --- Lid 14:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


User page[edit]

Will someone take a look at this page User:Kingstonjr/Work Gallery--85.164.243.67 13:53, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Not safe for work, btw - Syrthiss 13:59, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it's very nice. Anything in particular you wanted us to see? Powers T 14:03, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Why the picture of Ataturk in the middle of this pr0nfest? User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 23:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Anybody care to go through all of those images to verify that they're not fair use? If so, he's violating it by having them on a User page. User:Zoe|(talk) 01:58, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
The first two rows check out as having acceptable tags, as do a few random ones in the middle and towards the end. JoshuaZ 02:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Someone contacted me and said I should check out this page since I was recently in a dispute with this user about the Images. As I did before, I checked every Image for copyright violations and linked the ones at the bottom per the section headers on the sub-page. If he reverts, kindly revert back, because he has a tendency to think I am vandalizing when I'm really just trying to remove the violations. Off topic, I also removed some deleted Images (red-links) for cosmetic purposes to the page. Regards — Moe Epsilon 03:22 August 24 '06

Useful page for image vandals whom want to choose a nice picture.--Andeh 08:58, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
don't put beans in your ears. JoshuaZ 18:45, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


Koavf's pages moves[edit]

Koavf (talkcontribspage movesblock userblock log) is moving lots of pages from A.B. Foo to A. B. Foo according to "manual of style" that names should have spaces in them. I think he is violating WP:POINT, and the "if it ain't broke don't fix it" rule. (And I personally prefer the A.B. Foo form).

Despite my telling of him that he needs to get consensus for such mass changes, he's going ahead with them anyway, so perhaps someone can try to talk with him. — Dunc| 15:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

It appears that the manual of style agrees with his moves. As long as he is fixing the redirects and accepting input about mistakes (e.g. C.C. Chapman, I don't see a problem here. --Nscheffey(T/C) 20:23, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Well I do. In particular I would want to know where such consensus for such a strongly-worded WP:MOS was formed. If I remember correctly, and this was from a couple of years go, somebody unilaterally decided that this was to be the case, citing Chicago, and then there were others who pointed out that Chicago wasn't gospel, and either usage was okay, and it ended that there was no consensus either way. It is quite possible that something like this has slipped in under the RADAR. In which case WP:POINT applies, as it is not making worthwhile edits. — Dunc| 21:43, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Dunc here, although technically he doesn't need concensus. If the rules were unilatereally decided, they should be changed, per Dunc's suggestions, In my opinion HawkerTyphoon 21:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Since this appears to be a contentious issue, perhaps we should continue the discussion here: Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(people)#Proposal_on_spacing_of_initials_in_names. --Nscheffey(T/C) 23:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Huh So, I found this by accident, as Duncan didn't bother informing me that there is some discussion going on behind my back. If you want to know my rationale, and the Byzantine arguments that Duncan and I have exchanged, see our respective talk pages. If you have questions for me, please feel free to ask me. In short, I would like to point out:
  1. There is already a standard for this.
  2. Most articles are already named "X. Y. Lastname," rather than "X.Y. Lastname."
  3. All well-written and most-edited articles are named this way (e.g. H. P. Lovecraft, C. S. Lewis, E. E. Cummings, H. G. Wells, etc.)
More can be found on the talks. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 19:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


Continuous reintroducing of uncited sales figures[edit]

Back to Basics (Christina Aguilera album) has just achieved a number one position on many charts and there seems to be a 84K sales figure circulating the internet and it keeps on getting reintroduced in the page despite hidden text about citing chart and sales data, comment on user pages and moving of the entries to the talk page. They keep on ignoring it and keep on reintroducing uncited figures. Don't know what to do about it anymore. KittenKlub 10:59, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

The saga was finally solved. KittenKlub 22:31, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


Poweredby mediawiki picture missing[edit]

Not 100% sure where to put this, but in the lower right corner of the page where I normally this picture, I now have a picture of some matrix. Something needs to be fixed somewhere...--Peter Andersen 13:33, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

The yellow flower? it displays fine here.. maybe.. a local problem there? -- Drini 13:49, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Fine here as well. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 13:51, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


Question about unblocking policy/process[edit]

I blocked User:The Shimmick indefinitely as a vandalism only account. (See User talk:The Shimmick##Your_edit_history). The user has requested an unblock. Two questions:

  1. Is it acceptable for the blocking admin to respond to the request to unblock, or is that supposed to come from a "neutral" admin?
  2. What is the usual blocking time for this type of behavior?

ERcheck (talk) 22:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

An indef block appears perfectly appropriate here. I haven't actually checked the history of the articles, but the one remaining contrib [2] seems to suggest this might not be someone who is very sorry... It is probably a good idea to let a second admin deny an unblock request, so I've done that here. Of course if the blocking admin thinks an unblock is appropriate that doesn't require a second admin to review the request, but I assume that's not what you were thinking of here? Petros471 22:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Correct. I was not inclined to unblock as the rapid succession of vandal edits indicated an editor without plans to become a contributor. Thanks for the response. — ERcheck (talk) 22:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Small request[edit]

  • Can someone blank User:Đ and add {{indef-user}}? As all the userboxes are becoming a nuisance for bots updating userboxes. Ta.--Andeh 09:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Done. Petros471 10:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Ta.--Andeh 10:03, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
About time. pschemp | talk 10:04, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Another request, can someone revert Eon8 back to last the revision as it redirects to List of Internet phenomena where there's no information on it there at all. Ta.--Andeh 14:07, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Done. Didn't someone mention that you should be an admin so I don't have to keep doing your work ;) Petros471 14:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Could someone also edit Template:Userpage as it's on A LOT of user pages, it should look clean. So could you please add
<span class="plainlinks"> so it looks like
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Andypandy.UK
instead of
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Andypandy.UK
--Andeh 14:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Done. --cesarb 18:05, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Ta.--Andeh 01:14, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

You can request on Template talk:Userpage next time. Quarl (talk) 2006-08-25 09:33Z


Blocked IP in UAE on proxy[edit]

This message appears occasionally on computers in the UAE when attempting an edit:

"Your user name or IP address has been blocked from editing. You were blocked by Mike Rosoft for the following reason (see our blocking policy): Blatant vandalism, shared IP Your IP address is 213.42.2.21."


UAE internet connections go through a proxy server administered by the ISP Etisalat and IP addresses frequently change (usually one refresh click is enough to get to edit page after seeing above message) so it is rather pointless blocking an IP, and mildly annoying when legitimate edits are attempted.

Suggestion is to refrain from blocking IPs on proxy and to unblock the one listed above please.

Thank you

195.229.241.187 11:14, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Thus the issue with having an entire country's IP space going through one "public IP" (as it appears to every other country). Maybe instead of repeatedly blocking this IP totally as time and time again the IP keeps getting blocked due to vandalism and other issues, why not indef block without enabling the autoblock for logged in accounts, or make people use the AOL style solution if that's easier and/or works better. Cat-five - talk 07:51, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


israelisms article deletion[edit]

I would like to start a request for the undelete of podcast entry israelisms. I believe this has been an unfair censorship of this Article, I also believe that another 5 to 7 days will bring more comments from outside the small amount that were made at 1st sign of deletion/defacement of the Article. Feel free to email me.One more rousing round Please.....--John M. 16:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

The AfD took place just the other day and, as was pointed out then, this is not a vote. I say keep it deleted.--Alabamaboy 16:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Israelisms. Please see Wikipedia:Deletion review if you want to argue that the deletion discussion was closed incorrectly. I suggest, however, that it is unlikely that you are going to get consensus that this podcast meets our criteria for inclusion. Jkelly 16:47, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


I did not come here to make an arguement. Those are your words not mine. I came and made a request. Yes as far as votes ,the very 1st person to nominate the page for deletion and only person said the same thing in one reply and the exact opposite in another reply. This also happened with another contributor of the discussion page - so which is it? I don't see the need for any condescending remarks; this only hurts the Wiki. I don't think notability is the issue here considering a lot of the Fodder that makes up the Wiki. After all this isn't relied upon by academia. I don't know of too many institutions that would let the Wiki be an accepted reference.--John M. 23:27, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Certainly they won't if we don't apply verifiability and notability criteria. I don't take the above remarks to be condescending, but rather good advice - to fulfil your request, you need to gain a consensus that the AfD was improperly closed. The place to go is Wikipedia:Deletion review. Slac speak up! 23:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/8bitJake[edit]

This case is closed and the result has been published at the link above. 8bitjake is banned from editing articles about poltical figures from Washington State, and he is placed on Probation. These remedies also apply to Bazzajf and 62.77.181.16.

For the Arbitration Committee. --Tony Sidaway 20:36, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Abuse of User Pages?[edit]

I did some compiling of statistics about what I view as wide-scale abuse of Wikipedia User Pages, as well as my concerns about one particular admin -- RHaworth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) -- and his poor judgment in enabling this abuse. My comments grew too large (1500 words -- you've been warned), so I've posted them at User:Calton/User Page Abuse. The Table of Contents, so you can get a sense of what's on that page:

  • Inappropriate userfication
  • RHaworth's moves
  • Eye-glazing statistics
  • Random samples
  • Actual contributions?
  • More eye-glazing statistics
  • Poor judgment
  • RHaworth's response & reverting userfications
  • Actions needed

Data can be found at User:Calton/Userfied pages.

