Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive68

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Ethics of banning socks[edit]

Now that AWilliamson is community banned as the sockmaster of the Joan of Arc vandal I have a query about whether there's still a conflict of interest reason for me to refrain from banning his sockpuppets. So far I've touched only one: an impersonation account User:Durova. that deleted archive contents of Williamson's prior talk page wars. Some of those socks have been inactive for many months but other suspected socks remain disruptive at Williamson's other interest points: cross-dressing, homosexuality, and Catholicism. In particular I noticed WP:RFCU#CC80 this evening - a declined request whose other named accounts don't look like red flags for Williamson socks to me - but the edit history for CC80 is classic Williamson activity. I've suspected the account of being a sock since September when it edit warred to delete a link from Joan of Arc.[1][2][3] My long investigation probably puts me in the best position to identify his socks - I'd checkuser anything that's dubious. Do I have the community's support to use sysop tools here? DurovaCharge! 05:00, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

There are no conflicts of interest with banned users. There are no conflicts of interest simply because an abusive user declares one. —Centrxtalk • 07:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Then here's my second question: I'd like to notify the relevant Wikiprojects for these other subjects because I suspect he'll attempt to dodge enforcement by hopping between socks and different articles. Those project participants would be more likely to spot that behavior than I would. The only catch is where to send them to report such a complex case. WP:RFI doesn't normally handle sockpuppet investigations. Since I know this case in so much depth, would it be appropriate to refer new reports directly to my user talk?
And BTW I don't think this user has claimed I have a conflict of interest. I want to proceed in a way that proves I've been fair and honest in case some future troublemaker ever tries to claim I acted improperly. Since I do a lot of investigations I field spurious misconduct allegations fairly often. I'm open to recall so I want to cover all my bases. Thanks, DurovaCharge! 14:26, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Maybe the entry at WP:LTA? 68.39.174.238 10:38, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
I've updated that in the last day. After giving this a lot of thought and asking for input I've decided to put my name forward as the primary investigating admin (and contact point). By the way, the only Goa Inquisition editor that's been confirmed as a Williamson sock is CC80. DurovaCharge! 14:16, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I see several possible approaches. One, enlist another sysop to take over. Two, enlist a couple of admins to review your work and handle appeals. Three, document the heck out of each action you take - specifically the reasoning behind each action. This leaves the door open for peer review and is probably the most practical. Rklawton 14:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

If any of these suspected socks appeals a ban I'll be ready with evidence, although this user's long and creative career makes it slow reading to even review the documentation, much less replace me (I wouldn't wish this on anyone). I suppose my long hours of work on the case are far from ended. DurovaCharge! 15:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
CC80 (talk · contribs) and socks have been trolling on Goa Inquisition and vandalizing sourced information. They have succeeded in getting a contradictory and jumbled version protected.Bakaman 18:04, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Durova, to respond to your opening post, I agree with Centrx. There's no COI that I can see and I don't think you should be hamstrung by the sock of a community banned vandal. I believe you have the common sense to know when you might be compromised and should step back and ask another admin to act. Sarah Ewart 09:11, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Sarah (a little tardy) I've gone ahead and had a little blocking spree. DurovaCharge! 07:27, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:OfficialPhoto.jpg - Stephen Harper - Copyright conflict -- revert war[edit]

This is a photograph of the Prime Minister of Canada. It has been listed since December 13, 2006 and no admin has addressed it. During the time that it has been listed, I have had to engage in several page reverts to keep the image excluded until the copyright can be resolved. Please expedite this review or protect the image page so these conflicting editors cannot continue to remove the copyright notice. Alan.ca 23:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The copyright has been established already. It is currently in the realm of crown copyright, and therefore rightfully ours to use. Permission was given from the copyright holder already. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 23:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Permission is not enough, it needs to be licensed freely per WP:FUC. This man is living and a free image could be reasonably created (FUC #1). Hbdragon88 23:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
See commons:Category:Stephen Harper, and my comment here about this particular image. Jkelly 23:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
The House of the Commons is a government organization with permissions held by the public. The problem is that Alan.ca has been perpetrating this edit war over an outdated page because of the basis Herman is supposedly the only copyright holder although I can't find my way to that page from the Parliament's site.
This how I got to Stephen Harper's biography where it clearly states "© House of Commons"
1. Go to http://www.parl.gc.ca/
2. Click your appropriate language
3. Click "Members of Parliament (Current)"
4. Click "Harper, Stephen (Right Hon.)"
OR
1. Go to http://www.parl.gc.ca/
2. Click your appropriate language
3. Click "The Canadian Ministry (Current)"
4. Click "Harper, Stephen (Right Hon.)"
Also there is an email from Stephen Harper's contact email approving of this distribution as well. But Alan.ca is going ahead with no confirmation that this is not acceptable when other people have confirmed that this is acceptable. ViriiK 00:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree that it couldn't be fair use. However, the PMO wrote that the image is their's and that it is freely-licensed, so it should still be usable unless someone has evidence that the Prime Minister of Canada is lying to us. --Arctic Gnome 00:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Separate issue entirely, if it's on the commons, why is the bulk of the discussion on this image taking place here on en-wiki?—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
The image is not on commons. Alan.ca 01:35, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Another link with Herman Chung listed as the copyright holder. [Stephen Harper]. This one I acquired by: http://parl.gc.ca, site map, Members of the House of Commons - 39th Parliament, HARPER, Stephen. Alan.ca 01:35, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, Alan, we all know that there are old sites that list the image as copyright Mr. Chung. That is not the point. The PMO has specificially said that the image is their's on August 8, 2006 regardless of what some pages on the House of Commons web site said. Do you have any evidence that the Prime Minister was lying to us or that the copyright has changed hands since August 8? --Arctic Gnome 02:22, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
You show me something that demonstrates the PMO owns the copyright for that image and we can start discussing the credibility of your e-mail. As in, Copyright Prime Minister's Office. That second source I included is not out of date, it is the current page for Stephen Harper of the 39th parliament of Canada. Alan.ca 02:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
The email itself demonstrates that they own it. Head-of-government offices are credible sources. Plus we have the archives of Canada and the House of Commons saying that Mr. Chung no longer holds the copyright. --Arctic Gnome 03:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Can we keep this discussion either here or on ANI? If this email could be forwarded to the permissions list, the image can be cleared. – Chacor 02:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The problem is they are getting the release from the Prime Minister's Office, when there are 2 urls that show it belongs to Herman Chung and one that says House of Commons. The PMO is separate from the House of Commons and the 2 Herman Chung references are on the parliamentary web site. I'm new to this kind of dispute, but I would think we would have to see them remove the Herman Chung notice or provide a release from Herman Chung. Additionally, the PMO isn't the right place to contact for a release, it's the House of Commons. I did e-mail them regarding this issue, but I have not received a response yet. I had contacted <infonetATparlDOTgcDOTca> on Dec. 14/06 Alan.ca 02:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
By your logic anyone could make us get their permission for any image just by putting it on their homepage and writing "© Me" below it. My proof that it is owned by the PMO is that they said that they owned it. If Wikipedia can't use head-of-government offices as sources, who can we use? --Arctic Gnome 03:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
And while this image is on the commons, can we wait for the issue of its true copyright be dealt with before it's deleted from either place?—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

