Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive65

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

Noticeboard archives


One second blocks[edit]

This topic was briefly (very briefly) discussed here, but there was no final opinion on the matter. I have a serious problem with admins beginning to issue one second blocks for something like removing warning templates. The templates can still be found in history, and admins should (and I believe do) check the history of a user before issuing a relevant block. A one second block, as implemented by Centrx here seems like more harassment/intimidation that any template warning ever did. I'd like to get some admin opinions on this before 1 second blocks begin to be implemented Wiki-wide, but was unsure of the proper place. If there's somewhere better...let me know. -- AuburnPilottalk 20:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that one-second blocks are not a good idea. I frankly don't see much point in a one-second block. Logging "warning removal" seems unnecessary -- the user contribs will show that. --Ginkgo100 talk 20:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
It is not a log of warning removal. It is a log of the behavior which has apparently been generally ignored after he was last blocked in July. —Centrxtalk • 22:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
It is a log of "warnings".Since the user removes warnings, admins don't know how to block.This shows up in the log and gives them a note of past problems, it is much like a "dummy edit". Cbrown1023 22:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
There are two valid uses of 1 second blocks- 1 sometimes they can be used to help clear out autoblocks. 2) Noting that a previous block in the block log was erroneous. Users sometimes prefer such notes who are senstive about their block logs. Either of these uses are fine. Using them as a form of warning doesn't serve any real purpose. If you need to warn a user about something use the user's talk page. JoshuaZ 21:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
It is not a warning. It is a log. —Centrxtalk • 22:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't think 1 second blocks clear autoblocks any more.Geni 23:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree.You can't put on a block if there is already one in place.User:Zoe|(talk) 00:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

His behavior is blockable in itself. Him threatening to block other users because he disagrees with article content is unacceptable; revert warring and removing others' comments from article talk pages is also unacceptable. Him removing a warning so that it is not easily searchable and likely ignoring it and previous warnings does not create a time-consuming obligation on my part to monitor his contributions endlessly, nor to require that I look through all his contributions to determine whether he has been entirely disruptive or whether there is some benefit to having him around and some hope of remediation; or to determine exactly how many warnings he has gotten previously and their validity; or to determine whether he is actually a sockpuppet of banned User:Cute 1 4 u. He has the opportunity to amend this behavior, but that does not equate to a misleading clean slate; he has been given that opportunity before. If another administrator encounters this disruptive behavior on his part in the future, they should recognize that he has already been told repeatedly to stop. —Centrxtalk • 22:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

One second blocks tend to be used as punishments- "I did this and I'll do more if you carry on". Blocks aren't punishments. And moreover, the block log is a log of blocks, not a place to put little administrative notes. --Deskana talk 23:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Deskana pretty much summed up my position on this subject. A block log is to be used as a log of a person's blocks. It is not a place for admins to make notes on a user's behavior and an editor should never be blocked, regardless of the duration, unless a block is warranted. Blocks are meant to be preventative, not punitive; a one second block doesn't prevent anything. -- AuburnPilottalk 23:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
The behavior if it is not stopped warrants banning. The one second block prevents him from continuing this behavior without it being noticed. This is not a punishment. —Centrxtalk • 23:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
The block does not stop him doing anything since it is for one second. If you want to warning him he'll get banned, tell him. --Deskana talk 23:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
That was already done. The entry in the block log is a note to other administrators that he has already been repeatedly warned for this behavior, so that future disruptive behavior will receive an informed response, ending the ability to be disruptive if necessary. —Centrxtalk • 03:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

My feelings on the matter are summed up here, and Bishonen has indicated that she agrees with me. The history of Certified.Gangsta's talk page from Centrex's warning at 22:53 on 3 December right up to Bishonen's attempt to calm things down less than an hour later shows a very unseemly and unbecoming edit war in which three users descended on his talk page and began to repeatedly remove that silly practical joke banner, restore warnings, etc. Then Centrx, one of the three users, blocked him for one second, so that it would be in the block log.

I consider that block to be inappropriate, and potentially counterproductive. The idea of giving one-second blocks to users who remove warnings was discussed here. It was suggested by Centrx. I and another user opposed it, and then the thread was archived. Nobody had supported it. I do not suggest any impure motives on the part of the blocking admin, but such blocks seem designed to "show" the user that the blocking admin is more powerful. Additionally, the removal of warnings is discouraged, but not prohibited. And, idiotic though that practical joke banner is, it's not something that "must be removed at all costs", so why make an issue of it and cause bad feeling? There is absolutely no compelling reason to have a record in the block log, and there are very good reasons not to (potential for ill will, and impossibility of changing your mind later). The very troublesome users attract admin noticeboard attention regardless of block logs. If a user is slightly disruptive (and I have no idea if this is the case here), there's no urgency. If you feel a record is necessary, you can keep one (with diffs) on your hard disk without humiliating and frustrating a fellow editor until such time as you feel that his behaviour needs to be brought to the noticeboard. AnnH 00:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I think Ann's summary puts it as succinctly as can be, and I fully agree. I would only add this: blocks are sometimes punitive. I know that people often claim they aren't but it seems to me I've seen more than a few cases where editors were blocked long after the incident that precipitated the blocking had passed. I don't necessarily have a problem with this, but I wish this status quo were either acknowledged or changed. It's a bit confusing otherwise. IronDuke 00:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
There is some truth behind this punishment/preventative thing that you say, IronDuke. I guess one could say "If a punishment stops someone from vandalising due to fear of being blocked again, then the block was preventative" but that ground is perhaps a little weak. --Deskana talk 00:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

So, what do you propose instead? Our options are:

  • We watch all his contributions for several months (Are you going to do this or is this my burden?);
  • Let his behavior continue to be under the radar as it has been, accruing endless warnings, perhaps hoping that he will go beyond the pale or that a more aggressive administator will simply block him when he threatens to ban the admin;
  • Simply block him now as this is disruptive behavior for which he has previously been warned (Would anyone have objected if I had simply blocked him for 24 hours rather than 1 second?)

Centrxtalk • 02:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Why not just work out a way to record warnings properly? Only allow admins to issue these warnings, and still, obviously, allow the template sort of warnings to be used by any user. Bit like a yellow card and then red card in some sports. Carcharoth 02:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I've been pondering for some time the idea of having a "warning log", which would be similar to a block log. It would be a permanent record, so to speak, so that admins could see what other admins had done in terms of warnings given. But it wouldn't be as hurtful or apt to cause disruption as an entry on someone's block log. Don't know if that's feasible with the software, though. IronDuke 02:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
A 1 second block is obviously merely a note analogous to a warning log. I don't see why it would be less "hurtful". Also, having this feature would lead to "yellow card" warnings being put in the permanent log, where before they would be temporarily on the talk page, which would be more disruptive if the block log is. —Centrxtalk • 03:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
It could be a good idea, but it would need to be technically implemented in the software (you could create a protected Warning page but you would then need to link it from the user page—a link which would then be removed by the user). Given that it is a minor feature request and the block is nearly functionally identical, I doubt it would be implemented soon, and until such time we are left with these options. —Centrxtalk • 03:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
The talk page history generally makes for a pretty good "warning log".It doesn't take long to check it. -GTBacchus(talk) 06:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I to calm things down, as Ann says, when I noticed all the activity on Certified.Gangsta's page. Gangsta is not the pattern of editorial virtue, but I'm convinced he has a strong ambition to be a good and respected wikipedian. Centrx, like Ann, I believe that your actions were performed in good faith and with good intentions, but please let the man keep a little dignity here. I have experience of how much better he responds to that. He's very sensitive about his block log.[1] On the general issue, using one second blocks in this manner, I'm totally against it. One second blocks are very useful for acknowledging blocking error, as Joshua says—I thought it was a brilliant idea the first time I saw it done, which as it happened involved the same editor.[2] Please don't use them for anything else. Bishonen | talk 02:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC).

In regard to the recent heated exchange between admin User:Centrx and myself, I decided to make a concise explanation of the entire matter from beginning to end. First thing I need to clarify is I didn’t know Centrx is an admin until I checked his logs after Bish calmed us down. I was actually quite surprised he is a sysop for a number of reasons. The reasoning behind my post on his talkpage was not because I disagree with the page move on wigger, but because he failed to read the previous discussions on the possible page move in the relevant talkpage; thus he is moving it out of process (without consensus or discussion, factual accuracy). I have actually invested quite a bit of my time improving that particular article. Whether wigger is an ethnic slur is debatable and the misconception of the use of word is widespread among people who do not understand hip-hop culture (some white rappers are self-proclaimed wiggers), so redirecting wigger to ethnic slur without prior discussion on talkpage seems to be rather POV.

The only thing I probably shouldn't have done was to post on his talkpage. I do admit my reflective response on his talkpage is not optimal. This immediately provoked Centrx’s violent response. Rather than start a meaningful discussion on Talk: Wigger, he decided to post a warning on my talkpage as well as removing my joke banner from my userpage and talkpage, which has nothing to do with the content dispute. The joke banner could also be found on another user's userpage(whom I encountered on His excellency’s arbitration case). And it has been up there for quite a few months now and no one complained about the so-called “deception” or “non-joke”. All of these hatred toward my userspace seems to be out of personal vendetta.

In addition, Centrx also reverted one of my edits on Chinese (an area he was previously uninvolved in)[[3]]. which was later reverted back by admin User:MarkSweep. Once again, he demonstrated he is being rather personal (one of wikipedia’s policy is to comment on the contributions not the contributor).

Many other users have posted similar warnings on my page, many of them baseless and unjustified such as User:RevolverOcelotX and User:PoolGuy, both of whom have been indef. blocked.

1 second block is a great way to admit administration error, like the link Bish provided above. Alex apologized to me about the unjustified 3RR block he imposed on me, which was brilliant. But it is hard to picture that happening here in the near future.

In regard to several unjustified accusations above, whether or not I disagree with the content is irrelevant, the point I am making is Certrx is redirecting out of process. I did not, of course, remove anybody's comment from article talkpages. Please provide evidence. The most outlandish accusation out of all is my connection to User:Cute 1 4 U, I'm not going to provide a diff. here (it's my bedtime). But if anyone is interested take a look at, Cute 1 4 U's talkpage and the previous thread about her on AN/I, I was actually one of the main advocate to have her blocked. The accusation is absolutely ridiculous. It is insulting.

On a side note, if anyone is interested to come to a resolution, I will be holding a discussion on my talkpage. All involved parties are welcomed to participate. Thanks--Certified.Gangsta 07:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

      • Ha, you think we don't see through your "participate"? All you want is for people to come to your talkpage so you can trick them into clicking on the joke banner!

SFriendly.gif Bishonen | talk 12:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC).