Comments would be appreciated. --Calton | Talk 07:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC) --Calton | Talk 07:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Interesting issue, but I think it's more systemic than one administrator -- I've userfied in a similar fashion many times. Have you contacted these users about the content of their user pages? -- Samir धर्म 08:11, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • No -- in almost all cases, the users disappear after their initial attempts to add their articles or to insert references to themselves into other articles, so it seemed pointless. --Calton | Talk 01:47, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't userfy much, but I'll point out this defense, which Calton didn't respond to (on that special page, at least): "In these cases, userfication has prevented the authors trying to recreate the article in the (Main) namespace." This may be preferable to the deletedpage template. Part of what I don't like about those things is that they actually come up when you hit the "Random article" button. In contrast, userpages don't. So while neither look good, one's semi-invisible and the other is visible. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 08:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • apparently, RHaworth is unacquainted with the {{deletedpage}} tag. isn't a response? --Calton | Talk 01:47, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I've commented at [[User talk:Calton/User Page Abuse; I won't copy it here because the noticeboard is big enough already and I think the talk page is a better place for discussion. Graham87 09:49, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


Policy Change Proposal:[edit]

Thread moved to talk page. --Doc 23:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

anon page creation[edit]

Isn't it about time that this be restored? supposedly this was restricted in the first place to help cut down on page creation vandalism, which after about 2 or 3 days simply meant page creation vandals had to login to vandalize.. The only thing the current ban on anon page creation really helps to do, is make it almost impossible for anons to use things like AfD and other things that depend on page creation. If anything, this coupled with newer features like sprotection, anon only blocks, AntiVandalBots with "angry modes", and RC filters that target just anon edits, really hurts the anon friendliness that wikipedia had way back when. Couple that with the fact that Registered Users more and more getting the idea that anons don't matter anymore. Not to mention the recent trend of "RC Patrol" only accounts, who view anons as an obstacle to their RC patrolling. Not to mention, as anyone who has ever tried to run anti vandalism tools as an anon knows, many people would rather restore vandalism than fact that an anon with a high edit count isn't a vandal. Is there anyway that the page creation ban could be reexamined, maybe even lifted for a trial period?--172.130.227.58 16:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

New page creation vandalism is a lot harder to clean up then normal vandalism, as it requires a sysop. Can't "new editors" start creating pages immediatley now? (But not move them) — xaosflux Talk 12:37, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


Three AFD's may have slipped through[edit]

Just a heads up that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manatee meat, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ModTheSims2, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bitweaver2 have all been open for seven days now while other AfDs around them have closed. They haven't been relisted for consenus or posted to in a while. Could an admin take a look and make a call (relist, no consenus, delete or keep)? Thanks --Brian (How am I doing?) 16:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Two of the AfDs are closed, apart from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ModTheSims2, it's a 50/50 keep/delete afd so leave it to a bold admin to decide after reading all the arguments.--Andeh 11:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Was just closed as no consensus. --james(talk) 12:49, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


Username?[edit]

Does anyone else feel that Tess Tickle (talk · contribs) should be asked to pick a less sophomoric name? Just zis Guy you know? 18:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Blocked. Naconkantari 18:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Disagree, left note on admins page. — xaosflux Talk 12:35, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


Complex Unblock request on behalf of user[edit]

Neverending Drumbeat (talk · contribs) appears NOT to be blocked by claims they cannot edit. May have something to do with the indef block of This Is The Neverending Drumbeat Of What To Come (talk · contribs), but I don't know. Requesting admin help with this case. (|-- UlTiMuS 00:39, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, they're obviously the same person, so it's probably an Autoblock. It should expire in 24 hours, or an admin can unblock it early. --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 01:04, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
In case someone wants to let him edit, his autoblock is #236131. --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 01:12, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
I removed the autoblock, they appear to be using a shared IP. — xaosflux Talk 12:30, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


User:! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! LOL SNRUBBED FOO'[edit]

An obviously productive and caring user, this one, whom an administrator should give a special gift vacation to, especially for the epilepsy-inducing talk page. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:26, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Until an admin gets around to blocking the account, I have blanked the user talk page. -- tariqabjotu 05:33, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Somedays we need a bat signal.--Crossmr 05:34, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
I sent him packing. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 05:35, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
IRC works well for getting admins' attention quickly.—WAvegetarian(talk) 11:05, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


Children posting personal information[edit]

Regarding the problem of self-identified children posting personal information, I have created WP:COPPA for discussion. It is early and rough; please whack away at it as needed. Thatcher131 (talk) 14:09, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


User:218.185.0.83 - vandalism only[edit]

All of the edits by User:218.185.0.83 have been vandalism. Special-T 14:40, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

This IP is already blocked. Not all of the edits are vandalism (though most are). This would have been better reported at the vandalism noticeboard. Thanks, Gwernol 14:44, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

User:WikiWoo unblock request[edit]

Could an uninvolved admin please take a look at User:WikiWoo's unblock reuqest. This user has a history of blocks for WP:POV-pushing, WP:POINT violation, incivility and personal attacks. In my opnion he is on the edge of exhausting the community's patience, but he insists he is the innocent party - he claims he is the vicitm of "Eager administrator blocking with a manifested bias and a partiality to one side in an editing dispute. Initially attempted to entrap editor into making a personal attack and then interpreting subsequent responses as personal attacks". He believes there is a conspiracy of corrupt government officials in the Ontario Regional Government who are bilking billions of dollars from the public and who are consipiring on Wikipedia to suppress these allegations. He continues to insert these allegations into articles and won't source them (the consipiracy has apparently suppressed all information). He is currently on a seven day block for continued personal attacks against editors who have reverted his POV pushes, but he is objecting at length to this.

He clearly has no intention of stopping his campaign when he returns (as he says on his talk page "Though I know policy, I choose to ignore them.") and despite many specific warnings he continues to make what I consider to be egregious personal attacks on editors in good standing ([3], [4], the unblock request itself etc.). Could someone take a look at his unblock request and either decline it or unblock him? Thanks, Gwernol 14:04, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I've been tangentially involved on this one through working on a couple of the articles he's tried to sway, and have to agree that he appears to be pretty well recalcitrant at this point. Do note that he's been through an RFC already, he's been blocked once before, has had a member advocate try to give him guidance to little effect, and really needs some encouragement to drop the conspiracy, the attacks and the POV. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:09, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Tony, I wasn't even aware that he had a previous history on Wikipedia, let alone one as contentious as that. I appreciate the heads up. Gwernol 03:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Nikkicraft[edit]

Concerning:

  1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Nikkicraft
  2. "Wikipedia is not a soapbox" from Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not
  3. "There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles" from Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not