For the record, the image name probably needs adjustment, once everything is sorted I will be pushing for the name to be changed on commons and making the change to using articles here. OfficialPhoto is not a very good name... something with his name in it and some indication of his rank at the time probably would be a lot better.... ++Lar: t/c 19:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The official tag name is actually supposed to be nlc012160-v6.jpg which you can find here
I found out on this website because I saw that other canadian politicians had their images stored at Library and Archives Canada.
Here I was able to discover that the Office of the Prime Minister is the copyright holder as well. Clicking "Copyright/Source", I was able to discover
Stephen Joseph Harper
© Office of the Prime Minister.
Reproduced with the permission of the Office of the Prime Minister.
Source: Privy Council Office
Alan.ca however by his logic demands that we need permission from Herman Chung although there is no contact information anywhere to be found and no proof of him contacting Herman Chung. The email from the Office of the Prime Minister which you can find on the image page clearly shows that they gave permission to us to use this image on wikipedia. ViriiK 03:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

ViriiK, see this [4]: Public domain material will be clearly indicated as such on our website. If they did send permission, it needs to be sent to permissions@wikimedia.org or whatever; copying the email that they sent you isn't good enough. Hbdragon88 02:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Uprotection of many test templates / wikipedia pages[edit]

Aaron Brenneman has started an unprotection spree, I'm looking at some of the pages and I have to say, they're vandal magnets and I'm not sure unprotecting them might be a good idea. Just throwing it up for discussion, I think unprotection here is more of a hassle than it's worth. -- Tawker 00:31, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

  • See the log here: (link removed) - looks like a man on a mission. Guy (Help!) 00:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Looking over the logs, I agree with most of the unprotections. I started forming my thoughts on this issue a while ago at User:Renesis13/sandbox but never got around to finishing. Most of these were protected on a whim at RFPP, without any community input. Aaron's reasoning in the logs ("this should always be subst -> not a high risk template", etc.) is sound and he is doing the community (especially excellent non-admins on the [[WP:UW|User warnings WikiProject) like User:Khukri) a big favor. -- Renesis (talk) 00:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure why {{IPA}} was unprotected, this template is transcluded on several thousand articles, and is about as "high-risk" as high-risk can get. Especially with the recent rash of <includeonly> vandalism we've been experiencing with our Main Page articles. I have re-enabled protection and am posting my action here for review. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 00:50, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I'll agree with Renesis13 that Aaron Brenneman has made a good decision here, and the edit summaries... well, —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SunStar Net (talkcontribs) 00:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC).
  • I'll agree with Renesis13 that Aaron Brenneman has made a good decision here. Endorsed! --SunStar Nettalk 00:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Aaron Brenneman, was thier ever a discussion prior to the mass-protection removal? There is some valid concerns over vandalism on many of those templates that you shouldn't ignore.
"No reason to protect - does not appear on articles" - I think that logic is flawed. Expecialy since you said that about Template:IPA - used in more then 1000 articles. ---J.S (T/C) 00:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
There was no discussion prior to protecting most of these templates. I agree that some of these need to be reviewed, but I don't start a wheel war or make Aaron Brenneman think I'm wiki-stalking and bad-faith-reverting his changes, so I'll wait for this to play out a little bit more and for him to finish his unprotecting. -- Renesis (talk) 01:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm a little worried about this one too: Template:REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD ---J.S (T/C) 00:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Some of the unprotects might have been a good idea, but I'm not sure I like the thought of unprotecting {{unsigned}}. That could do some fairly serious damage. Alphachimp 01:02, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Unsigned should most definitely remain protected... I should say that overall I agree with the unprotections but a few seem to have slipped through. Unsigned is NOT always meant to be substed... see Wikipedia:Subst. -- Renesis (talk) 01:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Isn't this a bit of a case of shoot first and ask questions later? I'm worried then, because any administrator who undoes any of his actions might be accused of wheel warring as soon as it becomes clear that people have a problem with the edits. Whether the community agrees with him or not, it would have been proper to ask for consensus first. -Patstuarttalk|edits 01:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
True, Patstuart, very true. If I was in this situation, I'd try and get consensus before going ahead with such an action. Wheel-warring is unproductive, in my opinion. --SunStar Nettalk 01:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
As I said above to J.smith, some should have been discussed, yes. Others (most) are fine because they were protected on a whim and the reasoning for unprotecting is completely legitimate (the {{test}} templates, for example). I just don't want to start re-protecting in the middle of the wide-spread change unless it's a serious situation, because it may cause hard feelings and the best way to proceed from here is to simply bring the matter to discussion. I don't expect too much irreversible damage from having these unprotected for the next few hours. -- Renesis (talk) 01:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • In fact, I have made a couple of mistakes here: I did in fct snap at tawker when he reversed two protections, for which I have fully recanted. I was clearly smoking crack with IPA, I looked at it three times and still confused it with Template:IPblock. I'm going to wander off now. And don't hesitate before re-protecting something if you have a good reason: I may be a cranky but I'm a 0RR on admin actions kind of guy.
    brenneman 01:26, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't know exactly how quietly I can say this, but the changes seem to have created a list of pages that can now be vandalized. Out of 8 or so I've clicked, I've found 2 or 3 instances of vandalism, some repeating, within the last hour and a half. I removed the original link posted by JzG to obscure this a little bit. -- Renesis (talk) 01:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree with many of these unprotections (particularly for templates not used in article space), though not all of them. But I must quibble I'm afraid with Renesis's statement "Most of these were protected on a whim at RFPP, without any community input." That's the way protection works--we protect if there's a problem, and someone can come along and unprotect, and it's not a big deal. At least, that's the way it should work; if we've gotten so nervous about wheel wars that we're not willing to undo someone else's protection, then that's a problem. I urge any admin who sees something that badly needs protecting to protect it, and similarly to unprotect something that needn't be protected, and if there's a dispute then deal with it. The overwhelming majority of protections and unprotections are not controversial. Chick Bowen 07:29, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I think the concept behind the unprotection is sound... just gotta be sure people are ready for it:) ---J.S (T/C) 08:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I should have been more clear... no community input and no prior problems (I'm referring to the user warning templates). -- Renesis (talk) 08:22, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I think we agree about the user warning templates. I'm just talking about the general principle--it was fine to protect them; it was fine to unprotect them: no dispute, no problem. Chick Bowen 08:27, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
True. I think the biggest concern is that when one admin starts to see multiple actions being undone, a wheel war might spring out of a misunderstanding. -- Renesis (talk) 08:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I am dissapointed however that Can't sleep, clown will eat me chose to reprotect several without discussion here, on my talk page, or on any template talk page. There's "casual" and there's "bold" but there is also "get bent I'm just going to undo this without comment or discussion." Once it is clear that there is a disagreement over the bast way forward, more talking is better than less. - brenneman 10:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Hey Brenneman, {{IPA}} is used on 12,050 articles. You should be apologizing for unprotecting it in the first place, which was obviously the wrong move, not trying to blame CSCWEM. He didn't do anything wrong, and it's funny that you accuse him of reversing without discussion when you are the one who just reversed without discussion on dozens of pages. You have no right to get all bent out of shape when he does exactly the same thing you just did, except on a much smaller scale and for the right reasons. --Cyde Weys 11:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Um apart from IPA, that link only shows protection being restored after the beans discussion above. Catchpole 10:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Brenneman did apologize for IPA, immediately: [5] [6]. CSCWEM is the only one not communicating about this. -- Renesis (talk) 17:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