  • I fail to see the point of a one-second block. If behavior is disruptive enough to warrant it, do a regular block; if not, don't block. We don't need to keep permanent records of any user's behavior that was "just shy of disruptive", least of all in the block log. (Radiant) 10:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Please do not use the block log as a notice area for admins. If the behavior does not warrant a block, don't block. If the behavior is problematic in a long-term way, someone will notice it eventually, at which point blocks can be issued or a user RFC started, where the behavior can be analyzed in detail. Kusma (討論) 10:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  • If you want a bulletin board, use the page history, not the block log. yandman 10:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  • This seems like the latest manifestation of an ongoing divide in 'conflict philosophy' amongst the community. One school of thought holds that we should label and warn and record so that users don't 'get away with' anything without it being easily and immediately visible to everyone. The other view is that such 'scarlet letter' notices are insulting/embarrassing, serve to increase conflict, and may be abused for harassment or issued questionably in anger. I belong very much to the latter group and think that this edit warring to enforce display of warnings / one second block to record it does more harm than good. A warning was issued. It was read. If the warning is valid and the actions prompting it are repeated then a block can be issued. If not... then the warning served its purpose and is no longer needed. If the same problem occurs a few weeks later the warning can be dug out of the history to show that the person knew about it. I don't think people 'get away' with misbehaviour because past incidents are overlooked very often at all. Generally they get blocked in very short order and if there are continual problems they are out the door. Barring some epidemic of people who commit dozens of disruptions and magically never get blocked I thus don't think any of these 'record-keeping' efforts serve a positive purpose... whether it be edit warring/talk page protection to force display of warnings, 'suspected sockpuppet' tags and the like on the pages of non-blocked users, one second blocks to record things in the block log, or what have you... it is guaranteed to annoy the user, easily lends itself to abuse/harassment, and accomplishes little or no positive benefit. It is natural to want to make a record of things you disagree with and make sure people know that 'this person is trouble'... but it is also inherently un-wiki. We need to try to cooperate with and support even the people we disagree with in order for collaborative encyclopedia building to work. Warnings exist not to note that the person is 'bad' with an eye towards blocking or banning them, but rather to help them get along with others. IMO any time your motivation is more akin to 'make sure they get what is coming to them' rather than 'try to help them avoid further trouble' you are headed in the wrong direction... down a path which increases conflict rather than helping to end it. It is a ridiculously easy trap to fall into, with all the best intentions of 'protecting Wikipedia from the bad guy', but in practice it does little except make matters worse. --CBD 13:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Centrx, you seem not to understand that an entry in a block log is a slap in the face. If I broke 3RR, I'd much rather have the article protected for 24 hours than be blocked for 24 hours, even if that article were the only one I was interested in editing. Most people don't like having their block logs soiled. Removing warnings is not forbidden, and honestly, the way you and two other editors descended on Certified.Gangsta's page repeatedly restoring the warnings and removing the practical joke banner did amount to harassment. In the last year, I have been in dispute with two very disruptive non admins, both of whom made numerous personal attacks against me. (They're both indefinitely blocked now.) They both had that silly, irritating banner on their talk page, but it never even occurred to me to start harassing them by removing it. As Bishonen says, let users keep a little dignity. If something is mildly silly but is not harmful to the encyclopaedia, and fighting it is going to cause a lot of bad feeling, then just leave it.

You say that his behaviour is potentially blockable. If that's really true, I wouldn't object to a proper block from an uninvolved administrator. But I don't know, as you didn't give diffs. I did a little research, since you spoke of him threatening to block other users, and I saw this entry on your talk page. He simply says, "Next time you move a page without consensus, you will be blocked from editing." That's not a threat that he'll block you. Lots of non admins send warnings that say "next time you . . . you will be blocked", even though they don't have the power to enforce it. At worst, his massage to you is an inappropriate warning. I've sometimes removed spam or nonsense or copyright violations, and have received vandalism warnings. I've even (gasp with horror) removed those warnings from my talk page. But I have never considered blocking the user who sent them, except where the user was engaging in vandalism or other clearly disruptive behaviour.

You say that his removal of warnings might create a "time-consuming obligation on [your] part to monitor his contributions endlessly", and suggest that an alternative to your one-second-blocks idea is that "we watch all his contributions for several months". If he's a very disruptive user, then he will come to admin attention without anyone having to watch him for several months. If he's not, then there's no particular need to watch him for several months. Noticeboard archives are full of threads concerning Mistress Selina Kyle or Blu Aardvark or Alienus. A user who does a bit of edit warring (and remember, I don't know if that's the case here) or sends an annoying warning to another user is not such a threat to the encyclopaedia that we need to keep a record of it displayed on his talk page or in his block log.

A warning is intended to make a user — especially a new user — aware that he's violating a policy which he may not know about. Once he removes it, you know he's seen it, so you can keep the diff if you need it for an RfC or an RfAr. If you want a record, then put something like "disruption warning" in the edit summary — once. It can then be easily found in the history. (I always put "Test2 warning" etc in edit summaries for vandals.) If you want to go further than that, then you need to ask yourself if you are treating the warnings as genuine warnings (with the advantage of having a record for other admins through the history) or as a black mark that a user is obliged to display as a punishment for being naughty.

Finally, please remember that the block button is to be used sparingly. Regardless of what your intentions actually were, it should never be used to send the message, "I'm more powerful than you, so if you refuse to leave my warnings publicly displayed on your talk page, I'm going to put them in your block log, because there's nothing you can do about that." I don't imply that that was your motivation, but it is certainly the effect. AnnH 13:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

God, Bishy, you think I'm the type? Anyway, in order to show genuine good-faith and my true intention to reach a constructive resolution to the incident, I have removed the joke banner on my talkpage (personally I think the banner's hilarious, but if y'all think it's obnoxious I gotta give it up).

It is really refreshing to see all these intellectuals having a constructive, meaningful, and intelligent discussion about an important issue on wikipedia. There is still a lot hope in the project.

And by the way, Bish, guess what? you don't see through me. :)--Certified.Gangsta 21:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Run, Gangsta!Bishzilla 03:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC).

Policy edit[edit]

Policy edit. It seems to me that this thread expresses consensus that blocks are not to be used for the purpose of making notes in the block log of a user, with the sole exception of putting in something like a note of apology for a wrongful block. Centrx alone disagrees. I'm going to ask Centrx to oblige the consensus demonstrated here by discontinuing the practice, even though he himself thinks it's a good idea. Gangsta also urgently wants another note from Centrx (are you following me...?) in his log, to disavow the first. People do feel humiliated by this kind of thing, and I for my part would be happy to see him get what he wants. I've also made the following addition to the blocking policy:

"Very brief blocks, for instance of one second, are sometimes used for the purpose of recording warnings or other negative events in a user's block log. This practice can be seen as humiliating, and is not approved, except for making notes that are in the user's own interest. For instance, when a wrongful block has originally been placed, a one-second block can later be added by the same admin in order to record an apology, or acknowledgement of mistake.."

Thoughts? Bishonen | talk 03:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC).

  • I like it. It reflects current practice, which is what policy ought to do. I might quibble with "is not approved," because it implies a body which could approve it, which seems misleading. How about this: This practice has not found wide acceptance within the community and is discouraged, save when the notes..."-- Mackensen (talk) 04:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Sounds good, but why should we use a one second block when an unblock would do the same trick? --Conti| 15:31, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Conti, an unblock will do the trick if the original block is still active, but if it isn't, the one-second block has a use. Here's an admin who made certified.gangsta very happy by apologizing for a mistaken 24-hour block after two weeks. Or, do you remember Carnildo's notorious indefinite blocks of three people for "hate speech"?[4] They were quickly unblocked by others; but Carnildo could undo some of the damage with appropriate notes via one-second blocks, if he chose. Bishonen | talk 16:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC).
      • Thanks for the clarification, that certainly makes sense. --Conti| 17:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. No need to have a "scarlet letter" mentality. I support Mackensen's verbiage also, for the reasons he gave as well as for the reason that "This practice can be seen as humiliating" seems to imply that is the only reason not to do it, and there are others. Not qualifying leaves it open. KillerChihuahua?!? 15:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Fully support this proposal. One second blocks should never be used as administrative notes and this addition to the policy would help clarify that point. Thanks, Bishonen, for taking charge on this. AuburnPilottalk 19:37, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong support for Bishonen's edit. (Wish I'd made it myself!) AnnH 11:08, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Absolutely Bish hits it squarely on the head.  ALKIVAR 11:41, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support:Very well said and very well done.We mustn't let our worries with vandals lead us to petty wars, brush fires, and vindictiveness.This is not a war of white and dark hats, Jedi and Sith.One second blocks are an attempt at demonstrating power, of nasally threatening to make a black mark on your permanent record.It's quite distasteful: block for abuse after talking or talk without blocking (even better).Geogre 16:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

NudeGalsRSexy and Hotgirlsarehot[edit]

I've run across a couple of accounts which seem to be used for nothing but keeping a personal collection of nudie pics.The accounts NudeGalsRSexy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and Hotgirlsarehot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) only have edits to their own user space and only to create or move around links to photos.The tie that binds the two accounts togther is some edits by (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) to both user's pages.As this is not MySpace, is there any reason to leave the accounts around or should they be blocked for good? --StuffOfInterest 22:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Their pages should be deleted... Cbrown1023 22:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Trolls try to get entries on bloggers deleted[edit]

Interesting article on digg about how Wikipedia trolls are trying to get entries on bloggers deleted.I've tried to clean up the mess as best as I can.--Yamla 03:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I was just about to post about this issue to get some second opinions.I agree with your actions. —bbatsell ¿? 03:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Just to be clear, probably quite a few of the entries on bloggers should be deleted.However, the users I blocked claimed to be part of the GNAA, etc. etc., and were blatant trolls.There's also claims of vote fraud, etc., but I did not look in to that very deeply.--Yamla 03:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I have undeleted and unblocked.Yes, Timecop is GNAA.He also seems to have Wikipedia's interests at heart in this case.At the very least, discussion should take place about this issue, not a single admin taking this into their own hands.--humblefool® 03:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I could not disagree more that he and others involved in this 'crusade' have Wikipedia's best interests at heart.This is clearly a personal vendetta against blogs without any attention paid to Wikipedia's guidelines for notability.Reading their contributions and userspaces, no measure of notability is significant enough for them not to attempt to have every blog-related article deleted.Just spend two seconds looking into it, and you'll see what I'm talking about.I'm not going to continue the revert war that you've started, however, and would like to see this discussion continue. —bbatsell ¿? 04:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Bbatsell. Please look at this link to see their The criteria for marking a BLOG-related article to be deleted which is, in my opinion, complete garbage. --ccanni1028 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 04:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC).
Humblefool, why undelete Timecop but not Femmina? PermanentE 08:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Why would anybody have a "personal vendetta" against blogs? cacophony 09:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, the way User:Timecop/The war on blogs is presented is not appropriate even for user space (e.g. "BLOGS UNDER TERMINATION FROM US QUEERS", "shit inane garbage blatantly promoting the said blog", etc.). That said, I am not convinced the project is entirely without merit. Timecop's deletion requests do often seem to be successful at AFD, and a review of his contributions did show at least one recent instance where he improved a blog (Climate Audit) rather than AFD'ing it (apparently having found that blog to be notable, or at least accepting the previous keep AFD as reason not to try again).My opinion right now is that I would be okay with keeping a project to clean up Wikipedia's blog-space if it were to be rewritten to have a serious tone and avoid throwing around intentionally abrasive language. Bloggers are real people, and as a serious encyclopedia project we should treat them with respect even if their work is non-notable and deserves deletion.I don't know enough about the vote-stacking and other issues to comment on those concerns. Dragons flight 04:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