I find the following excessive: [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] WAS 4.250 09:59, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not seeing Wikipedia as a soapbox. I'm not even trying to influence most of the content of the proporn/pros articles. However, if you look right before my post in the first link, for example, you can see how a person attempted to post one single link of a reference critical of prostitution and it was removed. The censoring user deleted the one single link and labeled it "spamming". Unbelievable and this sort of thing is the standard of what is happening on all the prostitution and pornography pages. Opposing positions are most often not allowed on them. Essentially the Wikipedia section for prostitution and pornography is a portal. The bias there needs to be corrected. I have compiled a variety of articles, links, audio speech files and resources and am posting them to remove the POV from these pages and provide a balance. If you look at the previous versions of the articles many of them had absolutely no other viewpoint expressed. I don't think it should be necessary, but if I must I will cut some of them out and remove them from the pages at your request, but some need to remain. --Nikkicraft 11:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
You say "I'm not even trying to influence most of the content of the proporn/pros articles" as if that were a good thing. Wikipedia is trying to be a great free encyclopedia, not a link farm. We encourage people to add sourced encyclopedic content to the articles and discourage simply adding links. You are in some ways a POV warrior, which is normally bad, but your point of view is, I believe, a minority position as you are for censorship and Wikipedia is all about the opposite. If you refrain from deleting content and concentrate on adding content sourced from unbiased trustworthy sources (specifically not from you or your friends sites, but from others citing you guys is fine) then you can make wikipedia better. And about the links ... how about deleting in each case I listed above all but the three that are most relevent to the article? For example, you added "Andrea Dworkin: Why Men Like Prostitution So Much Andrea Dworkin Keynote Speech at International Trafficking Conference, 1989. (Audio File: 22 min, 128 Kbps, mp3)" to Prostitution in Thailand. Is that really specific to the topic of the article? Tell the truth: it's spamming an opinion, isn't it? Needs to go. You also added "Prostitution and Male Supremacy by Andrea Dworkin" to that same article. Isn't NoStatusQuo your site? Which you also use to "source" the article on you? There are serious issues here that need to be dealt with in a way that lets you help us make wikipedia better. WAS 4.250 12:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Some of that content may be useful in some of those articles, but not all. For just one example, it seems hard to believe that the article Comfort women, about women being forced to serve in military brothels, can be described as supportive of prostitution, and needing an opposed to prostitution view for balance. I don't think the link to the speech "Why men like prostitution so much" is appropriate there; that topic is not at issue in the article. It looks like the same links were pasted in to the articles blindly, regardless of the article; spam seems like a good description of that process. A bit more selectivity is called for. AnonEMouse (squeak) 13:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure where you get the idea that I'm in favor of censorship. I'm not. But what I believe or don't is not on trial here, I don't think. To reply to your concerns, yes, I posted the audio speech Andrea Dworkin: Why Men Like Prostitution So Much Andrea Dworkin Keynote Speech at International Trafficking Conference, 1989. (Audio File: 22 min, 128 Kbps, mp3) to Prostitution in Thailand. I did so because it's relevant to any page about prostitution because it's from an international conference and it answers the questions of why men buy women and what many of them do after the purchase. No, I absolutely and honestly would not consider it spam. In fact, I would ask any administrators who might have the time to please listen to it then say to me specifically why it has no place in the pornography and prostitution section. Dworkin, no matter how much one may disdain her is an expert in this topic and it's really biased to have any encyclopedia without speeches and articles by her.
Yes, the No Status Quo is my domain. The article comes from the Official Website of Andrea Dworkin which has her articles which I, and others html coded, and we had no control whatsoever over the content. It's a library. The fact that I'm the librarian and archivist there should not prohibit me from sharing that valuable resource with Wikipedia. If that is the case I don't understand.
I am not interested in deleting content in the articles. I have spent a whole day recently alphabetizing sections and cleaning up pages. I even got thanked for doing so on one of the pages. However, at this time it's a lot of work and all I can do to update the articles and resources section and reply to people's concerns. After I'm done with this then I will certainly want to work on articles more.
Please notice that I could be posting anonymously and I'm not. I'm taking responsibility for what I'm doing which is way more than many around here are doing. I am sincerely trying to improve resources for Wikipedia and make the pornography portal less biased and with less of a POV which apparently the editors already here are not able to accomplish with the information they have available on the topic. What I posted was a variety of well chosen articles and audio speeches. If the administrators don't agree that it's a valid contribution, upon your request, I will cull down the resources and remove what I posted and repost a smaller selection. But if I were doing so I would continue to believe that Internatinoal Trafficking Conference audio speech should go first among them, then followed up by Dworkin's testimony before the Attorney General's Commission on Pornography. How could any encyclopedia wish to turn down such contributions I would never understand. --Nikkicraft 14:07, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
The other thing that's really ironic is that you're accusing me of being a censor when you're the one who deleted the resources and are censoring this information. --Nikkicraft
Per Wikipedia:External links, links on the page about Prostitution in Thailand should be specifically related to prostitution in Thailand, not general links related to prostitution. It's about the same as putting a link to the CIA World Factbook entry on Thailand on that article. If the reader of the Prostitution in Thailand article wants to know more about the causes of prostition, he/she needs to go to the Prostitution article; if he/she wants to know more specifically about prostitution in Thailand, he/she needs external links that are more specifically relevant. It's nothing personal; that's just how we do it here on Wikipedia in order to avoid having articles that are overflowing with external links. Powers T 15:44, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Then will someone kindly replace this article as it is a 42 page report on a nine country study and Thailand is one of the countries. Can that work for everyone? --Nikkicraft 16:03, 25 August 2006 (UTC) *
Prostitution and Trafficking in 9 Countries: Update on Violence and Posttraumatic Stress Disorder by Melissa Farley, Ann Cotton., Jacqueline Lynne, Sybile Zumbeck, Frida Spiwak, Maria E. Reyes, Dinorah Alvarez, Ufuk Sezgin 2003 Journal of Trauma Practice 2 (3/4): 33-74.
Another interesting aspect of this is that I'm being accused of conflict of interest for posting library and article entries that sell nothing and Wikipedia is facilitating international trafficking which profits the most unscrupulous slave traffickers of human beings all over the world, and it's all done under the protection of pseudonyms and protecting actual identities; and nobody seems to be bothered by a thing. Folks, the whole pornography and prostitution section with all it's sprawl is what is spamming and that same picture of that German hooker that's on all the different countries doesn't seem to bother anyone as being not related to the country she's posted on. That's the spam. She just lays there all splayed out for the consumer and no comment about what bias that represents. Anyone thinking that supplying hookers for men isn't exactly the purpose that an internet encyclopedia ought to be performing? Or is it? You want to vilify me? Go ahead I won't be able to stop you. You want to take out the bias and POV out of your prostitution portal and I'm willing to help you and please don't think I wouldn't rather be doing something else.
P.S. Thanks for your explanation Powers T. I do understand what you are saying better than I had realized that the links on that page are really very specific to Thailand. But will you now agree that the nine country study belongs there as well as the agency that did that research which is Prostitution Research and Education? And also once we establish these links are relevant and they are added can they be protected in some way?
And of course I will continue to disagree that an audio speech on internation trafficking discussing why men buy prostitutes and how they are abused is relevant to all those pages, but I'm sure y'all will invisibilize it if you wish. Would it be more appropriate for me to move my entries off this page to my own talk page to keep it from taking up space over here? --Nikkicraft 17:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Coming in late view: All I can say is that we have segmented articles for a reason, to help users find specific things. I looked at the diffs that WAS provided and I don't see the relevance of them to the specific articles they were added to. I can't see readers seeking to learn about prostitution in a specific country finding a speech by Andrea Dworkin of any relevance at all. Our purpose here is to hew to the NPOV, not to advocate, and those links don't support that when placed in the articles they were placed in, in my view. ++Lar: t/c 16:44, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, take the Thailand article. Yes, the material about Thailand is meant to be specific to Thailand. My take on it is this. If Dworkin made a specific and notable claim about Thailand that belongs in the article, and if it was in a published and publicly-accessible speech, then the article should say something like this: "Radical feminist Andrea Dworkin once argued that Thailand has too many exploited prostitutes as an outcome of colonialism [or whatever she actually did argue]." There should then be a specific reference to her speech, citing the page number of the published version where she makes this point about Thailand. OTOH, if she had nothing in particular to say about Thailand, but merely included some data relating to that country among others in a general discussion of prostitution, then she did not make a notable contribution to any debate about prostititution in Thailand in particular. In that case, it would not belong in the article. This is the sort of standard of specificity and sourcing that is supposed to apply to all articles. We don't allow editors to put together bits and pieces in a creative way to support a position or interpretation of their own. We definitely do not take editorial positions on which there could be controversy. However, we are supposed to report the significant positions that have been taken by others to date, with precise attribution and referencing. I hope this helps you work out what material you can use and in what articles. It might also help you hold others to similar standards if you suspect a double standard is being applied. Metamagician3000 05:49, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

RfC/Name[edit]

There appears to be a bit of a backlog at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names, though I could be wrong. =) Maybe a couple of admins could take a look when they get a chance? Powers T 00:41, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Most of these have already been dealt with. I am clearing them and looking at some new ones. —Centrxtalk • 06:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Announcement[edit]

I am moving house, will probably have no access for up to 4 days. Feel free to revert any admin actions of mine. Please keep an eye on St Christopher Iba Mar Diop College of Medicine, which is currently sprotected; VoA unprotected it as per usual, and it took only a few hours for the usual suspects to find out and start having at it. If VoA unprotects it it may be nobbled again. Just zis Guy you know? 22:05, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I suspect you're merely moving the contents of your house to another house, but either way, good luck. Thatcher131 (talk) 23:23, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Given that the contents of my personal timber yard occupied the larger of the two trucks, I think the movers might lean to my version here :-) We're in, but no broadband yet. Plus, I have never seen so many different keys in my life! An order for a set of suited locks is on the way. Just zis Guy you know? 17:50, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


Vigil for Katefan0[edit]

Seeing as how vigils were set up for Radiant! and Redwolf24, I've decided to set one up for Katefan0. I don't know whether it's necessary, but I'm going to give it a try and see how long it lasts. Scobell302 16:14, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

And this requires admins how? 216.78.95.224 17:23, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
And this is your concern...why? --Calton | Talk 18:03, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Nothing wrong with it at all, but I still wonder why the original poster is bringing this to our attention. Unless something strange is happening at said page, there is really nothing I could do about it, let alone administrators. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 00:35, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
If this is going to become common, we need a category for it :). NoSeptember 01:11, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
I'll sign the vigil but she's not returning. Trust me on this. She's extremely busy and as much as I'd love to have her back, it's just not going to happen. Sorry folks. --Woohookitty(meow) 00:00, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


Apology and Request[edit]

I am currently an active and stable user here on Wikipedia, but that was not always the case. Before June, I was a pretty immature person, and did not take Wikipedia seriously at the time. Someone from some school vandalized my page, and I was angry (I really don't know why). I thought that the person was going to return to my page (to my knowledge, they never did), but I wrote a threat to them. It was an immature and a dumb thing to do, and I am truly sorry I did it. Here is the difference and my threat to them. I never changed my username after I did that, and now that I am a productive user I really don't want to change my name now (I probably should have been blocked for doing this, but no one noticed). However, I believe such an threat could insult someone reading the page history, simply by it's very nature. Therefore, I am requesting that the edit be deleted from my history (I'll keep the vandalism. It's a reminder for me to never do something like this again). I am really really sorry for who I was, but it is not who I am now, and I am trying to make amends. --Clyde Miller 22:37, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Couldn't it be just as, if not more, effective to post this apology alongside the threat, rather than attempting to have it deleted from the record in what could be considered a form of cover-up by some of our more paranoid users? (note: I'm not an admin, just an infernal busybody.) Your apology shows an additional level of maturity, and could not be taken the wrong way. --tjstrf 22:49, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Well hasn't this more or less backfired? This is not a big scandal and is not news. Furthermore, it will not die (as it would in real life), unless the section is deleted. Finally putting an apology like this in public does nothing more than make people want to look at the threat (makes them curious), which is putting a bad light on Wikipedia, something I didn't want to do. If I had kept it quiet, no one would have noticed. Not that I don't apprciate what you've done to make this a complete aplology, but I think I'd be best to keep some sort of apology on my page but delete the entry itself. It would almost seem easier just to leave this account, but that would be running away, something I don't want to do. I think the best sourse of action would be to leave an apology for my bad behavior on my user page or talk page, but get rid of the entry. Can someone throw in their two cents on what they think? I really don't know what is proper, correct, and what would give me some sort of honor (by exposing this I have essentially destroyed my honor and word, something I have worked hard to upkeep).--Clyde Miller 00:29, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
To remove something from the history itself, you need someone with oversight permission. Look at Request for oversight. Thatcher131 (talk) 05:28, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
No, he doesn't need oversight. It's a simple and routine history deletion; oversight is only necessary if we want to purge it to the point of not letting admins read it, and for something as minor as this that's like killing ants with artillery.
And since he asked so nicely, I've done it. Shimgray | talk | 00:13, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Thank you so much. I feel really bad about what I did, and the fact that I have been forgiven has lifted a weight off my chest. Shimgray, thank you for being so understanding. You have made me feel better, and made my day. Many thanks to you and to all. --Clyde Miller 00:24, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