This massive, unilateral unprotection of templates is disruptive, and a serious violation of WP:POINT. These templates were properly protected by a large number of administrators per Wikipedia:High-risk templates, which authorizes an exception to the general protection policy, and recommends that heavily used templates be fully protected as a preemptive measure, before any substantial vandalism occurs, due to the severe harm caused by template vandalism. The assertion that template substitution is somehow a panacea that will ward off the evils of template vandalism is quite incorrect -- the danger associated with template vandalism is that a single act of vandalism on a heavily used template will result in a large number of vandalized versions of the template being displayed. This is true even if the templates are substituted -- when a heavily used, substituted template is vandalized, hundreds of vandalized versions of the template may be generated before the damage to the template is repaired. Additionally, because template substitution breaks the link between the original template and the substituted versions, vandalized substitutions of the template will remain after reversion of the vandalism on the template itself, and may be difficult to find and repair. Moreover, when a user applies a substituted template, the text of the template is displayed in the user's contribution history as though they entered it themself. The vandalized text of a template will thus appear as if entered by the users applying the template, and without any indications that a template is being substituted, if the vandal removes comments such as .<!-- Template:Test (first level warning) --> from the template. Vandalism of substituted templates is the only type of vandalism that can be used to falsify users' edit histories, thereby causing immense disruption. I urge administrators to protect the high-risk templates that Aaron Brenneman has taken it upon himself to unilaterally unprotect. John254 11:31, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

John254, you are incorrect about the history of 'high risk templates'. They were not "protected by a large number of administrators", but rather by individual admins acting 'unilaterally'. Often doing so for large swaths of templates at once. This is not "a serious violation of WP:POINT" as you describe, but rather 'an admin doing his job properly'. I've both added and removed templates from that list several times myself... it's called making updates to fit the current situation. If people disagree with some of the actions they can be discussed and reversed if need be. No need for hyperventilating. As to your theory that hundreds of usages of a substituted template might occur before vandalism is repaired... it seems exceedingly doubtful to me. The second someone substitutes a template and gets results different than they expected they are going to correct and/or report it. Maybe a couple people use it without actually looking at the results, but not "hundreds". --CBD 12:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I stand by my claim that these templates were "protected by a large number of administrators", since many different administrators were involved in effectuating these protections. No one administrator protected all of these templates him/herself. When many different administrators act to protect templates, it shows far more consensus than Aaron Brenneman personally unprotecting almost every user talk namespace template that was protected. Moreover, these templates are often applied by automated means, such as vandalproof, so vandalism won't necessarily be detected instantaneously. Users participating in RC patrol generally aren't looking to see if the warning templates have been vandalized, since, until recently, it was essentially impossible to vandalize these templates. Nor should such vigilance be required -- reverting vandalism on articles is a sufficiently difficult task already without worrying about the vandalism warnings themselves being vandalized. A cost-benefits analysis weighs in favor of full protection for these templates: it's far more important to ensure that no one has tampered with these warnings when they are placed on user talk pages than to maximize the editability of the warning templates themselves, which seldom require editing. There was certainly no shortage of administrators willing to edit the warning templates when they were fully protected. John254 12:31, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I expect that the test templates used for vandalism warnings are used without checking by hundreds of people who revert vandalism with automatic tools. (I don't use any automated anti-vandalism tools myself, so correct me if I'm wrong). For this reason, they should probably stay protected. Kusma (討論) 12:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Without commenting on the merits of protecting various templates or not (except to say that I tend to favour protection of high risk templates and would err on the side of caution, that is, keep those puppies protected, er oops, I guess I just did comment on the merits...), I'll just say Aaron acted in accordance with the Bold-Revert-Discuss mantra, as is proper in the general case in my view, although MAYBE a bit over the top in this case? ++Lar: t/c 15:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Just to put everything in perspective, I found some image vandalism on some templates that wasn't caught for 2 hours (including a vandal image on AntiVandalBot's user page for a while :( - I don't know if that makes be a bit biased towards protection but as I see it, let's do a risks benefits analysis, if there isn't much benefit to unprotecting pages that pretty much any ip / new account would need to edit let's save ourself the find the damn vandalism image template problem. Yeah, it's pre-emptive but I think our time spent on better things than finding a vandal image in a template. -- Tawker 17:38, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you about doing all we can to stop the template vandal and completely agree with protection for non-subt templates, but I think we should think a bit longer about this subst templates protected/not-protected problem. From an admin's perspective, it's easy to say "plenty of admins are willing to make edits to the test templates", but that doesn't seem to sit right with me. We have excellent non-admins heading up projects like the user warnings project, and this isn't the "free encyclopedia that admins can edit". -- Renesis (talk) 17:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, to be an technicality freak, warning pages don't really fit into an "encyclopedia" - they're more so administrative backend :o -- Tawker 18:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I'd agree with this the Mediawiki: space is permenantly protected for good reason. Many of our administrative templates are very similar in effect and purpose to the mediawiki messages, just within the layer we have built on top of the core mediawiki functionality. --pgk 21:29, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm not talking about administrative templates. -- Renesis (talk) 22:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Well how would you categorise the test templates if not administrative? They certainly aren't part of the encyclopedia, they meet the same resistance to change that the mediawiki texts have done etc. etc . --pgk 22:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

This was really 1) stupid 2) a waste of our time and 3) should not have occured. If Aaron really wanted protection extinguished from these templates, he should have brought up a discussion a la here before doing so. What a waste of our time. *shakes head* —Pilotguy (ptt) 23:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, given the recent resurgence in template vandalism, unprotection of all the user talk namespace warning templates couldn't have come at a worse time. Can an administrator reinstate full protection on the templates that haven't been re-protected yet? John254 00:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the case is not as closed as you make it sound. It's neither obvious which decision is right, nor which decision the community supports. In this thread, I see as much support for leaving them unprotected as for protecting them. -- Renesis (talk) 03:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Of course its obvious... protection of ANYTHING that is used on multiple pages is a good idea. If not full protection, at least semi-protection... there is no reason someone on an IP should be editing a mass displayed template... and if its just a regular user who's accidentaly forgot to log in ... well it will remind them!.  ALKIVAR 07:10, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
First, technically, pretty much any (non-subst'd) template is used on multiple pages, otherwise it shouldn't be a template. Second, I don't know why I need to keep pointing this out but we're talking about user warning templates. Those aren't ever transcluded, let alone to multiple pages at the same time. Full, permanent protection for pages that are NOT transcluded hundreds of times should only be done after careful consideration. If adminship is truly no big deal (sorry for using the cliché), then we shouldn't be so liberal with full protection as John254 suggests. -- Renesis (talk) 07:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
I had Cyde run a perl script to count... Template:Test is currently transcluded to several THOUSAND pages, dont tell me its always SUBST'd, because your flat out 1000% wrong. And as for buying into the whole Adminship is no big deal bullshit... well if its no big deal, then i guess penis vandalism on the mainpage is no big deal either... thats why its unprotected full time... ohh wooops it isnt </sarcasm>.  ALKIVAR 07:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
So keep {{test}} protected—big deal—did you also run your perl script for the other 75 or so user warning templates? Did you consider User:Pathoschild/Projects/Template substitution, a list from which bots go around substing any un-substed templates? Your logic that saying adminship is "no big deal" somehow also means vandalism on the main page is no big deal is the real bullshit, and as for your mistaken opinion that I support unprotecting the main page, maybe you should read my comments over on the incidents noticeboard. You also seem to have skipped over a large portion of this conversation, where I am actually for semi-protection of most templates, and full protection of all high-use templates. -- Renesis (talk) 08:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Reset indent Can we first get Cyde/Alkivar/etc to tone the the, um, hyperbole? No reason we can't be civil while we're having this discussion. Following on from this, I'm unclear on something: Why, when we've seen people *cough* run mad bots removing images from signatures in archives, replacing cross-namespace redirects, etc, etc, without support in consensus or policy, is it such a big deal to run one over something that both by concensus and guideline should be done? Subst all old versions of all these templates. Then we could move on to the philosophical and current practical reasons for protecting/not protecting without the red herrings/straw men/whatever of the un:subst versions. - brenneman 08:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