P.S.I went ahead and killed the top part of his page, based on my opinion that it was wholly inappropriate.Dragons flight 04:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to chime in on the presentation/attitude issue.I agree that there's a specific need to police blog related articles, but this "War on Blogs" is being conducted in a way that is obviously lacking on the NPOV front and contributes to the public perception that Wikipedia is solely populated by ego driven elitists.The childish language used in the proposed criteria removes Timecop's campaign of any credibility that it might otherwise have (especially with new/non-editing users), making it appear to be a campaign of one lone misanthrope, rather than a coordinated effort by multiple editors, which is what any effort to police blog related content should be. I for one, feel that any AfD nomination made by Timecop, GNAA or anyone else involved in this effort should be looked at with suspicion, based upon their stated motivations and their inability to articulate their position outside of their "blogging is worthless" perspective.If a project like this is going to be successful it needs input from people who have a better understanding of the blogging field than Timecop has.Glowimperial 13:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I've said this before and I'll say it again. If the GNAA wants to get vanity articles deleted in an orderly fashion according to Wikipedia's policies, more power to them. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Precisely.That was exactly the conclusion I recall we reached last time this was mentioned.As long as Timecop goes about it the Wikipedia way, with reference to policy and guidelines, what is the problem?And keep !votes based solely on the identity of the nominator are unlikely to get much weight either.Few bloggers are as notable as they may think.Writing about yourself every day is not a guarantee that your perception of society's need for your words is in line with reality, is it?Guy (Help!) 09:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Just to concur with the above, the objections (last time around it was User:Bearcat who got very upset) made respecting the effort to bring blog entries of questionable notability to AfD is entirely in keeping with overall principles and policies. The "problems" cited above seem to be completely contrived - that AfD nominations that are not as civil as they might be or that bloggers are not being treated with respect... What is that? And how are those grounds to issue blocks against users whose efforts have in effect been endorsed by the larger opinion of the community (if one reviews the list of nominations brought to AfD, many have been successful. It's too bad that Wil Wheaton is upset, but then... doesn't he exist on blogging...? Blocking User:Timecop and User:Femmina on grounds of trolling, when the bulk of their AfD participation has received sanction from other, uninvolved editors is absurd, against policy, and should be forthwith reverted.Eusebeus 13:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Last time around it was Curps.Bearcat was the time before that. Uncle G 15:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Tony Pierce here. This might be surprising coming from me but I agree with those of you who think that timecop should stay. Every society needs a garbage man, a cockroach, a cop. And those roles are oftentimes looked down upon. If in his heart timecop feels he's doing the right thing focusing on bloggers and if the editors of Wikipedia agree with him, then he is doing good work in making this place even better.

Not everyone, however, who does good things does them in a friendly, polite, or even decent way, however, and I think that's where timecop and the GNAA do themselves a disservice. For example I tried to politely ask timecop to remove the link that he found to a resume of mine from 2000, as well as delete the lie that I hadn't ever been employed for one full year from the AfD page and he refused. After I reminded him that knowingly keeping something posted that you know (from the resume) is false is tantamount to lying (and possibly worse: libel), he basically told me to piss off. That's a bad cop, despite his possible initial good intentions. And it lends to critics' arguments that someone with an agenda against blogs fails the Wikipedia standard of Neutrality. If somehow you can get timecop to play by the rules I think you'll have a really dedicated editor who is passionate about Wikipedia. Unfortunately there's very few worse things than a bad cop. And if you're just as diligent about getting rid of bad entries, why wouldn't you also be just as rigid about getting rid of bad editors?

With that said, there are two things that I have learned from the two discussion pages in regards to my case. The first is, as you can see from the information gleaned in the debate, there is far more information about me and my career in blogging that was ever on my Wiki entry. Sometimes it might be that the entry is lacking, not the subject. In which case it's unfair to debate the entry until it's complete. I'm not saying that's the case here, but it could be, and it could be the case for some one else down the road. Several people said "Delete, he has only appeared on G4TV? Big whoop" before seeing the information that I've been quoted in newspapers around the world, and that my award-winning post has been translated in several languages. Therefore I am grateful that mine wasn't one of those Speedy deletions. And I'm also grateful that the Washington Post story was published this Sunday which made me check in on my entry to see if I was in the same boat as the band in the WaPo article - and sure enough, I was. And I was lucky that it was on Digg, and I was lucky that there was time afforded for an intellectual discussion. I say "lucky" because I simply want a fair discussion based on facts, not a hurried debate based on a poor entry.

The other thing is there really needs to be, in my humble opinion, a better test than there currently is for determining the notability of a blogger and/or a blog. This too was brought up in the current discussion. The media has also had to struggle with this one while debating if bloggers are journalists, whether blogs are credible news sources (something we share with Wikipedia), and if blogging is merely a fad. Many of those questions are no longer debatable since bloggers have been granted access to attend and report on political conventions, a few blogs have broken news stories orseverely changed political discussions, many newspapers now have blogs, and some blogs are hiring full time bloggers and editors.

I'm not saying that I know what should be included in the test of notability but things like Technorati's rankings, mentions in major newspapers, longevity, money made off blogging, or bloggingprofessionally are the types of things that could be determined in separating the average blogger from the notable one.

There is a strong relationship between bloggers and Wikipedia, and I dare say that we are probably the source of more links and more traffic to your site than any other place. And if we're not we're way up there. Therefore the likelihood of more blogs being nominated for entry/deletion will be high. If that's true, it means a good standard specifically for blogs is something that I believe should be set at some point since we are (sadly) different than other forms of media.

Regardless of the fate of my entry, even if I disagree with it, I'd be happy to answer any questions you all might have in the future, if there ever are any, regarding blogs, bloggers, and blogging and its history, and I can be reached pretty easily in the comments of the busblog, LAist, or via email at busblog @ gmail. Best regards, Tony 10:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Pardon my irreverence, but I don’t think a link to the resume of an individual whose Wikipedia article is being discussed is totally off-topic. Also, why do you insist the link be removed and at the same time continue to serve the image from your website? Sam Hocevar 15:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

the resume is irrelevant and off topic because it spans years up to 2000. i hadn't started blogging until fall of 2001. also the point of him linking to it was to expose me as someone who hadn't held a job for over a year, which if it were true, would also be irrelevant to what i have achieved in blogging, but it is a false claim. if you or he can justify linking to my pre-blogging, 2000 resume as a way to prove or disprove that i deserve a wikipedia entry go for it. but the claim that i havent held a job for over a year is not only a poor argument for a Delete vote, but it's untrue based, ironically, on the resume timecop linked to. therefore keeping the statement that i have not held a job for over a year is a blatant lie and possible libel since its sole intention is to defame me based on something that he knows to be untrue. tony pierce 21:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Autoblock tool down[edit]

The autoblock tool seems to be down at the moment.I'm going to bed, can someone else please kick it?--Yamla 04:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

It looks like the whole toolserver is down. Martinp23 11:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
According to wikitech-l, all the European-hosted Wikimedia servers were down a while ago, and the developers are currently trying to bring them back online. This includes the toolserver. --ais523 11:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Breaking Foundation-level news[edit]

Technically this doesn't need administrators' notice, but I'm sure you all will agree it's important enough that everyone will want to read it anyway.--Cyde Weys 05:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Board meeting in Florida[edit]

From foundation-l, by Anthere

We had to 1) replace Tim Shell, 2) plan next elections, 3) make decisions over how to expand the board It was a set of issues I expected would be problematic, but we actually rather easily and quickly settled down on an agreement. A very detailed resolution will make that plain official, but the basic ideas are these ones:

We will work toward a progressive expansion of board, up to a number of probably 11, to be expected in july 2008. 2 new members will be added (by appointment) before the end of the year on the board, until next elections in july 2007. Tim Shell will be replaced before the end of the year, by appointement, for a term of one year. All appointements will be for one year from now on, which means Jimbo and Michael Davis terms will expire in a year. Appointements may be renewable.

Elections will take place every year for 3 positions (3 positions in july 2007, 3 positions in july 2008). Elected seats is for 2 years term and may be renewed. Elections will stay direct elections, but procedures and rules (such as requirements for candidacy or voting system) may evolve. The board is apparently opened to the concept of appointing in the future, a member which would be warmly recommanded by chapters. Last, the board pledged the majority of the board would be from the community (through appointements or elections)

To be very specific

The board was also concerned by the risk of instability at next elections, due to the important influx of new members (possibly very knowledgable about the Foundation, or possibly not) and important departure of current members (Erik, the two new temp members and myself). The board consequently suggested that I, be appointed to the board from july 07 till june 08, which I accepted (OMG). The board came up with names for the three newly appointed members, but we first need to check whether they agree :-) You'll be informed once agreement is given. Stay tuned !


Wow ... those are some very big changes.What do you all think?--Cyde Weys 05:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

One thing I think is that the math doesn't add up.If you have 11 board members serving two year terms, yet only elect 3 each year, you are only rotating 6 positions. —Doug Bell talk 06:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
What I'm most interested in is these three new board members who are going to be appointed.What was the point of the elections then?For every one that is elected, three more are appointed?I don't see how that leaves us, the community, with very much control.--Cyde Weys 06:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
The way I read it, it's a temporary move.A possible timetable:
  • February 2007:7 members- 3 appointed, 2 voted (Florence and Erik), and Jimbo and Michael Davis.
  • July 2007:7 members- 5 voted (though Florence would stay until 2008), and Jimbo and Davis, assuming both are reappointed.
  • February 2008:11 members- 4 appointed, 5 voted, and Jimbo and Davis, assuming both are reappointed.
  • July 2008:11 members- 6 voted, 3 appointed, mainly from the various foundation chapters, and Jimbo and Davis.
This is obviously a guess, but I imagine something similar would be done.Ral315 (talk) 07:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
It reads to me that Florence will become an appointed member starting in July 2007, so we would have 4 elected (Erik + 3 new) from 2007 to 2008, and 6 from July 2008 on. Converting elected members into appointed members is not a bad thing, preferable to plucking chapter members who have never demonstrated any broad support in the greater community. We should elect them first, then convert those that prove to be excellent board members into appointees. NoSeptember 11:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I think that one of the Village Pumps would be a better place for this discussion. --Woohookitty(meow) 12:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Agreed, but I wouldn't know which one.Feel free to move this there... Ral315 (talk) 16:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
WP:VPN, I think. --ais523 16:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

New block reason for accounts - Unb-c[edit]

I keep getting emails from accounts I've indef'd because their username resembles that of a company, so I created a more specific version of {{Usernameblock}}. I'm not really bothered whether I end up being the only person using this, but I think it's useful for people to know about. -- Steel 13:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Need help with Adolfo Carrión Jr.[edit]

Somebody (using both a logged-in account and anon ip)has repeatedly put copyvio material on Adolfo Carrión Jr..I've asked them not to do that, and eventually just sprotected the page to keep it from happening again.Now that they can't edit the page anymore, they've just gone ahead and put the copyvio material on Talk:Adolfo Carrión Jr..I don't want to get dragged into a one-on-one battle over this.Could some other admin take a look at this?Thanks.-- RoySmith (talk) 14:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

IP Address Blocked[edit]

I am a Safety Officer working with Dubai International AIrport. I registered myself on this site as it provides huge amount of useful information in terms of safety and safe airport guidance.