Requesting comments on questionable use of article talk page[edit]

Anon IP 84.183.213.226 had edited VHCS, adding his consumer complaints about the software. Likewise, he added more detailed complaints on the article's talk page. Is it appropriate to either (1) delete the comments or (2) delete the talk page? — ERcheck (talk) 14:51, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I think that you should respond and teach him about notability requirements of sources and how to find notable sources for consumer complaints. Anomo 06:02, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


User censoring an AfD[edit]

Alright, I admit it, I left a somewhat whimsical comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Jeremy Kyle Show. It's an obvious keep anyway. However, the nominator has persistently struck through my comments and left notes on my talk page warning me to 'maintian a professional tone to the discussions'. Surely this can't be right? --Nydas 15:26, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I've commented to the user. JoshuaZ 15:39, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks.--Nydas 16:38, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


Human Imprinting[edit]

Please reinstate this deleted stub as it is such an important issue. The concept helps mothers who are trying to breastfeed as they are then better able to direct the behaviour of the newborn in a more helpful direction. There is no evidence that I have found in >30 years. Freud, Piaget and Lorenz (all males) did not quite understand thumbsucking because they had never had the 24/7/365 care of the newborn. Elsiemobbs Elsiemobbs 16:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I think you're looking for deletion review. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:59, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


Images with urls on them[edit]

I'm not sure where to post this, and I so I'm posting this here. User:Dmwime has been uploading images that have www.visitbeforeyoudie.com branding on them, and he tags them with the This image is copyrighted. However, the copyright holder has irrevocably released all rights to it, tag, and then adds the images to some pages. Examples include Image:London_eye88.jpg and Image:Pszczew88.jpg. I see two potential problem; the first being that the copyright may not be the correct one (Note: he states that the owner of the website has given him permission, but doesn't that require some written statement to Wikipedia?). The more important problem that I see with it is that in many ways this type of action (having the URL in the image) seems like advertising to me, and I don't know if Wikipedia has any policy regarding this type of action. -- Jeff3000 18:44, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

First clarify the licensing. If these images really are freely licensed, then we just edit the URL out of them and put it on the image description page. Jkelly 18:47, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


Community ban on User:WikiWoo?[edit]

User:WikiWoo has been trying to push a very specific WP:POV into articles related to regional government and particularly Ontario, Canada for sveral months now. His POV is neatly summed up by the Government of Ontario "...are the most corrupt governments on the plannet and the people running them both elected and appointed should all be executed for treason for their gross betrayals of public trust and that such people are not worthy of any respect or admiration from anyone". He claims to have been fighting against said government for thrity five years.

He has been pushing this POV into a series of articles under at least three different usernames: User:WikiRoo, User:WikiDoo, under the IP User:216.154.134.91 and now User:WikiWoo. He refuses to provide verifiable reliable sources for any but the most minor of his edits and regards any and all Wikipedia policies as non-applicable to his editing: see his statement on his talk page "Though I know policy, I choose to ignore them.". He not only inserts POV into existing articles, but also creates articles to push his POV; see: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Public_Procurement and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Prequalified Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Public_Tendering for examples of not only his creations but also his incivil justifications that ignore all policy.

Despite frequent warnings and blocks for disruption he refuses to modify his POV warring in any way - see the lengthy discussion on his talk page. He believes he is on essentially a "holy mission" to get this information into Wikipedia at any cost. He shows no understanding of basic rules of verifiability or maintaining a neutral point of view.

In addition to his use of Wikipedia to push his (I'm guessing) libellous point of view about the Ontario government, he is convinced that a group of editors (including myself) are paid agents of the Ontario government conspiring to keep his views out of the encyclopedia, for example: here. He continues to make frequent unjustified personal attacks on any editor who attempts to remove his POV-waring and has been blocked for this as well as WP:POINT and WP:POV violations. Every time he comes back he continues exactly where he left off.

After lengthy attempts to explain policy to him, it is clear he has no intention of stopping his diruptive editing. I and several other admins and editors are wasting too much time trying to work with him. I believe that this user has exhausted the community's patience and a community ban should be enacted.

Please also note the RfC on WikiRoo. Thanks, Gwernol 19:37, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

  • I see increasing evidence that WikiWoo is not going to change. We have been nice, we have been firm, we have been patient, and his response in every case is to carry on precisely as before, ignoring any policies, guidelines and comments which fail to support him, looking in every case for the half-sentence which might support him if only he was able to cite a reliable secondary source. He is on a crusade to Right Great Wrongs, and in doing so he is introducing uncited material critical of living individuals he considers evil and criminal. His response to deletion of biased articles is to create new biased articles or introduce bias into other articles. Lost patience is a pretty accurate description here; one feels that any comment not supportive of his actions (and I have to say I can't remember the last one which was supportive) is simply added to his mental "vast conspiracy" and rejected out of hand. We really ought to have something in WP:BP about editors who accuse everybody who gainsays them of conspiracy. Anyway, it's my view that there is little if any hope of any useful contribution form this editor, who has reacted to mild rebukes and brief blocks by becoming more obdurate, not less, and has now got to the point of personal attacks. Frankly we should probably have given up on him when he accused us of being the Gestapo and wouldn't accept that this was offensive. Just zis Guy you know? 20:12, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Many of us have tried to offer constructive advice - but WikiWoo follows very little of it. I see a total ban as pretty drastic, but his comments indicate that he doesn't intend to follow the advice. I'd be inclined to give Wiki one last chance to show that he understands that accusing other editors of conspiracy and of being "Gestapo" is just not acceptable. Perhaps an unblock but with a warning that continuation of previous behavior will lead to a complete ban? I do think he has something to offer than can be done in a NPOV fashion - but I can certainly understand other editors running out of patience. Brian 20:38, 27 August 2006 (UTC)btball
  • I second JzG. I find WikiWoo quite uncivil, and everything else mentioned. Computerjoe's talk 09:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • To paraphrase the Requests for Adminship cliché, I thought he was banned already. I've gone ahead and blocked him indefinitely. As far as I'm concerned it's quite reasonble to expect three blocks to be enough of a chance to reform. It's quite inconceivable that anyone who posts this kind of rant after his fourth block could be here to write an encyclopaedia. --Sam Blanning(talk) 14:28, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Cheers to that. Now I guess we can all get back to work in our positions with the regional governments of Ontario, huh? </sarcasm> Tony Fox (arf!) 16:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Material on WP needs to have a reliable source. In WW's world, all such reliable sources have been co-opted into the evil conspiracy of the Ontario regional municipal governments and their lackeys (who apparently have an on-wiki presence). Irresistable force, meet immovable object. Hence, his declared intention to just ignore policy that would stop him from putting his unsourced rants onto Wikipedia. Now that the inevitable has happened and he's been indefblocked, I just hope WW has more success as a blogger or even talk radio host. After all, he's not that much worse than Rachel Marsden. JChap2007 17:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


Mulatto Union[edit]

Could somebody look at the edit history of this article? I deleted it as absolute nonsense, but then looking at the history, it has a long history with 120 edits, so I restored it. The restoration said it restord 120 deleted edits, but when I look at the history, it says it has no edit history. It looks like before the last two vandalistic edits, this was a valid article, but we already have an article at Mulatto. What's going on, and why can't I see the article history any more? User:Zoe|(talk) 21:46, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, I re-deleted the page, then went back in and checked every version except for the last two and restored, and it took. Is this necessary? Why didn't just restoring the whole thing take? User:Zoe|(talk) 21:51, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

  • I've seen similiar issues caused by undesirable caching. Try hitting shift-reload when you get unexpected results. Sometimes it worked just fine and only appears to have no worked. Friday (talk) 16:04, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I did a couple of Control-F5's, but that didn't do any good. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • The page was actually redirected on the day it was created, December 14, 2005, and was only unredirected on July 17, 2006. Since then it's been garbage in several forms. Currently all it is is a little bit about Mulattos and an image gallery. It was PRODed, and that was removed, so the suggested merge probably won't work. I'll AfD it.  OzLawyer / talk  16:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Done, although I think you were right in the beginning, and it should have just been left deleted without an AfD.  OzLawyer / talk  16:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


Vandalism of templates[edit]

A new cute form of vandalism is perhaps emerging. See for example the edits of 24.178.78.17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). His latest contribution is to edit a template for speedy deletion with an edit summary that impleis something different and the speedy deletion tag immplies it is an admin action only in the course of doing something else. Cute. Can I please suggest all admins who are speedy deleting things, check who added the tag and that it wasn't vandalism. I know we do but sometimes we assume good faith and are hurrying ... Other template edits from this IP address were less than savoury too.--Arktos talk 23:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


Princess Anne of Bourbon-Parma[edit]