The problem is the new uses of the templates. No one cares about some crusty template in some user's talk archive. What does matter is the dozens or hundreds of uses of {{test}} and {{unsigned}} per minute, many of them automated by bot, which would then substitute some penis image into dozens or hundreds of pages. Many of them would be substituted and forgotten by the commenter; many of them would not be discovered at all except perhaps by the new user who finds a penis on his talk page; others would be covered over by later revisions and require manual removal. Substituted templates are worse to have unprotected; at least with the transcluded templates you know that if you removed it from the template it will be gone from all the other pages. —Centrxtalk • 09:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
While I'm not sure that there are hundreds or even dozens of uses of {{test}} per minute that the user doesn't bother viewing the result, I see that it might be a good idea to keep test[0-4] protected. As for the rest ({{spam}} and all the other more specific ones), I think we'd be fine with semi-protection. And as for unsigned, well, it isn't even required to be subst'd, so it should absolutely remain protected. -- Renesis (talk) 10:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Ok, so can have dispensed utterly then with Alkivar's complaint about existing templates. I'd certainly like to see some real data on this "hundreds of uses of {{test}} and {{unsigned}} per minute." And, forgive me for being cavalier, but if someone is just dunmping something on someone's talk page without checking what it is, I'm not feeling too sorry for them if they cop flack. Finally, is there some good reason not to subst unsigned? - brenneman 10:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree with you that the blame rests on the user who's too lazy to check the result, but the flack is copped by Wikipedia in general, if there is a problem. About substing unsigned: there has been quite a bit of discussion, and I don't think the conclusion was ever reached that it should always be subst'd, so it was left to the user's discretion. I personally think it's cleaner without, kind of like {{tl}} (which, I think, has undergone the same discussions, and, I see, you have substed in my comments above :) ) -- Renesis (talk) 11:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
The test templates are used semi-automatically with vandalism prevention tools. Also, they're not just dumping some random thing on talk pages, when the templates are protected they know exactly what is being put there. There is no reason to add extra time and work. —Centrxtalk • 22:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I've re-semi-protected WP:VAND since it's an obvious and frequent target of vandalism, as indicated by spree that started almost immediately after its unprotection. (Radiant) 10:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Templates that are not meant to be on articles are not articles. That should be obvious, but the articles are the only thing that really matters to be available to editing as much as possible. High use volume templates by definition should not be edited very often, so there is very little downside to protecting them and a lot of upside. So what if subst reduces the number of pages that get affected by vandalism. But since not all templates are substituted, reducing is not eliminating. We should be making efforts to eliminate vandalism, not make it easier. All high volume and high risk templates should be protected whether they are substituted or not. - Taxman Talk 15:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

First, removing protection is just a normal admin action, and it can be talked about without dramatic overtones. And Aaron, this is not article namespace, so the same rules don't automatically apply. That's the wider issue here, the status of the template namespace. We've been treating it in much the same way as article namespace - people create what they think they need, and we go from there, with consensus required for deletion. That's a bit problematic - these are not encyclopedic content pages, they are tools for building and maintaining the content. Some of them are really extensions of the software (and hardly ever need to change), and we've had popular templates upgraded to new software features before. The template namespace is more like an open source programming library than like an encyclopedia.

It's not clear that the open status of the template namespace is beneficial to the project. We have a lot of duplication of effort, a lot of inconsistencies, and a total lack of a sane naming scheme for templates. Maybe we're getting it backwards. Maybe templates should be more often (semi-)protected, and maybe new templates should be automatically TfD'd (or rather reviewed) after a month and require consensus to keep. Zocky | picture popups 03:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:POTD can be speedied?[edit]

The current Pic of the day, Image:LakeEffect-Superior-Michigan-EO.jpg, has a non-commercial use restriction, so it is a speedy deletion candidate on Commons. That said, it is also a speedy deletion candidate here. So, what should we do? Uploading it under fair use would be a pretty flimsy rationale, but uploading it with {{noncommercial}} will cause some sysop here to delete it. It should be deleted eventually, but do we wait until its day on the Main Page is up before doing so? Titoxd(?!?) 05:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

If it is a non-commercial license then it does not meet featured picture standards and should not be picture of the day, the way I see it. I would go to the next on the list. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 05:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
(ec)It was a mistake to ever chose it as the picture of the day. Non-com is a major problem. ---J.S (T/C) 05:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
It was listed as pd-NASA when it was selected, however since then it was determined not to be a NASA image, and not PD. Can we change the POTD? Move on to the next one? People who mirror Wikipedia for profit under GFDL will unwittingly violate the non-commercial license. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 05:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Oh dear. This is a major problem. I think we have to go to the next one and just leave it for the extra day. We have in fact had unfree pictures on the main page before, if they were the lead image in an article, but as POTD it's not so good. Chick Bowen 06:38, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I was bold and did this. I haven't deleted the image, though, since it's still in use elsewhere, and I'd like someone to check what I did (and also to see if anyone cries bloody murder), since I don't do much POTD stuff normally. Chick Bowen 06:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
The confusing thing is that the RSS Feed still talks about the lake effect picture -- at least it does on my personalized Google home page. Can we add a link to this discussion to the picture page? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rpresser (talkcontribs) 15:04, 19 December 2006 (UTC).

Time out. Where exactly does it say this image is under a noncommercial license? Are we talking about the SeaWiFS home page? Because that just says, "All SeaWiFS images and data presented on this website are for research and educational use only" (emphasis mine). And I can't find this image on the web site (admittedly, I only searched via Google and didn't really browse around the site much). No such restrictions are presented on the Earth Observatory page, which is usually pretty good about stating the image license terms. For example, [7] states that the image is copyrighted. So I have to question: Are we making a fuss when in fact there is no issue? howcheng {chat} 17:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Well Commons:User:Titoxd(who is also User:Titoxd) first brought up the concern on the commons(here) and there is a discussion about it here Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/SeaWiFS imagery. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 17:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
The problem is that the only reason anyone ever thought it was PD is that it was assumed to be a NASA image. Since it's not, we can no longer assume it's PD. The burden of proof is always on us to show something is PD; if SeaWiFS doesn't explicitly release their images to the public domain as the other NASA divisions do, then we cannot consider them free. Whether it's non-commercial or not is somewhat beside the point--what matters is that it's clearly under copyright. Chick Bowen 17:21, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Also, I think this sentence is pretty clear: "All commercial use of SeaWiFS data must be coordinated with ORBIMAGE." All data, not just data on that website or specially marked. Chick Bowen 17:31, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
But they specifically state "data and images" in the first sentence but only "data" in the second. I don't think it's as clear cut as you say. howcheng {chat} 17:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
The problem appears to be that the SeaWIFS scientific package is actually installed abroad a commercial satellite. Though I haven't seen anywhere that made it explicit, this suggests that the commercial rights to SeaWIFS imagery were given to the satellite operator in exchange for allowing the instrument to be incorporated into their satellite. Dragons flight 17:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
(ec) Sometimes images that would normally be copyrighted by the agencies who contribute images to Earth Observatory are in fact not copyrighted. The link above to the San Francisco image is an example of one by Space Imaging, whose images are normally copyrighted (see [8]). The best course of action to take here is to contact NASA EO and find out, which I have done and am now awaiting their response. howcheng {chat} 17:36, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Oops, the link I mentioned above IS a copyrighted image. Here's one by Space Imaging that does NOT state that it's copyrighted: [9]. howcheng {chat} 18:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, "if your work is not considered 'research' you must purchase SeaWiFS data from ORBIMAGE as they own the commercial rights to it. Please note that ORBIMAGE refers to SeaWiFS data as OrbView-2 data" sounds copyrighted enough for me. Titoxd(?!?) 18:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree, but it may be the case that images featured on Earth Observatory have been released of rights -- I reiterate: NASA EO has always (to my knowledge) clearly stated when an image is copyrighted. Now since there's no evidence of that, like HighInBC said, we have to assume it IS copyrighted/usage restricted, but we may get clarification from EO personnel. howcheng {chat} 18:21, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
In the meantime, we must assume it is coprighted. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 17:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Fine by me. If in fact the licensing is bad, then I certainly have no objections to deletion. howcheng {chat} 18:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