For past several days, whenever I log in, I keep getting the message "Your IP Address has been Blocked". If this keeps on continuing then I will be forced to cancel my subscription from this website and a bad rep for Wikepedia.

It would be highly appreciated if you could resolve this issue at the earliest.



Ali Asghar Ali Safety Officer Dubai International Airport —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aliasghar.ali (talkcontribs) 16:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC).

Hello.In order for us to help you, you need to tell us your IP, as told by the page which is telling you that you are blocked.Morwen - Talk 17:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Wait, you were able to post this text here with your username, which is not possible for people who've been blocked. I suggest you clear your browsers cache and try editing again. Also, if you just want information from WikipediA, that can be done even if you are blocked. 00:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Subscription?User:Zoe|(talk) 03:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
There is no subscription necessary to use Wikipedia, other than the general cost to access the Internet.If you are paying a separate subscription, it sounds like you are being scammed. —AySz88\^-^ 05:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Protecting children's privacy[edit]

This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above.

The community is encouraged to continue working to achieve an acceptable formulation of Wikipedia:Protecting children's privacy, or an alternative, which addresses problems presented by disruptive users, while avoiding the creation of a hostile atmosphere for children who are editing in good faith. Users who disrupt Wikipedia by posing as children, projecting a provocative persona, and disclosing personal information may be banned on a case by case basis. Users who appear to be children editing in good faith who disclose identifying personal information may be appropriately counseled. Deletion and oversight may be used in appropriate cases to remove the information.

For the Arbitration committee. Arbitration Committee Clerk, FloNight 18:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Help needed at request of fellow editor[edit]

I'm on the computer of User:Tenebrae, who was giving himself a Wikibreak for a day and inadvertently gave himself a week due to a typo.

At his monobook page, he meant to end his Wikibreak tomorrow, Dec. 6, at 17 hours (5 p.m.). Instead he typo'd 187 hours, which takes him through to Dec. 13.

He asked me to ask you, with his apologies for his careless typing, if you would fix the typo from "187" to "17." Thank you very much -- Skippu 18:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I've done it - it's clear that he made a mistake by his edit summary in the diff.Thanks :) Martinp23 19:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

street Scholar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)[edit]

This user has created extensive disruption for making sexist attacks before, as well as making racist attacks against Bengali people [5][6]. He was then blocked for a long time[7]. Now, he is back, and has launched a bad faith AfD where he has made personal attacks against me[8] and similarly in my talk page [9]. He has also vandalized several articles by blanking sourced content[10][11], using the vandalism (POV commentary adding) of another anon user as a pretext to hide his tendentious edits. He has made many tendentious edits [12] Something needs to be done about this user. Hkelkar 19:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any recent attempt by you to communicate to this user on his talk page. A properly warned user is more likely to be blocked, I will look through your diffs. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 20:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I have given the user a 2 week block for personal attacks[13]. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 20:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Possible bad faith copy-vio notice[edit]

I need other adminsitrators to visit Starfleet Security as a user has declared the article to be a copyright violation against Memory Alpha since, months ago, the initial version of the article (then 2-3 sentences) was coped over from MA.since then, the entire article has been rewritten with new material and sources added.In its present form the article looks nothing like the version from Memory Alpha.I tried to explain this to the user and remove the notice, but he reverted demanding the notice stay up for several days until other adminsitrators look at it.I think this might be bad faith since the same user posted some very harsh reviews of the article on the talk page and then, after all this, decieded the article was a copvio.I am asking for a speedy removal of this notice since the article does not appear to be n any way a copyright violation. -Husnock 20:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The article looks fine to me. I removed the notice. Cowman109Talk 20:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Further note that the user in question (a) strongly objects to being called "he", (b) was perfectly correctly identifying a copyvio problem, as now pointed out on the talk page (c) is an administrator in good standing of over three years, has never been blocked, and strongly objects to being accused of doing things in bad faith, and (d) should really stop talking about herself in the third person. Morwen - Talk 20:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
The word "possibly" was used to ask other editors for thier opinions, and they have now given them.One must admit, though, the tone of the talk page on that article could have been less harsh.Noone was trying to harm the article and this user certianly did not knowingly commit a copyright violation or copy anything from Memory Alpha. -Husnock 21:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to intrude but couldn't the article be deleted and only the latest non-copyvio revisions restored?BTW, I also disagree that anything was done in bad faith.—Wknight94 (talk) 20:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, technically we could do this, but since all versions in history are copyvio we would lose the attribution required for the GFDL for the new non-copyvio content.This is why starting a new article is the procedure.Wikipedia:Copyright problems#Instructions specifically instructed me to do what I did.I see now after the required tag has been removed twice by various users, someone had now purged the article of the sentences i specifically identified as copyvio, leaving a kind of a mess.Morwen - Talk 20:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Morwen had nothing to do with this, but moments after the copyvio was closed as not valid, another user nominated the article for deletion.User:Cool Cat states he believes the AfD to be bad faith and I kind of agree with him. -Husnock 21:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Why are you persisting in contending my actions were not valid, after I have explained at length the word-for-word that was still present in the version of the article when I tagged it, and have pointed to Wikipedia:Copyright_problems#Instructions, which I followed to the letter.I can accept that you examined the article and were unable to spot the copyvio, as an honest mistake, initially, but it would be nice if you would acknowledge that you saying "there is no copyvio" was a mistake. Morwen - Talk 22:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
The entire article itself indeed did not and still does not appear to be copyvio, but there were indeed subtle sentences mixed in that, while not obvious at a glance, have since been removed. What concerns me now is that the article is unverifiable (and really does seem to belong more in a fansite than on an encyclopedia). Cowman109Talk 22:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Cool Cat and Husnock are wrong, I nominated it because it is a novel synthesis of primary sources, and not especially good ones at that. Guy (Help!) 23:20, 5 December 2006
    • The article is referneced with in-line references to movies and shows and a reference is given at the end with others soon to follow.So, I cannot agree when you say this article "is not a good one at that", we don't need personal opinions about an article beng good or bad, lets all work together to make them all better.As for Coolcat, he is concerned becuase the same people seem to be visiting the Star Trek articles he has worked on and are nominating them for deletion.To date, two have been nominated and when one survives an AfD, the same people who nominated it will visit another one of the articles and try to AfD that one instead.I have to give Coolcat's fears some credence here.I am really hoping that there are no personal motives here and that people are not nominating these articles becuase Coolcat or I worked on them.I can only hope that is not the case. -Husnock 23:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Elvis[edit]

This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above.

For the Arbitration committee. Cowman109Talk 20:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Admin ethics guide[edit]

Is there a guide to administrator ethics somewhere that I'm missing? If not, would anyone be interested in working on such a thing with me? I'm still relatively new to being an admin, and I think it might help to clear up issues about how to deal with abusive editors, how to avoid conflicts of interest, etc. Also, if anyone thinks this is a bad idea, let me know. Thanks, Chris Griswold() 00:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Toot away. Thanks. --Chris Griswold() 00:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
That's a great little nugget, Mackensen.The last line particularly struck me since I always figure two people should be grown up enough not to edit war on a page and, if they're not, they and only they need to take a break.But "This focuses attention on the thing that matters most" is a thought-provoking point...—Wknight94 (talk) 01:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I like this. I do think that some sort of central ethics guidelines - not policy - at least should be discussed, even if just to get admins to talk about the topic.--Chris Griswold() 02:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
If there are more of these, please add them to A Wikimedia Administrator's Handbook (Wikibooks). Just the sort of stuff we're looking for! --SB_Johnny|talk|books 21:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


A bunch of user talk pages (such as User talk:Celestianpower and User talk:Hollerama, to select two random examples) are showing up in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion without any obvious reason for it. What am I missing here? --Calton | Talk 02:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Seems to be fixed now (at least that I can tell); I'd venture to guess that someone tagged one of the templates used on the pages as a speedy without <noinclude>, which then caused all the pages it was transcluded on to be listed in the category. But that's pure speculation. At any rate, I can't find them there now. Essjay (Talk) 03:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I think it had something to do with Clamster5 (talk · contribs)'s templates.I noticed that when I was glancing at some of the user talks up for deletion all had Clamster5's welcome template on them.It was somehow stemming from either the welcome template or the signature, Metros 03:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I believe you're right; it looks like he included both {{User:Clamster5/Welcome}} {{Template:inviteASUE}} when welcoming. The history of Template:inviteASUE shows it was moved from User:Clamster5/Invite, leaving a redirect there, which was tagged for speedy deletion earlier and deleted. So, it looks like any page that he originally put the userspace template on was included in the CSD cat when he tagged it for speedy deletion. Essjay (Talk) 03:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Ah, makes sense Essjay.I was trying to trace it myself but couldn't quite figure out how the pages were being tagged.From the looks of it, Clamster5 wasn't substituting and I couldn't find any evidence in the templates themselves.But, there you go.Metros 04:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


Someone drop past WP:AIV bit of a backklog - I'm at work (on lunch), or I would do it. 02:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any backlog. It's been cleared out. --May the Force be with you!Shreshth91 03:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
There was about 8--10 wating to be dealt with. ViridaeTalk`

User:SORBS DNSBL[edit]

I just happened to stumble upon m:Proxy blocking (don't ask), and it's automatically suppose to block edits by proxies. It's operated by User:Tim Starling. Now, the weird thing is that it supposidly edited, and was subsequently blocked for vandalism. Has this come up before, was the idea scrapped, or did this just go unnoticed? The page that controls this (MediaWiki:Sorbs) still lists this user. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 04:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Without knowing further details of this blocking scheme I'd dare to say that the user account was deliberately created to spoof a MediaWiki script name, as has been done for User:Template namespace initialisation script and User:Conversion script. The fact that a page in user space is displayed to users blocked by the software in this situation is quite an unfortunate quirk, though. 18:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Gun (Firearm) laws in the United States (by state)[edit]