I was wondering if I could get some opinions from other admins, and people who are knowledgeable about the topic, about this move request, as I have gotten a complaint on my talk page. The survey result was 2 to 1 in favor of a move, and there is a conflict in the naming conventions, whether the most common name should trump a specific convention about naming royal consorts, see number 9. From the naming conventions page, "...use the most common form of the name used in English if none of the rules below cover a specific problem.". The latter convention was made so that the names would not be ambiguous. I do not know enough about the topic to know whether ambiguity is a problem in this case. If an uninvolved admin wants to move the page or reopen the debate, he or she should go for it. -- Kjkolb 02:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Number 9 does not apply to Queen Anne as she is currently living. When Queen Anne dies, her article title will be Anne of Bourbon-Parma. Charles 16:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I think in this case Kjkolb it is regardless, since a majority is a majority. That means of course that not all majorities are always right, however a legitimate vote was held, anyone could vote on it, and if only three users chose to do it, well then... I don't see the proposal and the result as a conflict with existing conventions either, because in this case number 10 clearly applies. She is still living, and she is still queen consort, regardless what the status of the monarchy is. See the example of Queen Anne-Marie of Greece. Admittedly the case is not so clear, however queen is queen. Gryffindor 20:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


Admin needed to examine Talk:Anabolic steroid[edit]

I have been posting and contributing to the Anabolic steroid article for about 2 months now and from the start I have had to deal with a user called User:Skookum1 I have tried being as patient as is possible with this user however he continues to make edits to the page without explanation as to why he made the edits. He continues to insist upon adding "expert needed","Worldview bias","Content disputed" tags to the article without explaining the specifics as to why he wants to add them. He shouldn't be able to add tags or remove tags to an article unless he explains exactly why they should be added or removed. However he has continued to do this. Not only that but he resorts to personal insults such as "arrogant fool" or "stinking liar" in his posts refering to me. I would like an Admin to review the talk page and review this users contributions to the talk page to see if he needs a warning of some type or an explanation of wikipedia policy.Wikidudeman 07:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


CAT:CSD[edit]

Is heavily backlogged - nearly 350 items to be exact. ViridaeTalk 09:04, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

And I can see a reason for it, unfortunately. I went to CAT:CSD and picked three at random, and all three were incorrect uses of the speedy criteria.
  • Ed Comix Inc. - a corporation nominated as {{nn-club}} under CSD-A7, which is for people, clubs and bands.
  • INSZoom - a cut-and-paste job nominated as {{db-copyvio}} under CSD-A8... but no evidence that the original website was directly involved in using the content for commercial gain.
  • Whittaker World cup 2006 - nominated with the reason "no context, no verifiability. Not "nonsense" the way we use the term here, but nonsense in the sense that it makes no sense to the average reader. Possibly BJAODN if someone else feels charitable enough". If you need to make an argument for deletion, speedy delete is not for you.
As long as people keep abusing speedy delete in this way, CAT:CSD will remain overfull and the speedy method will slow down. People can't nominate 350+ articles a day, a good 100+ of them wrongly, and expect the couple of admins who look after this category to send the abused ones to AfD for them.
When the speedy delete criteria are abused, the user in effect is asking an admin to act out of process and to take the flak for it. We can't have it both ways. Either we abuse the CSD but make admins immune from scrutiny in their decisions on deletions or we change the CSD and leave admins accountable.
We all prefer the latter, obviously. ЯEDVERS 09:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Absolutely agree. I cleaned out a bunch of stuff yesterday, but had to leave a heap of questionable ones as I only had time to work "speedily" and not devote the time to research the others fully. Often they are proper speedy candidates, just tagged with the wrong reason. It's about educating users really, maybe we need a CSD for Dummies page ... any volunteers? The same problem exists at WP:AIV. Half the reports there are either not vandalism, user not properly warned, content disputes, extinct activity from hours or even days before etc, etc. It's very frustrating, still, that's life I suppose. --Cactus.man 09:37, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
It's a good idea, but we have one already. It's not specifically about CSD, but it would help: Wikipedia:Introduction to Deletion Process. Mangojuicetalk 16:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
If you do NP patrol for a while, I find the threshhold of what you are willing to speedy decreases. We have too much junk coming in to be as process-driven in the screening of it. --Doc 09:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Sure, junk is junk, no problem deleting that whether it's properly tagged or not. A lot of the material is borderline though, worthy of some research to validate and thus controversial for speedying, hence → AfD. This is almost a deletionist / inclusionist topic. I'm somewhere between the two. And please don't call me a wonker or I'll throw a hissy fit, stamp my feet and go to my room :-) Wonking has a legitimate function here, just don't overdo it in case you damage your health, but make sure you do enough to maintain a proper balance. --Cactus.man 10:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


Back when I used to help out a little with the CSDs, when I saw incorrect CSDs, I, like most admins, nominate them for AfDs instead. I think it would be much "speedier" to simply remove the tag without AfDing, and leave the onus of AfDing back to the person who wants to see the article deleted in the first place. Or heck, maybe create a new template or category, something like our {{unblock reviewed}} template so we know which speedies have already been reviewed and rejected by other admins. And heck, no longer being accused by defenders of the article of being a rabid deletionist (for moving the article off CSD and into AfD instead) would be nice too. --Deathphoenix ʕ 15:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
A new category for reviewed speedies is unnecessary, the denied speedy should be in the edit summary, and checking the history is part of reviewing a speedy deletion request. I don't AfD articles that I remove speedies from unless I really care about that deletion. I leave that to the original proposer of the speedy, and leave an edit summary that says "does not meet WP:CSD - take it to WP:AFD if you need to". Kusma (討論) 15:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, god forbid an adminstrator be forced to actually administer. --Calton | Talk 15:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
It's a matter of how efficiently things get done. When I deny a speedy, I very often will put a prod tag on it, but I rarely start an AfD unless I'm personally interested: if I don't think PROD would be appropriate, I'll let someone else do it. My take on this is that admins (or anyone else) reviewing speedy deletions should take the time to inform users who have used it wrong: occasionally this would be a waste of time, say, if someone was just trying speedy once and wouldn't go back to it. But for users who make lots of speedy nominations, they need to understand when they're using it wrong. Also, I really think we should get rid of {{nn-club}}, {{nn-bio}}, and {{nn-band}}, because they perpetuate a misuse of speedy deletion, namely, "nn" or "non-notable" does not mean the same thing as the A7 criterion which talks about not describing the importance or significance of the topic. We have db-club, db-bio, and db-band (which those redirect to), which work fine. (I tried nominating nn-bio for deletion a while back but people didn't understand what I was trying to do.) The same comment goes for PROD: I was looking at the PROD backlog today and found at least a few instances in which someone had reverted the removal of a prod tag because no justification was given for deprodding. They'd probably done it in many cases across many different articles, but no one had told them they were doing something wrong. Mangojuicetalk 16:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


I went to CAT:CSD and picked three at random, and all three were incorrect uses of the speedy criteria.

*Ed Comix Inc. - a corporation nominated as {{nn-club}} under CSD-A7, which is for people, clubs and bands.
Perhaps you should have actually READ the article in question before complaining about incorrect tagging, as it was about a group of 13-year-olds which the article itself said was (paraphrasing) "not an official company". A little common sense goes further than worshipping policy for its own sake. --Calton | Talk 15:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I actually READ the article - and it wasn't CSD-A7. I also deleted the article - out of process - for CSD-A7 as that was what it was nominated for. In fact, it was CSD-G4 from an old VfD, or it might just have scraped CSD-G1. But CSD-A7 it wasn't. And this is typical: admins are damned if we do and damned if we don't - the complaints about deleting stuff and the complaints about not deleting stuff - both from misinformed users - just pour in. ЯEDVERS 19:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I actually READ the article I'm not seeing any sign of that -- particularly since you referred to it as a "corporation" above, clearly false. Also, explain to me how deleting under one valid set of criteria instead of another makes it "out of process": if it were so, I have to wonder why exactly you would delete it out of process and then use it as an example when complaining about other people deleting things out of process. --Calton | Talk 01:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, I'm going to plead guildy to one of the incorrect tags and I apologise to Redvers for wasting his time. The essay on deletion linked by mangojuice is very useful. Wish I had seen it before. As a frequent NP watcher I personally agree that admins should simply deny the speedy and leave it for the proposer to take it to AFD if they wish. --Spartaz 18:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
The notion of "Either we abuse the CSD but make admins immune from scrutiny in their decisions on deletions or we change the CSD and leave admins accountable." is a false dichotomy. I "abuse" CSD all the time- the specific criteria do not account for all kinds of delete-on-site junk, and I suspect they never can. I'd rather see admins using actuall human judgment than blindly following exact rules- how does following an exact rule without interpretation amount to being more accountable? The deletion logs holds us all accountable, whether we want to be or not. Friday (talk) 18:36, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
You've missed the point here, Friday. Actually, you've missed two of them. The first one is: when a user asks an admin to delete out of process, who takes the flak? Answer: the admin, who has to defend an out-of-process deletion without the help of the original nominator and, on one memorable occasion for me, with the original nominator being amongst those castigating me for deleting the article out of process!
The other point is that, whilst admins act out of process, nobody needs to look to see if the process is broken. Nobody is campaigning, for instance, for spam to be added to the CSD, because everyone assumes that it is one of the CSD already. If admins stop deleting spam out of process, the community will rise up and demand it as a criterion. Then, when it gets deleted in process, the complaints from the spammer can be dealt with easily. But whilst spam gets deleted out of process, nobody calls for "CSD-A10: Pure advertisment" to be created and admins are left figuratively naked.
The problem here is that the number one cry of Wikipedia's critics is that admins are a law unto ourselves. We make the rules, act out of process, push people around, yada yada yada. We all know that that isn't true... yet here we are, having a discussion where people are saying "we expect admins to act out of process". Where is the line drawn? If admins are allowed - nay, expected - to act out of process on this subject, day in, day out, what's to stop an admin/some admins deciding "rights, it's time to delete all Pokemon articles/block all AOL users/play god in some way". After all, we've got the precident right here: we're expecting admins to regularly act out of process and we're even requiring them to do it for a quiet life. This is very odd. ЯEDVERS 19:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I think that you're listening to different critics than I am. Regardless, we shouldn't be promoting admins who cannot figure out when to apply WP:IAR and when not to. I'd like to make an actual on-topic suggestion while I'm here, though, which is that it would be good to encourage people doing new page patrol to make heavier use of creative redirects than CSD templates. Jkelly 19:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
You mean like this? :) Yanksox 19:34, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Exactly like that. Jkelly 19:35, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Perfect. More userfication would be good, too. If the article at Peter smallpecker is a {{db-bio}} and it was created by User:Petersmallpecker or the like, move it to User:Petersmallpecker. One less problem. ЯEDVERS 19:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I actually don't think we should encourage people to userfy articles that could be deleted, unless they're obviously a mistakenly created user page... plus a speedy would still be required for the remaining redirect. Mangojuicetalk 23:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I only ever userfy if the user has some edits and some indication of being about - otherwise all we create is a perpetual vanity page for someone who may never edit again. --Doc 23:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
In quite a few cases, what we end up userfying is actually an attackpage, which is never good... Shimgray | talk | 00:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