From [10]: "SeaWiFS is a cost-sharing collaboration between NASA and Orbital Sciences Corporation (OSC) wherein NASA Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) specified the data attributes and bought the research rights to these data, maintaining insight, but not oversight, of OSC. The SeaWiFS Project at GSFC is responsible for the calibration, validation, and routine processing of these data. OSC provided the spacecraft, instrument, and launch, and is responsible for spacecraft operations for five years at a fixed price, while retaining the operational and commercial rights to these data." If OSC owns the instrument, it is a pretty safe bet they own the rights the commercial rights to the images as well. Dragons flight 17:50, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The original image was uploaded in March 2004, the last revision in March 2005; non-commercial only licenses were not prohibited until May 2005 (see relevant email from Jimbo). Jimbo specifically says that those uploaded prior to the decree can't be speedied, but most go through the deletion process (which at that time was still called VFD). Someone may nominate it for deletion, but it cannot be validly speedied. Essjay (Talk) 22:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The image is at Commons, not here. I'm not (unlike you) a Commons admin, nor all that familiar with the policy there, but my understanding is that they frequently do delete images in precisely this category (but you would know better than I). Its deletion is not really our concern; its status here--as a featured picture, as POTD, and in articles--is. Chick Bowen 22:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
My understanding is that Jimbo's decrees apply across all Wikimedia projects; if they do not, then feel free to disregard him and my comment above. If they do, the matter remains as I stated it: It is not a valid speedy delete, but must go through the deletion process of whatever site it is currently on per Jimbo. Essjay (Talk) 23:27, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I've removed the speedy tag and listed the image for deletion at commons. Also seeking clarification at your talk page. Chick Bowen 00:31, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced page[edit]

The information for İstemihan Taviloğlu got accidentally placed at Category:Classical music/IstemihanTaviloglu. I'd ask that this page (the latter one, the category) be deleted, as it really doesn't belong there. --Eyrian 08:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Tagging it for speedy was sufficient; it was deleted by Fang Aili. Thanks. Chick Bowen 17:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

please unblock my account[edit]

Someone said on the main page I should post here. Good afternoon. I joined this site two days ago and yesterday my account was blocked forever becuase I tried to help out another person. I was invited to join this site by an old web buddy named Coolcat and he pointed me in the right direction towards a couple of articles and some other users. People then started saying I was another person named Husnock and, in violation of my privacy, conducted an ip address and posted I was living in the UAE. I then went to Husnock's web page and saw some very mean messages towards him by some other people. I responded to one of them and thought it would show up as his name, but my name instead appeared. I was then told that I was permanently banned from this site and my user page was blanked. I'm new to this site, for the most part, so dont know your policies but, hey, that seems really brutal. I was just trying to help this guy out. Please see my account: user:CamelCommodore. If I broke a rule, I'm sorry. I just want a fresh start. Regards- Camel Commo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.42.2.27 (talkcontribs)

Ridiculous. CheckUser is not an invasion of privacy. This guy is either a disruptive sock of Husnock, or a disruptive meatpuppet of the same, or - if the above is true, which I rather doubt - a disruptive meatpuppet of Cool Cat. Either way this troll should stay blocked and requests like this for unblock should be ignored. Moreschi Deletion! 10:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I will say that putting the unblock template on your talk page is the way to do it, not posting here. --Woohookitty(meow) 10:38, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello again. I put the template on my talk page, it was denied. How can I appeal this? I am not a meat or a sock, whatever that means. I do know Coolcat and he told me about Husnock. I was only trying to help but now I can't log on to this site. I am sorry for putting the message on Husnock's page. Can't I at least get a second chance instead of being kicked off this website forever? Please help me, thank you. Regards- Camel Commo

I think that response confirms this person is just here to disrupt - not many innocent blocked newbies would shorten "meatpuppet/sockpuppet" into "meat/sock". – Chacor 10:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
This has to be my favourite comment I've seen today, it's just great on so many levels
  1. The assumption that "not many" people are clever enough to shorten meatpuppet/sockpuppet to meat/sock, is sublime.
  2. And of course meatpupper/sockpuppet has only even be used on Wikipedia and never gets used elsewhere to refer to a similar situation, fantastic, just...great.--212.50.162.251 17:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

This appears to be a real person and I'm not just saying that because I'm involved. The person sent me two e-mails giving me his real name and e-mail address. He is swearing this is a misunderstanding and is asking to be let back on the site. See my edit here [11]. I feel bad about this as this person has been banned from Wikipedia becuase of me. I've caused enough trouble and this is unfair to this man. Also, lets us assume good faith, here. I recommend clearing this block and giving him a second chance. -Husnock 15:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I was going to hold my tongue but this is pretty pathetic stuff - AGF does not mean that we are required to remove our brains. It's you, it's always been you - all those tales of mysterious figures (all in your immediate area and all off the same or similar IP addresses) be they come colonels, generals or commanders has been one of the most transparent cases of game-playing and frankly trolling I've seen in a while. I have no idea why you are insulting the intelligence of the community with this game - I can only assume it's to muddy the waters in some manner with your current ARBCOM case. Stop - just stop. At the moment, there are a fair number of people who want to see you continue to contribute to the encyclopedia but those constant dramas and games are getting to be pretty tiresome. --Charlesknight 15:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree with the block, the user was disruptive to an already sensitive issue. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I got another opinion on this guys. I don't see any problem w/ unblocking. If it would appear later that he was just trolling or a sock/meatpuppet of Husnock or anybody else than we can easily block again. Nobody is sure who is this person so why are we acting as if we already know who is this guy? -- Szvest - Wiki me up ® 15:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Good sir, please understand me...this is not a trick. I have that person's e-mail address if you want it and there is a way I can get it to you without posting it here. He is not me, but has sent me e-mails about this sitation. He has tried for two days to get unblocked and be put back on the site and has been met with nothing but accusations and cold shoulders. I feel very badly that he was blocked. All I am asking is that he is unblocked and given a second chance and not be punished for trying to help me. Is there so much hate and mistrust here that we can't even do that? Thank you. -Husnock 15:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
forward the emails to me - morwen@evilmagic.org (with headers) - or even better get him to email me himself. I don't know what you mean "tried for two days to get unblocked", as he was only blocked last night. And hey, let's not forget you thanked the blocking admin to start with. Morwen - Talk 15:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I'll pass the e-mail address on to him so he can e-mail you. I'm trying to give this person a break since, at first, I thought it was a nasty trick but now seems to be a misunderstanding. -Husnock 15:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
It still looks like a nasty trick to me, this post[12] to me is clearly an attempt to look like a sock puppet of yours, and thus discredit you. It is possible that it is a misunderstanding, but I would need that misunderstanding spelt out for me becuase this looks like malice to me. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I oppose unblocking. This is definitely a troll account, and probably someone's sockpuppet. If this user is now of good faith and wants to make decent contributions, he/she should just create a new account and edit properly. Aecis Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 15:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