The title of this article has been changed without:

  • adequate consensus
  • cogent evidence to support a change based on article content
  • considering the creation of a new article

Subsequent edits have been made without:

  • adequate consensus
  • any real change large enough to warrant changing the title

Please adivse: Talk:Gun_(Firearm)_laws_in_the_United_States_(by_state)#Suggested_changes_to_this_page

--Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 04:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

All but one editor agreed on the consensus under discussion.Only Haizum μολὼν λαβέ disagreed.A non-issue.No action required.The previous title was felt to be non-descriptive of the title content relative to Gun control, as more than gun control content was included in the article.Giving undue weight to a minor part of Gun (Firearm) laws in the United States (by state) was not felt to be an accurate title.Yaf 04:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Two editors to one is not consensus.
  • If "more than gun control" was included in the article, then it should have been removed per the article title.
  • The content should match the title of an article under contruction, not the other way around.
  • If I was to create a "Gun Control by State" article, it would take only one instance of a non-resrictive law being included in the article for the same logic to be used and the article title changed. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 04:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Looks fine to me. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 04:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
How is two against one consensus? It isn't. Goodbye. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 05:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Goodbye. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 05:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
A little late, but as an uninvolved Admin, with the firm belief that "gun control" means hitting your target, I concur with the name change.Most gun laws have restrictive and expansive elements.— Arthur Rubin |(talk) 18:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Shorter IP blocks are better[edit]

I've noticed that some admins are blocking IPs for increasing amounts of time. Some of these are shared university IPs, some are probably dynamic, and they are blocked for a week, month or even 6 months(!). That's completely useless for our purposes. We are blocking IPs to prevent specific persons from editing, not to punish the IP addresses. In most cases, the person behind the IP changes within hours, so blocking the IP for a week brings no added advantage for our purposes. Even when you have reasons to believe that a prolonged attack over a couple of days is coming from the same person, there is no reason to expect that the same person will be using the IP next week. I strongly advise less fancy template work on talk pages, shorter blocks (3-24 hours is almost always enough), and in cases of prolonged attacks coming from the same IP over a number of weeks - if you really want to be useful, inform the school. Zocky | picture popups 05:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I do the longer blocks on IPs when there are not any constructive edits coming, but just more vandalism everytime the block expires. If I see a variety of types of edits from the IP then I do shorter blocks. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 05:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Remember the point of blocks, by WP:BLOCK, is to protect Wikipedia. If an address has 9 out of 10 edits being vandalism (or even 10 out of 10), and they are editing several pages per week, then it is far more to the deteriment of the encyclopedia to allow them to continue to edit. Patstuarttalk|edits 06:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I understand the need for long blocks when shorter ones have not worked and virtually no good contributions are being made. I've found some IP addresses, especially those of schools and universities, to be chronic vandals. Also, Wikipedia seems to be doing significantly worse lately when it comes to catching vandalism, especially in a timely manner. I've been finding vandalism that has gone unreverted for many hours and sometimes days on high profile articles. Sometimes the vandalism is not even caught and the article is edited without being reverted. Therefore, more aggressive blocking of IP addresses that make few or no constructive edits might be appropriate. However, I have seen some admins block IP addresses for six months or a year when the account has only made one or two edits. Also, before going past the one month mark, I think that the ISP, college or company should be contacted. In many cases, they can identify the vandals and either greatly reduce the vandalism or stop it completely. Perhaps it should be part of the blocking procedure before long blocks are made. -- Kjkolb 11:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

We already contact ISPs etc. Check out Wikipedia:Abuse reports. Currently, I assume due to available resourcing and likelihood of success, we only do so after 5 bans minimum. Note that, while it may sound simple, in reality it takes a long time because of the necessary to compile all the information. Nil Einne 16:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Expired prods are piling up[edit]

CAT:PROD is now backlogged past two days or about 300 "articles" and user pages. According to the category tracker, the number of prods is at an all time high. Please get out your flamethrowers and help clear this backlog. Thanks. MER-C 06:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Tennis performance timeline comparison (women)[edit]

I'm not quite sure what to do about this article. User:Ryulong nominated it for speedy deletion, because it was created by a sockpuppet, User:Tennis expert, of the indefinitely blocked user User:Cute 1 4 u (as per WP:CSD G5). However, it has actually survived an AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tennis performance timeline comparison (women)), so it does appear to have some validity as an article. Any ideas on what to do? enochlau (talk) 07:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm...I don't have any idea, this needs a community concensus. I would like it to stay as it has encyclopedic value. But due to the criteria for speedy deletion, I have to consider this, this is a very tough decision to make. If we apply CSD G5 here, then it has to go. Terence Ong 07:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
G5 it. The article is not something you'd find written in an encyclopedia, there are obvious tone problems, and it wouldn't hurt us if it was gone. – Chacor 07:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I wouldn't necessarily be that quick to dismiss the article. The AfD has established some form of community consensus that this is something we can have - the introduction can be rewritten to conform with tone quite easily and you do find comparative tables in encyclopedias. The question is how strictly the speedy deletion criteria should be applied. enochlau (talk) 08:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe that in this case the AfD acts as a community consensus for keeping. There is a similar qualifier on the notability CSD criteria G11:"If a page has previously gone through deletion process and was not deleted, it should not be speedily deleted under this criterion." That line was instated following a discussion here which decided that AfD's overruled CSD's, and I would suggest that this principle extended to all (non-copyvio related) speedy deletion criteria: surviving a formal deletion process should make the page ineligible for speedy deletion. --tjstrf talk 08:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Someone raised something along these lines on IRC the other day (I forget who). I said to them that to delete whole articles, which have no other problems, only because they were contributed to by a banned user or a sock thereof, is simply cutting off our noses to spite our faces. The article is the community's now, and we can do with it what we like. If there's a consensus to keep it, evidenced by an AfD, then we should naturally keep it. --bainer (talk) 09:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
That's an interesting proposal actually, that once a page survives XfD, it should be exempt from speedy deletion (except if it's patently not the same content). Is it worth putting into the CSD guidelines though? I'm thinking this is a rather small minority of cases, but it might be worth noting just to prevent future confusion. enochlau (talk) 09:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
It's already there in G11, I see no reason why it shouldn't be in the general rules as well. With a parenthetical exception for copyvios, of course. --tjstrf talk 09:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Just because something is technically eligible for speedy deletion under the criteria doesn't mean that it must be deleted, only that it can be. Conversely, just because something has survived one of the deletion processes, doesn't mean that it should never be deleted. That said, in a common sense approach to deletion, the fact that an article like this (where the only issue relating to the criteria is that it was contributed to by a banned user) has been kept by an AfD would almost always mean that it should be kept. --bainer (talk) 12:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

This seems like process for the sake of process. Say I copy and paste the article to my sandbox and then you delete the article, I could then repost the material and the process would have been honoured. What a waste of time. The argument that the article is non encyclopedic is also a nonstarter - it's demonstrably a minority POV, as it's passed an Afd. If I've ever seen an occasion demading Ignore All Rules, this is it. It's a good article and should stay - don't cut off your nose to spite your face. --Dweller 10:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC) P.S. I'm not an admin, so if I'm not supposed to post my thoughts here, please excuse me.

You are allowed to put your thoughts here, its for anyone to say anything. Terence Ong 11:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Block and subsequent unblock of Tennis expert[edit]

I understand that User:Tennis expert is a confirmed sock of User:Cute 1 4 u with checkuser evidence, but in my dealings with User:Cute 1 4 u before he/she was banned, they were not of the intelligence to write the article in that tone, or with that degree of knowledge of the wiki syntax. They seemed to be very ameteurish/childish. This is evinced by their userpage when they were not banned (have a look at the deleted edits). Is it possible that checkuser has got this one wrong, and we have banned a worthwhile contributor. Possibly because they share an isp? The only other option as I see it is that they were putting on the 13 year old girl act (guessing the age here) and that messy myspace like userpage? And to what end would all those thousands of edits have been. ViridaeTalk 09:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

As someone who's had run-ins with Tennis expert I agree. Tennis expert does not exhibit behaviour of Cute 1 4 u, neither do they edit the same articles. Questions, questions... – Chacor 09:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Could it be a school, or something similar? yandman 09:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
We know Cute 1 4 u's IPs, and it's not a school (there is considerable question as to whether Cute 1 4 u is a child at all). The other sock blocked, Tennislover edited many of the same articles as well. Dmcdevit·t 08:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

It looks like the user in question has had an unblock declined by User:Ryulong who is not an admin, yet the note on User:Tennis expert's user talk page suggests he is [14]. I don't know how check-user can prove that two users are the same person, just that they have the same IP address?? Should another admin review? Catchpole 12:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I asked several administrators to look over that message before I sent it to her, including the blocking administrator. Frankly, there is not much that can be done in a checkuser block (from what I was told) other than to request that another checkuser be performed. And my actions such as that there have been discussed before in that they are not harmful. I know I cannot unblock, and I don't expect to do that for a while, but things such as checkuser blocks or blatant attacks are things that can be reviewed and declined. However, I will "un-review" it, and just place all of my commentary beneath it, seeing as this is more complex than usual.—Řÿūłóñģ (竜龍) 18:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Renesis13 has unblocked Tennis expert (supported). Something definitely has to be cleared up here. – Chacor 04:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