You can always place a {{hangon}} but would it be helpful to have an "assert incorrect speedy" template that took the same parms as "{{db}}" did? people could then just move the article there by adding a couple of letters to the template invocation and then examine at leisure to see if it qualifies. yes it adds a process, ick. But I agree, right now I tend to come into CSD and I often look at 5 articles and quit, after having found none deletable. That's probably wasting effort. PROD is not a bad suggestion though as an alternative. Is there a variant of PROD that takes exactly the same parms as db? ++Lar: t/c 17:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Perfect. More userfication would be good, too. Yeah, just what Wikipedia needs, more permanent (for all intents and purposes) vanity/MySpace/webhost pages disguised as User Pages. No, adding more garbage to Wikipedia is not good. More stuff like this (one edit, in October 2005), this (ditto), this (ditto), and this (two edits, counting the big image) -- these are not User Pages and these people are not Wikipedia editors. See User:Calton/Userfied pages for many more examples.

Or take [[Ed Comix Inc., the alleged corporation article: it was originally a recreation of an AFD'ed article, userfied by an admin in July 2005 and remaining untouched until I reverted the move and slapped on the (entirely appropriate) speedy tag.

More userfication isn't a solution, it's mostly a way of shifting responsibility for making a decision or (gasp) employing judgment. --Calton | Talk 01:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The problem isn't really the few incorrectly tagged articles. It's a combination of that plus the editors who don't look at the history first to see if a valid article was vandalised. Then the talk pages of valid articles with nothing more than an anons comment, such as "This is crap". They don't need deleting just blanking. Then you have to go and check to see if the article was recreated but without the speedy tag. Follow that up with having to answer questions as to why you just deleted Peter smallpecker and why you wont restore it. But the real problem is the images. Nobody ever seems to want to delete them. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 05:35, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


Tribe (TV series) / Going Tribal[edit]

Hello, it appears someone's effort to reverse the name/redirect relationship between Tribe and Going Tribal ended up splitting the article history. I'm guessing they copied the content rather than performing a page move. Could an admin please come in and kill off Tribe, revert back Going Tribal one version, and then perform a proper page move. Not being an admin prevents doing the first step so I don't want to create a bigger mess with the other steps. Thanks. --StuffOfInterest 20:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Let me withdraw this request. I've switched it back so the history is still with the article content. If the original mover wants the name change to occur then let him go through WP:RM to get it done. Sorry for the extra pixel use here. --StuffOfInterest 21:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Now we seem to have a round robin circle of redirects. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, I see what you mean. It appears NeilEvans decided to move the article to Tribal (TV series) now, as opposed to "Tribe". In the process he created a nice set of double redirects. I'll give him a minute to see if he cleans it up. If not I'll grab a mop and clean up the redirects. --StuffOfInterest 22:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
OK, it is a little dinked up but he is working on it. I tried to give him some help with this post. Unfortunately, I'm going to be away in a few minutes for the rest of the evening. If someone would be kind enough to keep an eye on it and lend him a hand if he needs help I'll really appreciate it. Thank you. --StuffOfInterest 22:18, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


NEED DESPRATE HELP FROM AN ADMIN[edit]

Ned Scott (talk · contribs) gave me an invalid warning after TheFarix (talk · contribs) slandered, belittled, insulted and harssed me. No one helped me on WP:PAIN. I don't mean to be dramatic, but my feeling are shattered. I can feel tears in my eyes as I type this. PLEASE HELLP! -- Selmo (talk) 00:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't feel his warning is invalid, you acknowledged that you were likely harsh in your reply. Regardless of how another user treats you, its not okay to respond with uncivil or otherwise inappropriate behaviour.--Crossmr 00:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


An old AFD still open[edit]

Could someone please either close or relist for further discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The J Curve: A New Way to Understand Why Nations Rise and Fall? It's 10 days old already. Thanks! —The preceding signed comment was added by Angr (talkcontribs). 12:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Closed as delete, as per reasoning on the AfD. — FireFox (talk) 12:38, 29 August 2006
Thanks! —The preceding signed comment was added by Angr (talkcontribs). 12:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


Issue with cached version of pages[edit]

A problem was reported with footnotes yesterday at 19:20 (UTC) at WP:FN. The problem is that the cached version of article pages on the WP server is messed up, causing the list of references to be repeated twice. Current examples at Miniclip and Conservative Judaism. This problem can be fixed with a WP:PURGE of the page, forcing the WP server to rebuild the page, with ?action=purge as described in various places at WP:VPT. (This is not just a browser cache clear, and I'm intentionally leaving those articles not purged so people can see the issue.)

There is also an issue with the template transclusion database. Some articles will list hundreds of trancluded templates that are not used in the article. Eg, numerous articles are listed as having Template:Comic book reference transcluded. This can be fixed by editing the article. This might have something to do with the recent WoW vandalism, as a number of templates were moved around.

These problems have been around for almost a day. Is someone looking into them? Gimmetrow 14:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


Hi, I'm Dragonball1986[edit]

I'm trying to completely move "The Double Dutch Bus" to "Double Dutch Bus (song)". THis is the only thing left to do and I'd appreciate your help. Thank You. My reason is that on my Children of Tomorrow album, it is titled simply "Double Dutch Bus". (song) was me that added it to differentiate it from disambugations.

Looks like you've done it - Double Dutch Bus (song).--Andeh 19:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Añoranza[edit]

This case has closed and the final decision has been published at the link above.

To summarise, Añoranza is banned for one week and the principals in this matter are encouraged to enter into good faith negotiations regarding use of propagandistic operational codenames for which there are neutral alternative names in common use.

For the Arbitration Committee. --Tony Sidaway 22:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Añoranza (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has been blocked for one week. --Cyde Weys 22:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Clyde Wey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)[edit]

This editor has been name blocked as an impostor of User:Cyde (Cyde Weys). They've explained on their talk page that Clyde Wey is their actual name. I've done a bit of research and found this to be entirely plausible. Because this is true I think we should assume good faith and unblock this person's user name and subsequently keep an eye on their edits for any disruptive behavior. Thanks. (Netscott) 14:54, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

The user has been allowed zero opportunity to make a contribution to Wikipedia. Considering the User's comments on his talk page and the Wikipedia's official Assume good faith policy, I agree that we should give Clyde an opportunity to contribute under his chosen (and real user name). (Note that I was also able to find evidence to support his claim that this is his real name, though in the interest of privacy, I'll not post it here.)
Note that admin Cyde goes by Cyde, notwithstanding his label of Cyde Weys on his user page.
ERcheck (talk) 15:46, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Since there seems to be little consensus for the block, I have decided to unblock the username. If anyone disagrees, feel free to reverse my action. JoshuaZ 15:51, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for responding with an unblock JoshuaZ. (Netscott) 15:53, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I've had a name imposter going after me for awhile now ... everytime one of his accounts is blocked, he plays the old "I'm innocent" card and gives some implausible excuse for why the name, which happens to look a lot like mine, happens to be valid. And every so often, someone falls for it ... Cyde Weys 16:56, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry did you mean implausible or plausible there Cyde? (Netscott) 16:57, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
I mean implausible. He googles the new name he makes up and "establishes" his new identity around the one hit that does show up ... someone in West Virginia who wanted a quit-claim deed authorized. --Cyde Weys 17:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Problem would be solved if your sig properly reflected your username ... Cyde. Everybody's sig should reflect their username IMO. I support the unblock, just keep an eye on the users contribs. --Cactus.man 17:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Cyde, if this user's editing becomes nefarious I'll be the first one to apologize but given the facts to this matter I still think an assumption of good faith is warranted. (Netscott) 17:10, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
I think I'll take that apology now ("Clyde Wey" has been confirmed as an impersonation sockpuppet of another user by CheckUser). I just wish you guys would trust my judgement more often ... Cyde Weys 17:33, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough I apologize. So perhaps in the future this should be standard policy to CheckUser seemingly impostor accounts? (Netscott) 17:37, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
How about we just use common sense? It's not like 'Cyde Weys' is as common a name as "John Smith". Nandesuka 17:40, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Which other user please, and who logged the RFCU? Apology will then gladly be forthcoming ... :-) --Cactus.man 17:39, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
See Dmcdevit's post to WP:ANI, everything is explained there. --Cyde Weys 17:42, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, that answers part of my query - from AN/I: "...account was very likely created by Syphonbyte (talk · contribs)". Can't see any evidence of a request at WP:RFCU though. --Cactus.man 17:58, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
When dmcdevit says "A CheckUser I have just run" shows something, that is a checkuser. WP:RFCU isn't what makes it official, it's just an organizational scheme. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:04, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
RFCU is just a way of managing the large demand for checkuser runs. --Tony Sidaway 18:05, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, that much is self evident. I'm merely asking who requested a checkuser on this account, somebody requested it or Dmcdevit decided to do it off his own bat. Simple question begs a simple answer. --Cactus.man 18:42, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
I requested it, naturally. --Cyde Weys 23:17, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
This impersonator's puppetmaster account has been indefinitely blocked. See this ANI thread. (Netscott) 12:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