  • I don't think whether or not User:CamelCommodore is really User:Husnock matters. The much larger issue has been Husnock's behavior with regards to the use of admin privs and release of password to another party. Whether or not Husnock created a sockpuppet account is fairly irrelevant to that issue. Regardless of whether it is or is not, it is my opinion that User:CamelCommodore should remain blocked. It is readily apparent that the account is a sockpuppet of someone, the question is who and that question isn't very important. Has the sockpuppet been disruptive? Yes. Blocked. End of discussion. --Durin 16:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I would just like to reiterate my doubts they are the same person. Husnock simple does not react the same way CamelCommodore does, it is more likely CC is a person trying to discredit Husnock. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 16:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
If that's true, it's yet another compelling argument to leave the account blocked. - CHAIRBOY () 16:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Agree with you more I could not... I mean I could not agree with you more. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 16:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I would recommend changing the block from a permanent one to a long one (1-6 months) or just allow the person to make a second account and behave normally. I don't know if I support this person, I just feel bad that someone was banned from the site becuase of me. -Husnock 16:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • If he isn't you, he was blocked because of his own behavior. Again, it's an obvious sockpuppet of someone. It was used to disrupt Wikipedia. There's not much point in unblocking it. --Durin 16:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I disagree with unblocking. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 16:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Has anyone asked Cool Cat to verify this? Thatcher131 19:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Contact me for what? --Cat out 19:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I oppose the unblocking of CamelCommodore. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 19:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Hmm it appears consensus vote has established CamelCommodore to be my meat/sockpuppet. Guys don't troll, I am in no way involved. I actually like Husnock... What gave you the idea that I would try to annoy him? --Cat out 20:02, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Eh? what give you that idea? my understanding is that you name was mentioned because Husnock said that CC was a mutual friend of both of you. I don't think anyone has accused you of being him? (unless I'm missing something). --Charlesknight 20:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
CamelCommodore claims (above) to know you in real life and that you asked him to come to Husnock's defense. CamelCommodore also happens to use the same IP address that Husnock uses, and at the same times. I'm not sure there is a case for unblocking CamelCommodore on the theory that he will turn into a productive wikipedian, but whatever shred of a case there might be would depend on whether Camel Commodore really is a real life friend of yours whom you asked to come here. Otherwise, CamelCommodore looks like a sockpuppet of Husnock playing out some bizarre game. Thatcher131 20:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Its my honest opinion that we should unblock CC. It would be very distressing for them if they were actually a different person who suddenly got caught up in a huge furor involving a large amount of people who could block their account at will. I havent seen any evidence of him doing any major harm to the encyclopedia, and in the event I turn out to be wrong and he does do harm then he can be quite easily and quickly blocked again. I think Assume good faith has been thrown by the wayside to a smaller or larger extent, in this whole affair and maybe we should return to one of the principles of wikipedia. ViridaeTalk 21:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

PS I would offer to take responsibility for his actions/watch the contributions closely if he was unblocked, but I will be at work all day today, and going to a place with limited internet access tomorrow. ViridaeTalk 21:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Strongly oppose. Assume good faith does not mean bend over. It is obvious that this is either a sockpuppet of Husnock, who as himself has been behaving badly lately, or a person trying to discredit Husnock, which makes them a troll and not welcome here. Why would we possibly want to unblock them? User:Zoe|(talk) 22:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Let's compare the writing styles here

User A User B
"What is the point of posting that lengthy thread? Arew you trying to help me or kick me when I'm down. You call my a liar, call me stupid, and bring up stuff about copyright images which is far far from proven. Take a look at what you're doing. I ask you? Do you have something personal against me? Now, you tell the truth" However, looking at my talk page, I see two uses who have posted what appear to be baiting messages and “kick you when you’re down” postings. One openly calls me stupid and a liar another starts a deletion discussion of an image I uploaded months ago knowing that I am blocked and will not be able to participate.

Note the same types of typos, indicating perhaps a rather hastily written notice, and that the same points being made ("kick you when you're down", mentioning "stupid" and "liar"). Now, one of these edits was made at 19:41 to User_talk:Husnock, by User:CamelCommodore. The other was made to Wikipedia:Requests for arbritration at 19:35. Now, let us count the things we are being asked to believe here

I wonder if anyone can come up with a simpler explanation for this pattern of edits? Morwen - Talk 23:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

A few ideas, but nothing that would improve the situation. Thanks for putting the evidence together anyway. Carcharoth 02:50, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Morwen's work is to be commended, that must have taken some time. I strongly advise everyone, inclduing me, just let this die. This has gotten out of control with multiple posts about where people live and what ip addresses they are using. Way too much real world info. I also imagine this person has either given up on the site or established a new account. -Husnock 02:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Wow, you should be a detective. Dont forget this guy states to know User:Coolcat which is probably hw he found out about me and my edits. Also, Camel and I carried on a conversation on his talk page at the same time. Also, FYI, can we please get away from posting where people live (i.e. CamelCommodore is in the UAE). Since you've already said it, please be aware that all Americans in the UAE are confined to just a few ip addresses. But, in the end, posting where people live is against policy. I've done all I can for this guy and don't like where this is heading. Too much mistrust and implications of distrust and untruthfulness. I gave this person your e-mail and you and he can hash it it if you want. I think he is just going to start up a new account at this stage. Best to let this go. -Husnock 02:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Not really admin stuff, sorry[edit]

Where can I find stuff to do on WP? I think I might like to be an admin someday, but for now, I don't know what to do. Sorry if this isn't in the right place. Mahalo. --Ali'i 20:38, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I've got about 40 redlinks I'm slowly trying to turn blue on my userpage. Chop chop! d:-) --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
One down (a simple redirect for now), only about 39 to go. ;-) --Ali'i 21:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Take a look at the "Help Out" box at Wikipedia:Community Portal. I'd recommend going and offering a Wikipedia:Third opinion, or picking up a nearby book and using it to reference unsourced material in related articles. Jkelly 20:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Take a look at Category:Cleanup by month if you interested in cleanup articles. (It's currently backlogged). RJFJR 20:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. And sorry for taking up the space. Sometimes it can be a little overwhelming, and I can't seem to find my way around. Again, mahalo. --Ali'i 21:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
You'll work it out in the end. Enjoy yourself! ViridaeTalk 21:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Here are some things I've enjoyed doing: Wikipedia:Dead-end pages, WP:AFC (actually, I don't like this one, but it must be done), Wikipedia:Recent changes patrol, Wikipedia:backlog. Those four should keep you busy for a while :). -Patstuarttalk|edits 21:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Another option is the Wikipedia:Reference Desk, which can be fun to work on, though it is less likely to fulfill any vital role. Dragons flight 21:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Another useful place to work is in Orphaned articles, creating internal Wikilinks between articles. Anchoress 21:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

There's a lot of maintenance stuff to do. My personal favorite is clearing out image galleries (as they are not applicable under fair use). Specficially, I do this on pages that I come across, or I check out OrphanBot's next log of stuff to retag images accordingly. Hbdragon88 22:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

There's a TON of stuff to do at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Missing_encyclopedic_articles. And never forget you can always work on redirects. :) --ElaragirlTalk|Count 22:22, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
When I'm bored I head for long-requested articles if I feel like a challenge (can you make a decent stub or a identify a valid redirect?), or ver long-requested articles if I feel like a ridiculously difficult / impossible challenge (only ever managed to create about four articles through this). If you have any other languages, there's always translations that need doing. Or see Wikipedia:Maintenance. Proto:: 22:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
You've probably got plenty to do by now, but here's another idea. Pick a subject you've always pursued as a hobby and look over the article. Then pull all the books you own about it and borrow some more from the library. See if you can make it a featured article. DurovaCharge! 07:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Wow... everyone seems to have their own little projects they like. Thank you to everyone... I think I can keep busy for now. :-) --Ali'i 13:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

role accounts[edit]

Just a note: these two users, User:Rockcollege and User:Rockefeller College of Public Affairs & Policy, appear to be role accounts. — coelacan talk — 23:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I've blanked the latter user page as an advertisement and left a note on the talk page. DurovaCharge! 00:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

real estate edits[edit]

I'm not an american so I don't understand your real estate laws (or why your food portions are so large but that's for a different thread} BUT as far as I can see (and I could be entirely wrong about this but this editor seems to adding material about something called a 1031 process and it seems to be all to provide advantage to this company. The edits could be fine but as he's Stuart Chamberlin and the business is called Chamberlin Financial group..