My actions are explained at User talk:Dmcdevit#Re: Tennis expert.I did not know of this discussion at the time, and did not mean to step on any toes or seize control of the situation.I do still, however, support my position that Tennis expert is not a sock (see evidence at the above link). -- Renesis (talk) 08:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Tennislover (talk · contribs), tennis expert (talk · contribs) and Twister Twist (talk · contribs) were all blocked as sockpuppets of Cute 1 4 u, a banned user. This was done after an informed CheckUser, lots of investigation, and double checking by Essjay, another checkuser, before making it public. I am confident in the identification, and I was very surprised to see another administrator unblock without reasoning and even attempting to ask me beforehand. The rationale provided seems to have homed in on minor discrepancies when the IP evidence is clear, two socks edit the same set of articles with similar usernames, and we already know that Cute 1 4 u has a history of taking on a variety of personae in her reincarnations.Dmcdevit·t 08:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, neither Cute 1 4 u nor any of her socks have ever edited tropical cyclone and related articles, or for that matter edited articles helpfully. This user also definitely has knowledge that I don't expect C14u to have. Given also that this user started editing even before C14u's first block, I cannot support any block related to this imposed on Tennis expert from what I can tell. – Chacor 08:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
With respect to your time, research, and general experience in these matters, I do not see why you keep refusing to acknowledge my communication to you.I have said several times that I absolutely did research the matter before I executed the unblock, and I took mentions of several attempts to communicate with you with no response to them as a major factor in my decision.In addition, at your advice I spent more than an hour researching the several accounts' contributions, and all of them exhibit strong similarities except User:Tennis expert.User:Tennis expert's contribution times also overlap all of the suspected socks with no similarities when based on time, and not that many are to matching articles, especially when you consider the entire range of TE's contributions. -- Renesis (talk) 08:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Dmcdevit, you appear to be saying that I am a sock puppet of cute 1 4 U because I'm a sock puppet of cute 1 4 U."... two socks edit the same set of articles...."It also appears that one of your criteria for making a sock puppet conclusion is similarity in user names.What is similar about "Tennis expert" and "Tennislover"?We both have "tennis" in our names.But so what?I chose "Tennis expert" simply because I anticipated that most of my registered edits would be in tennis-related articles, and my unregistered edits had been almost completely in that area for the previous 8 or 9 months.(I then started editing tropical cyclone articles because I have been interested in that subject since about 1971, when I experienced my first hurricane.)Is everyone on Wikipedia who has "tennis" in his or her username a suspected sock puppet of cute 1 4 U?Also, why don't you check the IP addresses I've used today and yesterday and the day before and really at any time in the past since I registered.You've apparently concluded in the past that cute 1 4 U is in the Chicago, Illinois area.As you will see, I am no where close to that location, and the first two or three digits of my IP addresses are different from the first two digits of the IP addresses used by cute 1 4 U.Your other reasoning is that cute 1 4 U has varied personaes.But that makes Chacor and everyone else in the world a suspect who has a personae different from cute 1 4 U; therefore, that is a useless criterion.What will it take to convince you that I am not a sock puppet for cute 1 4 U or any other past or present Wikipedia user?Or is your mind closed to that possibility?You have my email address.I'll provide whatever private information you need, within reason.Tennis expert 08:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
The checkuser process is a detailed examination of the IP addresses that you have been using to connect to the internet and has nothing to do with your user name or even your contribution history.If Dmcdevit and Essjay say that Tennislover (talk · contribs), tennis expert (talk · contribs) and Twister Twist (talk · contribs) are all coming from the same computer as Cute 1 4 u and her sockpuppets, then I trust that finding completely.I don't know what prompted the check, since checkuser is only done after there is other evidence; the other admins weighing in here may wish to consider that as well.The question now is will a community ban for disruption be enforced against the person or only against the disruptive personae the user has created and not against their helpful personae. Thatcher131 09:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Has Dmcdevit actually said that I am using the same computer as cute 1 4 u?I haven't seen where he has said that.The closest anyone has come is that my IP address is within the same IP address range as that used by cute 1 4 u.I'm not sure what it takes to be within the "same range."But if my IP address is different, how can it be said that my computer is the same as the computer of cute 1 4 u?And how are dynamic IP address assignments handled by checkuser, which is my situation?Aside from all this, I would like to know what "other evidence" existed to cause the checkuser to be conducted.No one requested it as far as I can determine.The only "other evidence" talked about so far is that Tennislover and I both have "tennis" in our user names and that we have edited some of the same tennis articles.The logic (illogic to me) appears to be that if Tennislover is a sock puppet for cute 1 4 U and given that Tennislover and I both have "tennis" in our user names, then I also must be a sock puppet for cute 1 4 U.That makes no sense.And where is the good faith presumption when it comes to my account?What about fundamental fairness, which to almost any rational human being includes notice and the opportunity to contest the evidence before adverse action is taken unless an emergency situation exists.And even then, a meaningful opportunity to overturn the adverse action should be provided after the fact.Refusing to discuss the evidence and reflexively saying that "if A said it, then it must be true and accurate" is wholly insufficient in my opinion.Tennis expert 09:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I just read the discussion on Dmcdevit's talk page. If Dmcdevit says on his talk page - "You are on the same IP as Cute 1 4 u" - then I it means Tennis expert is on the same IP as C14U. Note: Dmc doesn't even say same range, or same ISP. And as the community has already banned C14U, I would support a reblock of Tennis expert. - Aksi_great (talk) 16:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Have you read my talkpage on this issue?Řÿūłóñģ originally said, "This block was made because it was proven through CheckUser evidence that shows you and Tennislover are the same person, and Tennislover and Cute 1 4 u are the same person."BUT, he then amended his post to say the following, "This block was made because it was proven through CheckUser evidence that shows you and Tennislover utilize the same IP address range, and Tennislover and Cute 1 4 u do, as well."That is his last statement on the matter.Notice the reference to "IP address range."What Řÿūłóñģ says about this is relevant because he claims to have talked with Dmcdevit about this situation.So, given Řÿūłóñģ's change in position, I am not sure how you know what Dmcdevit meant when he said, "You are on the same IP...."If I wanted to say that Person A is using the same IP address as Person B, it would be very easy to be clear about such an important point and write, "Person A is using the same IP address as Person B."If I wanted to say that Person A has the same Internet provider (IP) has Person B, I might easily say, "Person A is on the same IP as Person B."And no one so far has disputed the simple fact that my IP addresses are 204.XX.XXX.XX or 76.XXX.XXX.XX (I use two Internet providers) while cute 1 4 U's IP addresses are 75.XXX.XXX.XX.Tennis expert 17:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Just to further emphasize the "IP range" point, Řÿūłóñģ said this on his own talk page:"Dmcdevit did a checkuser on a user who was suspected to be Cute 1 4 u, which was User:Tennislover, based off of known information about the IPs she had used when she was initially banned. User:Tennis expert (from what I can glean from the information provided to me by Dmcdevit) was also on the same range when compared against the IPs."Notice again the reference to "ranges."Tennis expert 18:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

If the account is only making good edits, why do we care if it's a sock of a banned user or not? Zocky | picture popups 16:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Depends what prompted the check in the first place. Inquiring minds...Mackensen (talk) 16:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
As someone who has been tracking the Cute 1 4 u problem since before the first block, I can assure you that this editor has caused a great deal of difficulty.My position regarding the Tennis expert account is that I am sure that appropriate policy has been followed and that the blocking admin and supporting admin have good reason to believe the account is another sockpuppet.I do not understand how checkuser works, technically, so on the basis that I do not understand, I maintain the hope that the blocking admin has made a mistake (despite good intentions and following policy).Is it possible that Tennis expert has the misfortune to edit using the same ISP as Cute 1 4 u and so coincidentally used the same IP address at a different time?On the assumption that this is possible, I would say that we should extend the benefit of the doubt, given that the account seems to be used only for productive edits.If this is not the case, if we are really sure that this is a sockpuppet account, it should of course remain banned.I would support an unban of the Cute 1 4 u editor only after a full year of no more abuse.That is, no editing of Wikipedia whatsoever.And with the understanding that the account would not use Wikipedia as a chat site, would not violate copyright (basically, would not deal with images at all), and would refrain from even a hint of personal attacks, whatever the provocation.So far, Cute 1 4 u has been unable to go even a week without violating these since the original ban and has shown absolutely no intention of editing productively since the ban was placed.I'll also go on record as stating I believe the unblocking admin made a mistake.--Yamla 17:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Hello, anyone want to consider the reason this came up in the first place?Calm cooperative editors don't get checkusered.Does anyone remember this complaint? Thatcher131 17:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
That's weird.Are you saying that my permanent block arose because of the disagreement among Coredesat, Chacor, and myself?If so, are you speculating or do you have direct knowledge that the disagrement was the cause of the current mess?What does that disagreement have to do with the question of whether I am a sock puppet for cute 1 4 U or Tennislover?Notice what Chacor himself said here: "As far as I am aware, neither Cute 1 4 u nor any of her socks have ever edited tropical cyclone and related articles, or for that matter edited articles helpfully. This user also definitely has knowledge that I don't expect C14u to have. Given also that this user started editing even before C14u's first block, I cannot support any block related to this imposed on Tennis expert from what I can tell."And notice the olive branch that Chacor extended to me on my own talkpage and that I accepted.It sounds like you're searching for a new justification to impose a permanent ban on me.The justification you're citing was resolved to the parties' apparent satisfaction.Tennis expert 17:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I didn't request a checkuser, and neither I nor Chacor even mentioned Cute 1 4 u on that report, so I'm fairly sure that isn't why the checkuser was run. I don't support an indefinite block either - Tennis expert has hardly done anything worth banning for. --Coredesat 17:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks very much.Tennis expert 18:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I no longer think that any block is supported by the evidence, and thank everyone here for the time put into this. With help from Mackensen, the evidence from CheckUser, not just behavior, doesn't support that claim. I think it was a giant misreading of the evidence, perhaps compounded by a bit of confirmation bias in seeing Tennislover and Tennis expert at the same time. I can't really give the technical explanation that would make this mix-up seem more plausible without giving away personally identifiable information, but another checkuser agrees in the assessment based on IPs that they are different. Apologies for the undue hassle this may have caused (and note that the other two users blocked at the same time, Tennislover and Twister Twist are still confirmed Cute 1 4 u). Dmcdevit·t 19:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the extra effort put into reviewing this.I'm glad it's been resolved. -- Renesis (talk) 20:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I am unsurprised by this outcome, because although I implicitly trust 99% of checkuser results, the behavioral evidence tying Tennis Expert to Cute 1 4 U in this case was exceptionally underwhelming. Dmcdevit's willingness to review the matter again is a Good Thing. I would urge that he post to Tennis Expert's talkpage as well. Newyorkbrad 20:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I am glad this has been resolved in this manner, and I accept the apology.And I want to give special thanks to the users who have supported me or at least expressed skepticism about the allegations.Without Renesis, I never would have succeeded in fighting (or even been allowed to fight) the ban.He deserves phenomenal credit for taking a risk on me and then sticking to his beliefs despite being severely pressured to relent.What's even more remarkable is that he has been an administrator for just 1 week!
Please, I'm begging you, don't put anyone else through this wringer again.The stress on me has been unbelievable.There simply has to be a better, more open, more impartial way of fighting sock puppetry.There has to be a way to allow someone who has been banned without advance notice to contest the ban in a reasonable manner, without being restricted to posting solely on his or her talk page.
It will take me a long time to get over the stuff that's been said about me all over Wikipedia because of this incident: the presumption of my evildoing by so many different editors, the unwillingness to listen to me or the evidence I've presented, the devaluing of my contributions and character,and the unfairness of the procedures that were followed.All that stuff about me is going to be "out there" (on several different user talk pages) for anyone to see.People who were not involved will wonder about me: were the allegations really true despite the ultimate outcome?There is no practical way, to my knowledge, to ensure that the stuff is deleted.The damage is done.I cannot begin to express how appalling this whole thing has been to me.Tennis expert 20:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Tennis expert, you should know that this discussion will be archived (and therefore pretty much won't be seen by anyone not specifically looking for it) within 48 hours after the discussion is over. You can also archive the discussion on your talk page if you are sick of looking at it (if you don't know how to create a talk archive, someone will help you), and I'm sure others with this discussion on their pages will do the same. The checkuser process is important and generally reliable, and I'm sure that the checkusers do their best to prevent this type of scenario from happening. Newyorkbrad 21:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


The user Nicolass has been adding a lot of relatively non-notable articles regarding the company Sophos and its product offerings.I don't believe Wikipedia should be a marketing arm for Sophos, so it'd be great if some of the lesser articles could be trimmed or merged with the Sophos article.Also, it'd be nice to have some discussion on how far the trimming should go.I believe the company itself is notable, but I don't believe individual products like Sophos WS1000 Web Security Appliance require their own Wikipedia pages.Thanks! Jonemerson 07:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Some redirected, some deleted, note left on Talk.Please keep an eye on him. Thanks, Guy (Help!) 16:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Sword of Christ[edit]

Can someone check User_talk:HighInBC/Archive_14#User:Sword_of_Christ. I've blocked Sword of Christ, but the block isn't properly showing everywhere, even though I get an automated message he is already blocked when I try to place one. - Mgm|(talk) 09:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Please use descriptive summaries when blocking users[edit]

I was browsing the block log when I noticed that an admnin had recently blocked a user for having an inapropriate username with the summary:

06:49, 6 December 2006 Shreshth91 (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Cordlesstwat (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite (user...)