Ban of Sheynhertz-Unbayg[edit]

I have blocked Sheynhertz-Unbayg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) indefinitely. It makes me sad to be forced to do this, but I don't see much else to do after his non-participation in this and this MedCabal case and this RfC. To any comments about his editing activities (see the RfC or category:Onomastics he typically reacts abusively or not at all, and just continued the creation of problematic pages that had led to the RfC. To recent blocks by several different editors (some for uncivility or disruption of MfD, mine for not reacting to repeated complaints), he reacted by using sockpuppets. See 61.112.94.154 (talk · contribs), 61.112.95.194 (talk · contribs), L.Kugelman (talk · contribs), L.Kugelmann (talk · contribs), 61.112.197.233 (talk · contribs). I suggest to community ban him until he cooperates in the cleanup of his pages and understands that he needs to communicate with others. If Sheynhertz-Unbayg engages in meaningful discussion of his activities and promises to answer to his RfC, he should be unblocked. Until then, none of his IPs and sockpuppets should be allowed to edit. Kusma (討論) 07:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Endorse. Sheynhertz is an extremely problematic editor. His continual messing up of the encyclopaedia, including unfinished articles (many containing German) dumped into articlespace and rapid-fire page moves creating double redirects is unacceptable, and attempts to clean it up are met with instant reversions and bizarre reactions ranging from baseless accusations of vandalism to suicide threats. (All documented in the RfC, so I'm not going to go diff-digging.) I have less confidence than Kusma that unblocking will do any good, though. I have no idea how Sheynhertz' mind works and little inclination to try to find out. I applaud Kusma for taking on this extremely tiresome editor and suggest leaving any decision about whether Sheynhertz should be unblocked up to him. Note that Sheynhertz, whose native language is Japanese, is already banned from the Japanese Wikipedia. --Sam Blanning(talk) 08:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
    By the way, I'll try to help with some of the cleanup of 'his' articles once I'm assured that he won't be misguidedly unblocked. --Sam Blanning(talk) 08:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
    Thanks for the offer! We should probably try to organize the cleanup a bit so we don't have to check all of his 20k edits more than once. Kusma (討論) 13:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
My hope of a good end of this is fading -- I just blocked three evading IPs: 61.112.89.145 (talk · contribs), 61.112.103.242 (talk · contribs), 61.112.86.254 (talk · contribs). One of them told me You are my enemy, and I'll grudge strongly you!!. Please help me to either (a) solve this issue by reforming Sheynhertz-Unbayg or (b) blocking all 61.112 IPs that edit onomastics articles or add lots of redlinked names to disambiguation pages. Kusma (討論) 13:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
He is now editting out of Schönherz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Ryūlóng 19:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
I have rangeblocked 61.112.0.0/16 for 3 hours after getting tired of blocking his IPs individually. I hope I don't inconvenience too many other users of his ISP with this anon-only, no account creation block, but his insistence on his edits is getting silly. Kusma (討論) 20:45, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
I am absolutely appalled at what has happenend. I used to have friendly contact with Sheynhertz-Unbayg on a number of topics, especially articles on Judaism. However I lost touch and he seemed to have disappeared. I noticed later that there were some strange fall-outs from the Japanese Wikipedia that spilt over, which really made me wonder since it was surprising. I wish I knew how to help to defuse the situation, however reading the comments of users that have had other dealings makes me wonder if it is actually the same user? Reading through the comments I trust Kusma's judgement, but to me this is just nevertheless really bizarre, highly unfortunate and saddening. Gryffindor 21:02, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


Kosovo article captured by Serb nationalist editors and admins[edit]

It is a month now that the Kosovo article looks like Serb propaganda. A certain administrator ChrisO and several Serb or pro-Serb editors are clearly editing on bad faith. I tried to change that but they seem to be furthering a Serb nationalistic agenda and don't want to cooperate. I would appreciate if any other administrators who are neutral on the issue come there and change the Serb propaganda pamphlet, that the entry on Kosovo has now become. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vezaso (talkcontribs) 09:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eternal Equinox[edit]

This case is now closed and the result has been published at the link above.

Eternal Equinox (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is placed on Probation and personal attack parole for one year.

Jim62sch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is cautioned to avoid teasing or taunting sensitive users.

For the Arbitration Committee. --Tony Sidaway 13:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


Expunging block entries[edit]

This thread on Village Pump(technical) discusses the idea of making it easier to expunge block log entries. I had heard that there have been instances of block log entries being expunged, but that it was very rare, because it was difficult to do (developers had to be involved directly) and because it is not something to be done lightly. I think there have been instances of blocks that ought to be expunged, and so I raised the idea there, to make it easier to do, but not necessarily to make it something to be done more lightly. Your input there is solicited. ++Lar: t/c 14:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Would expunging blocks also expunge any record of an admin performing an improper and unnecessary block? -- tariqabjotu 02:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


About biographies of living people and schools[edit]

Many complaints on OTRS are allegations on libel on our part, especially in:

  • biographies of living people (typically, semi-famous persons such as writers of self-help books, "alternative scientists", radio hosts on local stations, etc.)
  • articles on highschools (typically, some student or former student has written something insulting for staff).

Often, the people whose reputation is sullied have tried to remove the inflammatory content have been reverted, or even blocked for doing so.

Please read WP:BLP if you haven't yet done so. Wikipedia's official policy regarding biographical details of living persons is to err on the side of caution. Potentially libellious information without serious sources should be deleted, not flagged as "unsourced". Users, even anonymous ones, who delete such unsourced information should not be blocked - 3RR does not apply. Users who repeatedly reinsert such information despite warnings should definitely be blocked.

On a similar line, we also have a privacy policy regarding living persons, especially people who are not public figures. The same applies: if personal information such as names of relatives (who are not themselves public figures) etc. is removed, please do not reinsert it nor block whoever removed it.

The Wikimedia Foundation daily gets legitimate complaints about such behaviours. David.Monniaux 15:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to reject several parts of this:
  1. If a random editor comes along and removes perfectly good information from an article, without explaining that it is a result from an OTRS complaint, then another editor is entitled to reach the conclusion, in good faith, that it does not need to be removed.
  2. Thus your direction that we may not reverse it is wrong. Your edits are subject to reversal, no matter your superglue-like adhesion to one of the most damaging policies we have, unless they are potentially libellous and poorly sources (Note the conjunction. We can include negative information if it's well sourced. Until their lawyer telephones Danny, anyway.)
  3. The policy does not provide for indefinite removal and 3RR circumvention of things like names of relatives. It is not "on a similar line" at all. You don't get yourself an exception from being blocked for removal of such information. It is a matter of interpretation of the policy and the material.
  4. Wikipedia's official policy regarding biographical details of living persons is to err on the side of running screaming with our hands in the air.
  5. Since when was a school a living person? If someone is vandalising the article, revert them and block them.
Splash - tk 16:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Woah, Splash. Firstly, you don't get to reject this since it comes from on high. Secondly, it is common sense. When someone is insistingly blanking or removing sections from a bio, don't just scream 'vandal - kneejerk revent and block'. Instead, ask 'could there be a reason for thisact?'. It is always possible that the aricle is crap or libelous, and the anon IP is an angry injured party who doesn't understand how wikipedia works. Take a look at the material that he's removing - consider it - does it look fair? Are negative comments ballanced and referenced? Should the article in fact be deleted or rebuilt from scratch. Admins should not be on autopilot. --Doc 23:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
I doubt anyone thinks that removing paragraphs in biographies should always be reverted, and I doubt anyone thinks that they should never be reverted. I think we have one of those imaginary arguments between positions that no-one wishes to defend brewing here. Just use common sense. Before reverting a paragraph removal, scan it to see if it says "Joe Bloggs was recently sentenced to a billion years for being a third-degree cretin" - likewise, check the previous edits, and see if before blanking the 'Controversy' section, the same IP blanked the paragraph immediately before it (indicating straightforward blanking testing/vandalism). --Sam Blanning(talk) 23:24, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. --Doc 23:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Doc, if you're referencing the "divine passage" I believe you are, "If you read something negative about someone, and there is no source, then either find a _legitimate_ source (and make sure that WE do not make the negative claim, but rather than we merely report neutrally on what the claim is), or just remove it... and insist that anyone who wants to put it back, do so with a legitimate source!", that would support deleting the information. However, you'll notice the emphasis is to make sure that it's sourced, not to simply remove it because it's negative. This is about WP:V, not "being nice", so what we need is proper case-by-case judgment, not a blanket guide about being unable to revert people who are removing negative information. --tjstrf 23:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
In an ideal world where WP:V was the only relevant issue, an unsourced paragraph that said that the subject won an award recently would merit just as much scrutiny as one saying he was arrested for drink-driving. However, obviously this isn't an ideal world, people like to sue, RC patrollers have limited inclination to fact-check articles on people whom they don't care about, and if people are going to fact-check anything we should make sure they check negative information first. --Sam Blanning(talk) 00:27, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
The major problem here is your first point. People are reverting "vandalism" without ever stopping to read it, without ever noticing that what was being blanked was the unsourced section saying the subject was a child molestor or an embezzeler (yes, I have seen both such cases in the past). People assume anything in the article was "perfectly good" and revert without thinking, and so we end up with the problem that we're essentially protecting the defamation. This is bad from an encyclopedic standpoint, from an ethical standpoint, and from a not-getting-our-asses-sued standpoint. I'm not sure what order you rank those three in, but it's not good for any of them. Shimgray | talk | 00:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, after all, one should take one's responsibilities. When you revert libellious claim, you are, effectively, inserting it yourself. When you block somebody who was removing unsourced, libellious claim, you are, effectively, exercing editorial control to maintain this claim. (*) You then put yourself as a prime target for the possible lawsuit, especially if the Foundation tries to dodge responsibility by claiming it's the responsibility of whoever inputted the entry. You may also find that some people would like to sue us in various locales (I'm thinking of England here, among other places), and may also prefer to have some local identifiable defendant rather than a foundation in Florida. And I'm ready to bet that the Foundation will be eager to hand over your connection data to judicial authorities if it avoids it some legal trouble; actually, as far as I know, it has already done so.