Many thanks --Charlesknight 23:27, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The edits aren't fine, and are reverted. Thanks for the heads up. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks - normally I would have just done it myself but it's all dutch to me. --Charlesknight 10:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Probable socks of banned user: seeking community agreement to ban[edit]

Per Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/BooyakaDell: BooyakaDell, BertoBowdoin, and 67.86.149.41 are the same editor. At Wikipedia:Requests for comment/BooyakaDell several editors agreed that these are probable sockpuppets of banned editor JB196.

JB196, identified at this AFD as Jonathan Barber, is an aspiring author who is writing an unpublished book about professional wrestling.[13] All of these accounts edit professional wrestling articles in a confrontational manner and are strongly deletionist toward non-North American wrestlers. Of particular interest is this link where BooyakaDell inserted a link to an article about Jonathan Barber's book in progress.[14] The anon has inserted Jonathan Barber's name into a series of wrestling articles.[15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22] Also, BooyakaDell and JB196 consistently misspell the word "irrelevant" as "irrelevent" in their edit summaries.

Examples for User:JB196 [23] [24] [25] [26]
Examples for User:BooyakaDell [27] [28] [29] [30]

I think that's a pretty solid case that these accounts are all socks of the same unpublished author who's been trying to use Wikipedia for self-promotion. We can't get a checkuser on the original account because it was banned in September. Anyone object to calling these all his sockpuppets and closing the theater? This show must not go on. DurovaCharge! 00:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. As a person in the dispute with Booyaka and the IP, enough is too much. SirFozzie 00:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Agreed, I have been the Adopter - see WP:ADOPT - of BooyakaDell from the start of this, and am now convinced not only that he is a banned sockpuppet but also disruptive to the runnings of Wikipedia. Lethaniol 01:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree with a ban. It's ironic that the user often finds things "irrelevent" considering he's spending a lot of time at John Cena trying to add a comment about Cena not participating in anal sex. Metros232 01:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
I've stayed out of the debate considering that I was a major part of the situation that resulted in JB196 being banned in the first place (he then proceeded to vandalise my user page and talk page for a long period of time using AOL accounts) but suffice to say I have been convinced that Dell was JB for a long time. Apart from solely editting wrestling articles it was the little things that they shared that convinced me such as labelling reverts of their edits as "vandalism" and the fact that the sign all posts the same way without a space between the full-stop and the signature. I agree with the ban, though I do not see why it is required to go through AN as isn't being a confirmed sock of an already banned user grounds for a banning? –– Lid(Talk) 01:49, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
The other accounts are all socks of each other, but JB196 was too old to checkuser. Considering the vanity edits the IP made during the final hours there isn't much doubt in my mind. Part of why I'm bringing this here, to be candid, is that I specialize in tough investigations. The problem editors I deal with can be very dedicated to Wikipedia in their own peculiar way and one of these days some of them will probably try to build a serious malfeasance case against me. Three of the investigations I've handled are currently in arbitration. I want to avoid the fate of MONGO - yet I've made myself open to recall. So I make an extra effort to place my actions above suspicion. DurovaCharge! 02:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
I think I've found conclusive proof that the anon is JB196 - The articles linked after the line "The anon has inserted Jonathan Barber's name into a series of wrestling articles." listed the SAT and Amazing Red as two of the articles that had had Barber's name inserted which reminded me of this wikiproject post from April. This post shows that JB196 was trying to cite himself on both Amazing Red and the SAT (among others) even though there is nothing on the OWW pages to confirm that he wrote the move lists from all those months ago and now the IP is attempting the same thing. Either the IP knows who submitted the move lists even though OWW does not credit move list submitters and "knew" it was Jonathan Barber or the IP is JB196 and in continuing is also BooyakaDell. I think one possibility here is much more likely than the other. –– Lid(Talk) 02:22, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
The assertion that I BooyakaDell am a "strongly deletionist toward non-North American wrestlers" is bias and totally unreasonable. Also I have already explained that I read DOI, the web site which "XPW: Bleeding was only half the job" is printed on. Lastly, as far as the evidence about the misspelling of "irrelevent," it is a very common misspelling. "Irrelevent" gets 555,000 hits on google.BooyakaDell 02:31, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Four different editors signed onto the descriptions and examples listed at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/BooyakaDell#Notability_criteria. DurovaCharge! 02:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
No the four users signed under "Users certifying the basis for this dispute" (unless I'm missing something) which has *nothing* to do with them supporting any contention that I am "strongly deletionist toward non-North American wrestlers" (a preposterous assessment). The only two who would argue that are Curse and possibly anon IP 81. Their signature just says that four users agree there was a dispute that needed to be resolved, and its obvious there was such a dispute. That being said, I am out for the night.BooyakaDell 02:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll point out that BooyakaDell's posts here are in violation of WP:SOCK because the IP is currently subject to a 48 hour block. The other two registered accounts were rampant block evaders until the checkuser result came in. I haven't reverted these posts or imposed other blocks because it seems fair to let this editor speak in his defense. Also, less than an hour before this denial he wrote I don't see how there would have been any gain from being "forthcoming about being JB196."[31] To me that reads like an implicit admission that they are the same person: if these were different editors I'd expect something more like tell me what I can do to help clear up this misunderstanding. Booyaka also left a follow-up message that stated Yes this is all hypothetical but how is it possible that a sockpuppet coming clean would result in anything other than an immediate block (I can't stress the word immediate enough)?[32] DurovaCharge! 03:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Somehow I don't think the O.J. Simpson defense works any better on WP then it does in real life. SirFozzie 03:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked BooyakaDell and the puppets indefinetly. Alex Bakharev 04:49, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone who helped close the Case of the Wrestling Enthusiast.
Thanks Alex. I was minutes away from doing that myself based on the following:
  • 26 April 2006: JB196 self-identifies as Jonathan Barber and credits himself for compiling signature moves.[33]
  • 19 December 2006: the IP links to onlineworldofwrestling.com and credits Jonathan Barber by name at the same article regarding signature moves.
  • Yet the referenced site does not not credit anyone for compiling for that list of moves.[34]
  • Above, BooyakaDell (who is also this IP) claims his references are similar because he reads the same website - but he'd need supernatural powers to find a credit name the site doesn't post...unless of course he's Jonathan Barber, in which case the whole chain of events is very simple. DurovaCharge! 05:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
One question, should the IP be blocked long term as well? If you look at it's contributions, it's all BooyakaDell's edits [[35]], with no edits outside of it, I'm not sure if that's a static IP address or a long term dynamic one (if it is dynamic, we're probably going to have to keep an eye out when he changes IP) SirFozzie 05:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
I've taken care of the IP block. DurovaCharge! 05:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Piratez4v3go2:  http://www.onlineworldofwrestling.com/oww/contact-researchers.html