Please note that the block summary is seen by the blocked user. It should explain to someone who unfamiliar with Wikipedia why they have been blocked. For this reason it should be a sentence without jargon and should ideally link to the policy they have been blocked for violating.

The summary above is not sufficient in this regard. Although in this instance the reason the username is inapropriate is clear, there are other occasions when the reason would not be obvious to anybody not intimately acquainted with our blocking policy. Compare the following edit summary, which (with the exception of the accidentally repeated word ;) ) is a model of good practice:

08:22, 6 December 2006 Winhunter (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Holy crap I don't know who the hell we think we are (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite (Please read our our username policy and choose another name)

Thryduulf 09:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

'user...' is a sufficiently common block summary that it's even explained on MediaWiki:Blockedtext, so its meaning should be clear to blocked users who actually read the message they're given (I'm not sure how common that is...) --ais523 09:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
My point is that block messages shouldn't need to be explained, they should stand alone. Thryduulf 10:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
They should have been given a {{usernameblock}} notice anyway. ViridaeTalk 10:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Let me explain why I did not slap a notice on the said user. This was because, after a discussion of what name a disgruntled vandal would use to impersonate User:Coredesat, we came up with the name of Cordlesstwat. So, one of the admins in the channel, created the user, and I, while monitoring the new user log noticed it, and immediately blocked (without autoblock checked, of course). This example in question is a wrong one to take (since nobody will notice it save the admin who created the account), though I am inclined to agree that we should be making an effort to use more descritptive block summaries in cases where the user may be confused as to what he has done wrong (shared IPs, policy infringements like 3RR), and not in cases of username blockages, where the person knows full well that they have deliberately chosen an offensive username. --May the Force be with you!Shreshth91 10:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Ok, let me clear it up further. I created the user after the discussion. --May the Force be with you!Shreshth91 11:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough, I was more talking in the case of a normal person creating an account with an inappropriate username. Not this case. They would therefore be notified about the block reason by the block notice put on their talk page. ViridaeTalk 11:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I believe the only reason "User...." is a common block summary is because that's what Curps's antiwillybot uses on perceived page move vandals. That doesn't mean admins should do the same. (Radiant) 12:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Bad backlog at WP:CFD[edit]

WP:CFD has a heavy backlog.The regular discussion backlog is 12 days long at the time of this writing.Even the speedy renames appear to be proceeding slowly.(Some categories that I submitted for speedy renaming one week ago have still not been renamed.)Is it possible to get extra administrative assistance on the backlog?Thank you, Dr. Submillimeter 11:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

  • I'll see if I can work on it. - Mailer Diablo 13:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

A small dent was put in the backlog on 6 Dec 2006, but the backlog is still 12 days long.Some of the items remaining in the backlog look rather complex; expert attention may be warranted.

Additionally, it seems like some users are perpetually creating categories that are almost immediately deleted in near-unanimous decisions.See, for example, the clergy-related categories created by Pastorwayne since 15 Nov 2006.This phenomenon is partly responsible for increasing the volume at WP:CFD.The administration may want to look at this issue further.Dr. Submillimeter 09:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

School IP consent blocks[edit]

There's a lot of vandalism coming from (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). User:Daniel Case is in contact with the tech guy of the school, and they may consider a consented soft block (though apparently nothing decided yet). I have little experience with this, and there seem to be questions about the options and procedures, so I'll relay this here from User talk:Femto#

He said they may want to do that. Have we ever thought of formalizing that as a policy? I should think it would require a formal request from the school board or superintendent. Daniel Case 23:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Anyone want to take over the case? (pun intended) Femto 14:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

3RR (8 or 9RR actually by the looks of it)[edit]

Hey, sorry to pass the buck here but I need to get back to work.I protected the Negima!? article for a massive edit war but some folks definitely need some 3RR blocks - or 8RR or 9RR or whatever the case is there.—Wknight94 (talk) 18:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Going commando[edit]

Going commando has a single editor that wishes to use the page for noting whether celebrities are wearing underwear.The discussion on the Talk page has many editors expressing disapproval of this section.But when the sections are removed, the single editor is quick to replace them in violation of 3RR. Jonemerson 19:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I think that a sourced section is a relevant addition to the article. The 3RR rule violation still stinks, though. EVula // talk // // 20:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I wish I knew WP policy a bit better, but content like the Celebrities section would not appear in a published encyclopedia, so I don't think it should appear on Wikipedia.However, dictionaries do use published works to decide what to publish, and often use those quotes.So perhaps a compromise I could live with is to only keep those sections where the word "Going commando" was used -- however, the editor is choosing to add any reference to a celebrity not wearing underwear.My preferred solution is still to have the section removed, because 10 years from now it will be completely outdated, and I don't think the talk of the day should be in an encyclopedia (Unless there was a Talk of The Day December 6th, 2006 article :)). Jonemerson 20:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Not wearing underwear is going commando, so your logic is flawed in that respect. However, this is very clearly a content debate and not the sort of thing that needs much administrator intervention; let's shift discussion to Talk:Going commando instead. EVula // talk // // 20:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Upon reviewing the situation, you haven't done very much to warn him about the 3RR rule; leaving him a message on his user page isn't a very good idea. Randomly declaring the page protected when it very clearly is not is also bad form. I've warned Sjohnsonaz; if he reverts again, then I'll block him. EVula // talk // // 20:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I thought adding {{protect>> to a page would protect it, so that's what I put on the Edit summary when I submitted.But apparently that doesn't work... I wish I knew why :).It looked protected in preview! :)And what's wrong with leaving people messages on their user pages?Isn't that what they're there for?Or did I screw up and I'm supposed to use his talk page?Thanks! Jonemerson 20:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
You can only protect pages if you are an administrator. --tjstrf talk 20:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
User pages are for the users themselves to edit (usually); user talk pages, just like regular talk pages, are where discussion goes. Aside from the logic behind this, users are presented with a message telling them that they have new comments on their talk page; no such notice is given for edits made to their user page, though it shows up on their watchlist, assuming that (a) they have their userpage on their watchlist (a reasonable assumption) and (b) they check their watchlist often. By dropping them a line on their talk page, you're virtually guaranteeing that they'll see your message; continued editing after a warning means that they don't care that they are possibly breaking the rules and are disrupting Wikipedia on purpose. EVula // talk // // 22:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I have deleted List of celebrities who go commando.It was without doubt one of the worst ideas for an article I have ever encountered.The way to deal with obsessives is not to give them their own article to play with, it's to get them to (a) change their behaviour or (b) go stick their head in a pig [(c) Sirius Cybernetics Corporation, Complaints Division].I'm with the above: engage the user in dialogue, if he persists then politely show him the door.Guy (Help!) 23:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
The list article was my fault; I mentioned it as an example of what wouldn't be a good idea for an article. Fat lot of good that did. EVula // talk // // 00:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
It was recreated, and I have redeleted.It may need salting.User:Zoe|(talk) 03:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Category Rename[edit]

Could you please rename as per the following: Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_November_28#Category:S.C._Johnson_brands TonyTheTiger 19:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Notability[edit]

This message was on my Talk page this morning - any comments for the originator of the project? (aeropagitica) 22:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

"Could you check this WikiProject out and tell me what needs to be added? Obviously, a lot of things need to be added before it can become active, but can you tell me specifically which? Thank you." Diez2 06:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  • It's got to be worth a try, and if he can get enough people interested then maybe the cruft backlog might get trimmed a bit.Who knows.Run it up the flagpole and see who salutes, I say. Guy (Help!) 23:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Black people (with a capital B)[edit]

Don't know what to make of this. POV fork? At the wrong title? Anyone have any ideas? exolon 01:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it is a civil rights neologism, not sure. Spelling things with a capital letter to separate it's importance from the common usage has been done in numerous examples. The question is, does it pass WP:NEO? HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 01:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
It's a copy of Black people. I've speedied it, looks like an attempt to POV fork, or create an inappropriately titled page or something. exolon 01:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
And it is outa there, I thought it was a bit well referenced for a new article. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 01:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Looks like an attempt (if a bit hamfisted) to split the article into something along the lines of 'Black people (African)' and 'Black people (Generic)' - see my talk/creators talk. exolon 01:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
We now have 3 articles - Black people, Black people (with a capital B) and Black people (ethnicity). exolon 01:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
This needs to stop before the page histories become messed up. Prodego talk 01:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I deleted both of the new articles. I don't really understand what each individual article is supposed to be about and there is very little discussion about the proposed split on Talk:Black people. -- tariqabjotu 01:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I recently stumbled across Black People (disambiguation), moved it to the correctly capitalised title of Black people (disambiguation), realised it was not linked from anywhere, and linked to it from Black people by putting the {{otheruses}} disambiguation hatnote at the top of Black people. Unfortunately this dab hatnote got reverted, as some people think the existence of a disambiguation page itself implies the wrong things. Anyway, the material at Black People (disambiguation) is mostly duplicated in Black people, but the dab page remains orphaned. Possibly Black people is itself acting as an unorthodox type of dab page, though it should really, in my opinion, aim towards a summary style to act as a portal. The issue seems to be the conflict between having Black people be about Black culture (compare things like Deaf culture where both Black and Deaf are spelt with an uppercase letter), or whether Black people should be a summary-style article about the different 'black' peoples. Can anyone say what should be done with Black People (disambiguation)? Carcharoth 11:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia as a chat site[edit]

I swear that WP:NOT used to discourage people from using Wikipedia as a chat site.However, the policy currently states, "You can chat with folks on their user talk pages" (Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought, section 5).Is this true?Are we really happy with people using Wikipedia solely as a chat site?Or am I misreading this bit of the policy?--Yamla 01:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