(*) Ask User:Soufron. David.Monniaux 00:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Of course you take responsibility for your own edits. That's why you should verify it from an outside source. (If you can cite the negative claim to someone else, then you can pass the legal buck on to them.) Would legal responsibility actually apply to reverts of unexplained section blanking though?
What confuses me about your initial statement, though, is that there are people complaining about negative information about the staff of highschools. Wouldn't most of those be your traditional teenage "Mr. Smith sux!" vandal, and easily dealt with? Or has it gotten beyond that, to vandals writing believable libelous claims? --tjstrf 00:54, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
You'd be surprised how many are "$school employs three known child molestors"; "$school recently came under controversy after beating pupils"; "$school is a haven of drug use"; "$school is currently under investigation for X", etc, etc. Common abuse is one thing, but vandals often don't stop there. Shimgray | talk | 01:06, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Ooooh! A nice little injunction because of, guess what, yet another school libelled in WP! Schools make up a significant proportion of the libel allegations received in OTRS. And guess who they're after? The last person who inserted the content!

Not all school issues are straightforward stuff like "Mr Smith sux". In some instances allegations are made that Mr Smith is a pedophile, or a pervert, or a fraudster, or a known racist.

As for responsibility, Soufron (the former chief legal officer of the Foundation) seemed to believe that it fell upon the people who had exerced an editorial power — thus including those who had reinserted litigious content after it was deleted. David.Monniaux 00:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


Humor and Wikipedia[edit]

Is humor appropriate for this format ? Would it be incorrect for two Wikipedians to tell jokes to each other ? Any references, clarification ? Martial Law 04:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

If I did'nt ask, someone else may, and not be so polite about it. Martial Law 04:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
What are you talking about? What "format"? Anyway, humour has long been an accepted part of Wikipedia culture, just not in article space. See Category:Wikipedia humor and WP:BJAODN. There's nothing wrong with two users telling jokes to each other inasmuch as it may help relieve wikistress and therefore help the project, just as long as it doesn't go overboard since Wikipedia is not a blog or myspace. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 04:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
If two Wikipedians who substantially contribute to the encyclopedic want to tell a couple of jokes to each other from time to time on their User talk pages there is nothing wrong with that. If it is more than that, though, then other means of communication, like e-mail, should instead be used. —Centrxtalk • 04:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Indefinite block and a warning about OTRS permissions[edit]

Earlier this evening, Bastique and David.Monniaux discovered across a particularly nasty form of copyright abuse on Commons; someone had uploaded two photographs using a username the same as that of the original author, given the legitimate (non-free) source, marked them as free-licenses... and added an OTRS-confirmation template on the end with a nonexistent ticket number. The net result, we have something saying "oh, yes, the source is unfree but the Foundation confirms it's released as GFDL". The first we knew of this was when the author wrote to us complaining about it!

This seemed pretty clear evidence of bad-faith intent to us, and the user was accordingly blocked (as well as another, with identical modus, from back in March). A little detective work by Bastique found someone on en: using the images immediately after they'd been uploaded; checkuser by Kelly Martin and Arnomane confirmed that the user on en: and the user on Commons were the same, so the local user (Jcmurphy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)) got blocked too. Whilst he hasn't apparently violated policy on en:, we felt that something of this magnitude deserved an indefinite block, pending a very good explanation.

Two reasons for posting this. First, to run the block by the community, since blocking for dodgy behaviour on another project is unusual. Secondly, and more importantly, please be alert if you run across someone adding OTRS permission tags. If someone is adding them when they upload a file, or is adding them whilst apparently a new user, be suspicious. m:OTRS has a list of people with access to the queue; we're all happy to do quick lookups on the system to check that, yes, there is a permission filed. If you see one that looks unlikely, please feel free to challenge it - we want to stamp on this sort of thing hard. Shimgray | talk | 00:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Seems to me that he misused the image on Wikipedia-en so a block is warranted. Indefinate is a good starting place for this sneaky offense. Reconsider if the user makea a good arguement for why he deserves a second chance. FloNight 01:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
I'd stand behind the indefinite block. This type of abuse runs directly contrary to all of our attempts to respect and maintain copyright laws and should be dealt with severely. alphaChimp laudare 04:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. Ral315 (talk) 07:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Good block. Could be released with a very very very very very very very good explanation, but thats a lot of verys. Syrthiss 12:35, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Agree as well. Folks who knowingly mistag images and put Wikipedia in a position of legal jeopardy should be dealt with very strictly. Legal issues are not laughing matters. (Netscott) 12:48, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Pileon strong support for this block. Commons is sort of another site, and sort of not, though, so even if the user hadn't messed around on en: I'd probably still support the block. ++Lar: t/c 15:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not in favour of indiscriminate indefinite bans, but here I think we have an especially egregious case of bad faith, quite difficult to catch, and that poses real legal risks for both the Foundation and whoever tries to reuse our content in good faith. Moreover, impersonation is a crime in many jurisdictions. Thus, I think a cross-wiki indef ban is justified for such behaviour. David.Monniaux 15:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Agree. Tyrenius 08:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


CAT:CSD[edit]

Heavily backlogged again - mainly images. ViridaeTalk 04:09, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm trying at it right now (especially with great caution in images, I'm okay but not nearly the best). It really is a neverending backlog. Yanksox 05:18, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
It would really help if there was a script or tool to automatically comment out images used in articles. alphaChimp laudare 05:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Wouldn't be nice if we could always use scripts? Then it wouldn't take so long. Yanksox 05:27, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
I think images should have their own CSD section, but that's just my 2 cents. --Woohookitty(meow) 10:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree, Woohookitty. That would really keep clutter out of CAT:CSD. Perhaps Category:Images for speedy deletion is a good name. »ctails! =hello?=« 23:03, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
To be honest, that wouldn't be the best idea. The images in CAT:CSD get ignored as it is already, we don't need them shuffled off elsewhere. We need to draw attention to it so that the issue can be resolved. Yanksox 23:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
I strongly support dividing images from the main CSD category. They delay loading the page, they require different skills than the articles that make up most of CSD, and they are far more of them. We(well, me and some other people) handle {{no source}} fine; we can do the same with CSD images. If necessary, we can put the backlog tag on, just as we do for any other backlog. Just get them out of CAT:CSD for the love of all that is holy. JesseW, the juggling janitor 07:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree with moving them out. It would be good to have them in a page which also included full instructions on how to deal with them. Tyrenius 08:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Telefacts deleted content?[edit]

The article link on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_August_4#Telefact links to this page. Don't know if its recreated or missed content that should have be deleted. Telefact seems to redirect to Telefacts. Cheers,  :) Dlohcierekim 01:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I haven't seen the original article, but reading the AfD indicates that it had something to do with the university of Pittsburg. The current article Telefacts is about a completely unrelated matter, an existing and popular TV program in Flanders (Belgium). A legitimate article, and a reasonable redirect, so no problems there. On an unrelated note, when I tried to edit this section, I came at a completely different one (humor something or other). So I'm editing this by going through the whole way too long page... Fram 13:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


Category:Wikipedia protected edit requests[edit]

Just a quick heads up; this has 17 items as of this timestamp (I've seen a backlog tag with just 8!). --ais523 10:51, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Disclaimers[edit]

The disclaimers, linked to in the footer of every single document in the project (others too), are in a state of horror. I've (a) made formatting changes and (b) removed what I considered junk; the results are at User:PseudoSudo/Disclaimers/Wikipedia:General disclaimer (diffs: general, risk medical, legal, content). I'd appreciate if a sysop reading this could copy them over to their respective projectspace pages (changing {{../Template:Disclaimer-header}} to {{disclaimer-header}} and [[:Category:Wikipedia disclaimers]] to [[Category:Wikipedia disclaimers]]); I also invite anyone with concerns to comment here and/or reverse the copy if it's been performed.

Although it's an improvement, in my opinion the pages have quite a ways to go. A goal I'd personally like to see is one single disclaimer, free from rhetoric and irrelevent comments (wikilinks gone, too). ~ PseudoSudo 20:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Completed by JzG; thanks. ~ PseudoSudo 01:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


Forgiveness on Wikipedia[edit]

I've just read some of User:Giano's comments at User talk:Lar#Carnildo, who (Giano) continues to have hard feelings about a block comment that User:Carnildo wrote when blocking Giano a while ago. This may be a problem that has affected more than one user.

My first instinct was to say we'd need block and edit summaries to be editable by the blocking/editing party, but that means either accepting that when the block comment is removed, the offense is forgiven, or adding another layer of revision control, presumably without summaries. Such an additional layer of r.c. would add too much complexity for my liking (and may not meet with much enthusiasm from the developers).

There is potential that if implemented without r.c., such a fa