They are really for chatting about Wikipedia related stuff, that should be reworded perhaps. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 01:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
That's certainly my understanding.I'll go suggest a change to the wording.--Yamla 01:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Looks like someone beat me to it.:)--Yamla 01:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
lol, great minds eh? HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 01:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
(edit conflictx2)Well I thought it was implied, but I guess I can see where some people would see the confusion in that. Anyway, I fixed it now to say "You can chat with folks about Wikipedia-related topics on their user talk pages". Is that better, Yamla? Nishkid64 01:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
(ec) A very similiar question is a hot topic at the Wikipedia:Reference Desk right now.User space or project space is appropriate for essays or discussions about wikipedia.But if all someone is doing is chatting, they're clearly don't share the project's goals, and may find themselves unwelcome.However, fairly wide latitude is generally given to people who do useful work on the project- a certain amount of irrelevant stuff is happily tolerated because it doesn't hurt anything. But, Wikipedia is specifically not a forum, and if a talk page or project page turns into excessive irrelevant chatting, someone may come by and clean out the irrelevant content.Friday (talk) 01:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
As long as people aren't becoming valley girls and leaving comments that consist of "oh my God did you see what Becky was wearing today?"-type comments, I don't have a problem with people going mildly off-topic on talk pages. EVula // talk // // 16:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The Prayer (song)[edit]

I tried to move The Prayer (song) back to that name, since someone had moved it to "The Prayer (Bloc Party song)", but accidentally hit slash and enter in rapid succession, so the page is currently called "The Prayer (/song)". Can this get fixed? Evan Reyes 04:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

You could first get it moved back to The Prayer (Bloc Party song) via uncontroversial moves at WP:RM. However, given the history, this is clearly a controversial move, so, after it's been fixed, you will need to list it as such in order to move it back to The Prayer (song). Patstuarttalk|edits 04:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
From the edit history, there doesn't seem to be any controversy at all, merely a failure to communicate.Possibly User:Evanreyes was unaware that the page had been moved to make way for a disambiguation page at The Prayer (song).I will move it to The Prayer (Bloc Party song), at least, and actually create a dab page!Morwen - Talk 07:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. -Patstuarttalk|edits 15:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Hanuman Das[edit]

This user (Hanuman Das (talk · contribs)) has created an article for the premieres of movies for every day of the year.I would like to do a mass AfD on all them, do I have to go into all 366 articles and nominate each of them for deletion?User:Zoe|(talk) 04:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Since they are very related articles, a mass-nom would be appropriate. ---J.S(T/C) 06:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
How is a mass-nom performed?I also think these new articles are inappropriate. Jonemerson 09:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps someone should notify him first. It would be the polite thing to do, given the number of articles. -Patstuarttalk|edits 15:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see what the problem is. The day of the year articles, e.g. December 7 are getting quite full. There is continual pressure to remove events that may well be notable to keep the lists short. Do you really want me to add a "films" heading to every day of the year? this is an indexing problem. There is no way to look up films by release date. I carefully combined the use of categories and lists to avoid an overly long list or an overly large category. This, my friend, is the wave of the future as people get tired of the size of the day of the year articles. Within a few years you will see "December 7 in science", "December 7 in politics", "December 7 in archeology" to get around this issue. Please reconsider your position. —Hanuman Das 18:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Do you really want me to add a "films" heading to every day of the year? . No.
  • There is no way to look up films by release date Go here. --Calton | Talk 00:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

On a related subject, this user is apparently setting out to add movie releases to every one of the 365 "days of the year" pages.It's not historically notable that a particular film happened to premiere on a particular date, and we've long maintained the policy that film premieres, book publications, CD releases, etc, are virtually never notable on these pages, and should be reverted on sight as listcruft. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 05:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

See below (Administrators' noticeboard#March 15 in film) where I was told precisely the opposite and given time to move the same into the days of the years pages. —Hanuman Das 05:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Alternative - a single article entitled something like "List of movie releases by date" might do the trick, wouldn't it?Rklawton 17:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Noooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! A list of every movie ever released?Talk about cruft!!!!! User:Zoe|(talk) 21:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, it sure beats spreading it across 366 articles... :-) Rklawton 21:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Jandolin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)[edit]

Repeated mass-blanking of content in Goa Inquisition (vandalism)[15][16], vandalism of sources [17][18] , repeated vandalism of pic link[19][20][21][22][23] and making religious attacks against Hindus in edit summary[24][25]. He has been doing this off and on, for months. He has been warned twice [26][27] but he persists. Hkelkar 04:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Jandolin called users bigots on Goa Inq.--D-Boy 08:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
He has also wikistalked me, see my userpage as of October 30 and his contribs around that day whoch consisted of vandalizing pages I had on my "TO/DO list"[28][29][30]. Bakaman 06:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
This sounds like an issue for WP:AN/I, or perhaps WP:RFI, if you think it's vandalism, and not just a content dispute.Patstuarttalk|edits 14:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
What about his slurs in edit summaries (despite repeated warnings)? Hkelkar 20:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Honestly, that was over a month ago now. Like I said, if he's continuing, try perhaps bringin it up at ANI. -Patstuarttalk|edits 02:10, 10 December 2006 (UTC) deletion[edit]

I recently authored an article titled "".I thought it was legitimate, informative, and even cleverly executed (as you will see).I hope it can be undeleted.

It's been deleted by four different admins now.The article apparently doesn't meet our WP:WEB guideline.This is not the proper place for this discussion, however.You need to go to WP:DRV.User:Zoe|(talk) 04:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
This may be useful: Wikipedia:Why was my page deleted?. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 04:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

March 15 in film[edit]

What's the deal with March 15 in film?Is this a new standard format for date-specific trivia about movies?It seems incorrect to me, but I'm not sure what Wikipedia is doing about the overwhelming amount of data in normal date pages.Thanks! Jonemerson 07:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The editor seems to be doing a lot of these articles: Special:Contributions/Hanuman_Das
  • See the question posted a few sections above yours. - 09:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
As they have no content or context, they should be speedied. Proto:: 14:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
This is rather disappointing to see.Out of all the ways this could possibly be handled (and I'm not convinced of the necessity of these pages yet), you think this way is best? --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
The ones that are empty articles, yes.The ones that have content, no, they should go via AFD. Proto:: 15:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see what the problem is. The day of the year articles, e.g. December 7 are getting quite full. There is continual pressure to remove events that may well be notable to keep the lists short. Do you really want me to add a "films" heading to every day of the year? this is an indexing problem. There is no way to look up films by release date. I carefully combined the use of categories and lists to avoid an overly long list or an overly large category. This, my friend, is the wave of the future as people get tired of the size of the day of the year articles. Within a few years you will see "December 7 in science", "December 7 in politics", "December 7 in archeology" to get around this issue. Please reconsider your position. —Hanuman Das 18:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC) P.S. I did not create any empty articles, they have at least one event in them, so perhaps somebody else created March 15? —Hanuman Das 18:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

This is a very bad trend.We do not need yet one more way to divide and duplicate data. -- Renesis (talk) 19:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
OK, then. Apparently there is no room for difference of opinion or discussion. Please give me time to move the info to the date articles before deleting. —Hanuman Das 20:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Of course there is room for difference of opinion or discussion.That is what this is all about.I will not delete any articles before the data has been moved; if they do get deleted before you have a chance to move the information, let me know and I will try to help you. -- Renesis (talk) 20:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
And if they get rejected from the date articles? What then? BTW, how much are you willing to bet against the splitting of the date articles by topic within two years. —Hanuman Das 21:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

They will be rejected from the day of the year pages.We have long maintained the policy that it's not historically notable that a particular movie, book, CD, DVD, video game, etc was released on a given date. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 05:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Then please keep the deletionists from speedying or otherwise deleting my well-thought-out alternative. —Hanuman Das 05:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Why does this information need to be on Wikipedia in any form?Why would anyone care what movies happened to be released on March 15 on a series of random years?Something like 1939 in film can be justified -- it shows a snapshot of film at a particular moment in history.March 15 in film -- I'm sorry to say this bluntly -- is pointless. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 05:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
You've heard, I assume, of indexing? This is a form of indexing that allows films to be looked up in a particular manner. Just because you can't imagine why you'd do it doesn't mean it is not of use. The index in a book isn't particularly notable, but I bet you'd miss it if it was torn out! —Hanuman Das 05:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I didn't use the word pointless lightly.Of all of the things you might want to know about a movie, the day of the year on which it opened is the most irrelevant.A movie is not something that "happens" on a particular day, it's a work of art that's created over a period of months or years, then is seen by an audience over a period of months or years.This is worthless listcruft, and it's not what Wikipedia is here for. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 06:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Quite frankly, given the view you are espousing, lets delete the day of the year articles too. WHy is it notable what day anybody was born or died on. Why should we care to look up any event by day of year? —Hanuman Das 06:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

See my comment above.The assassination of JFK occurred on November 22, 1963.The first men landed on the moon on July 20, 1969.Those are relevant dates in history.City Lights premiered on February 6 is pointless listcruft. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 06:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Who cares. Those date of those events are listed in their respective articles. We don't need the lists. Delete 'em. all, they are just listcruft. Some people study film, they care. Artists make distinction that other people could care less about. What the hell harm is it doing you? or Wikipedia for that matter. Please quantify in scientific terms.—Hanuman Das 06:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
You should probably care, because community consensus has long been that movie releases, book releases, CD releases, DVD releases, videogame releases, etc, are not appropriate for those pages, and are reverted on sight. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 06:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Look, that's why I created separate articles, okay. I thought about it. I'm tired of your use of "cruft" and your use of the word "pointless". Why is it that WP is full of <insert your own PA> who refuse to even entertain that another person's point of view might be valid? I'm sure there are plenty of things you think are significant that I think should be deleted on sight. I don't do it, because there's a little thing called respect for other people that you and your ilk seem to have behind the door when god handed it out. —06:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Noting that City Lights premiered in 1931 is useful, noting that City Lights premiered on February 6 is useless, and noting that Holiday Inn (the film that gave the world "White Christmas") premiered in August is weirdly useful but belongs in the article itself. Hard to imagine a case where putting a title in a day of the year article has the slightest bit of use either as information or a cataloging scheme. --Calton | Talk 07:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

  • I completely agree.It's doubly arbitrary in that most films go through premiere, then restricted release, then general release, then distribution, and the dates will be different in different regions (e.g. US restricted release may be weeks or even months before European general release) - and then we have the dates of release on video / DVD.You can say that a given film is a 2005 film without much controversy, but calling it a March 15 film is much more problematic. And besides, who would care? If the release is tied to a notable event - riots because of the film's content, for example - then it belongs in the main date article, otherwise it gets an official "so what?"Guy (Help!) 09:22, 8 December 2006