Yes, they do credit IB.69.122.252.77 05:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the site credits him in a general way as an inactive researcher. There's no particular reason to believe he compiled a list cited three days ago unless Booyaka had inside information. And beyond reasonable doubt, everyone except the sockpuppet concluded that this information was as inside as it can get. It's also perfectly obvious that an IP address with no previous edit history at all doesn't randomly come to the administrators' noticeboard and supply a link reference at the end of a long investigation - minutes after a series of accounts got banned - unless that IP address has an equally personal stake in the outcome. The new IP is now blocked. Would any others like to step forward? DurovaCharge! 06:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

More Bobabobabo nonsense[edit]

Tonight, I discovered several of Bobabobabo's sockpuppet's user talk pages filled with a copy-paste from an old Yu-Gi-Oh! episode list. Upon this, Geni (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) and I worked to fully protect every user talk page of the sockpuppets we could find, blanking them of the fair use images and whatnot. Again, IGNORE ANY REQUESTS TO UNBLOCK HER PRIMARY IP FROM ANYONE. Thank you :3—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

The user e-mailed me today; yes, I know the situation and, yes, I ignored the request. *rolls eyes* RadioKirk (u|t|c) 03:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, this is more of a message to the stewards/crats to not de-sysop Geni for wearing down her protect button to a nub.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Good, good. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 03:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Unprotect everything! Power to the Morlocks!! Down with Geni!!! Oh... wait... Yeah, erm, good work.
:Aaron "protection perverts people power" brenneman 06:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/RPJ[edit]

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

  • RPJ is banned from Wikipedia for one year.
  • RPJ is placed on indefinite probation. He may be banned from the site for an appropriate period by any administrator if he edits in a disruptive manner.
  • Edits by anonymous ips or alternative accounts which mirror RPJ's editing behavior are subject to the remedies applied to RPJ. Blocks and bans to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/RPJ#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.

For the Arbitration Committee --Srikeit 05:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Are we here for this?[edit]

I am a new user and I am not sure I am writing this at the correct place. I just want all senior editors to take note of this. Look at the following links.[36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42]. Is an administartor's energy to be wasted like this. Is this a place to write encyclopedia or for clashes like this. Shouldn't all editors respond when incidents like this occur. Can't we improve this software to prevent such incidents so that we can concentrate on what we are supposed to do here. SunilMS 06:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I fail to see what you're complaining about... Sasquatch t|c 07:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
I think he is talking about a rouge admin by the name of Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} {L} 11:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Look what we found – [43]. — Nearly Headless Nick 08:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Email Abuse[edit]

After recently posting my email address in error on Wikipedia, I began receiving subscriptions from gay websites signed up from this IP address: 24.29.141.11 . Please find out who this user is and take appropriate action. Thank you. Miracleimpulse 06:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe "nothing we can do" is the correct term here. That user already quit Wikipedia so there's really nothing left we can do on here. Sasquatch t|c 07:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
The IP hails from VA. The provider is Road Runner Holdco LLC. -- Szvest - Wiki me up ® 10:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Can the e-mail address be deleted or oversighted? You should look at Requests for oversight. Thatcher131 12:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Your best bet is to file an abuse complaint against IP 24.29.141.11 with Roadrunner. Good luck though; it's been my experience that Roadrunner isn't overly helpful on abuse complaints unless it is another big ISP complaining.--Isotope23 13:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
I think the only foolproof option here is to switch email providers. ---J.S (T/C) 18:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

User:131.104.218.46/User:Serafin[edit]

this editor (Serafin and 131 are same person) keeps personally attacking me despite myself and multiple other people warning him repeatedly. The latest here he calls me a "limited essence soya bean case" in Polish (according to online translator poltran.com) then states in Polish "It is necessary to pound him (it) faith technically not he (it; it) oczywiscieale." the last word being untranslatable I guess. See for instance Talk:Recovered Territories where he even created two sections called "exclude Jadger" and stated "All of you accept the truth you will need to blame anybody. Stop spreading Jadger the Nazi garbage." even calling me "German Arrogant" or stating "Do you love anything, maybe you only love is dollar?" this has been extremely offensive to me for obvious reasons, and I have asked him repeated times to stop but it continues. On another discussion page, that of Talk:Expulsion_of_Germans_after_World_War_II he essentially calls on people to vote for blocking me at the recovered territories discussion page because I am "a trouble for wiki". Also I would recommend taking a look at his talk page where he states "I am completely aware of you position. You attempt to equalize Polish wrong with Nazi crimes." which I would view as a personal attack. also this "I found also that you statements are provocative for others and actually you hate Poles." the list could go on and on, he repeatedly calls me revisionist and claims my edits are "false and twisted".

please put a stop to this

P.S. I would also like to note that this user has been banned on the German wikipedia for similar incidents, but his username is slightly different Aserafin.

--Jadger 11:50, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

For future reference this kind of thing belongs on the personal attack noticeboard. I'll take a look at it in an hour or two if no one else does first. ---J.S (T/C) 17:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
sorry, I thought I had put it in the personal attack noticeboard, but I guess I had both boards open at once and edited to the wrong one, sorry. If you would care to look at my userpage, user:Boyau has been kind enough to translate 131's attacks upon me in Polish. It is now apparent that he called me retarded and "less than human".
--Jadger 18:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm looking into this, but I don't see any evidence of personal attacks from User:Serafin. Can you provide me with specific Diffs? Or can you provide any evidence that User:Serafin and User:131.104.218.46 are the same person?
What I do see is some mild incivility from you... you need to tone it down a notch. ---J.S (T/C) 18:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Ah, this evidence shows nicely that they are the same person.] ---J.S (T/C) 19:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I realize I have grown impatient and have become uncivil at some points, but what can one expect when you are called a Nazi repeatedly? I doubt anyone could not become a little perturbed if they were me, the constant edit warring and personal attacks I have undergone from this user are annoying to say the least.

--Jadger 20:10, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Can you provide me the diffs of 131.104.218.46's statements? ---J.S (T/C) 20:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
alright, here goes. [[44]] [[45]] [[46]] [[47]]

[[48]]

you need but look at our two usertalkpages to see more. also, he wrote me saying [link] under "Chauvinists twists, propaganda and lies" was about me, I havent been able to find the specific diff on that one though as I am in a rush, sorry.

P.S. I did not include diffs of the discussion on his and my talk page because those should be obvious enough, if you want the diffs, I will add them here

--Jadger 21:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


I added a stiff warning on the IP talk page. If this continues let me know. Also, consiter this your final warning to act in a civil manner as well. ---J.S (T/C) 06:02, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

alright, understood, and thank you

--Jadger 11:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

AfD post-closure editing guidelines per administrator needed[edit]

An administrator deleted the AfD discussion [49] per another user's request, and then restored it at my request, with this qualification: [50]. I am willing to do this, but want to do so without getting myself in to more trouble. I've asked the restoring administrator for guidelines, both on their talk page [51] and through e-mail, and have not yet had a response. Can another administrator give me some guidance? Thanks! Keesiewonder 13:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

From what I can tell this is a case of embarrassing/etc comments on an AfD page. The simple approach is to blank everything between the closed debate templates at the top and the bottom. See this for an example. This can be done liberally, unless there is a really good reason not to blank the page. The full debate is always available in the history (which you may want to link to when you blank it), this is mainly to prevent the contents of the debate appearing in search results. --bainer (talk) 13:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Courtesy blanking. - brenneman 14:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. In my opinion, there is good reason to not blank the entire AfD page in this case. I will edit the AfD page directly this evening. It sounds like I do not need to worry about getting in trouble with administrators and WP politics if I simply give it my best shot. I intend to complete my first pass editing as the original administrator requested sometime during the next 24 hours. Regards, Keesiewonder 14:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I request that you DONT edit other user's comments to remove explitives. You can blank the discussion and use an oldid link if need-be... ---J.S (T/C) 15:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Understood, J.S. Thanks for clarifying. I will follow the example bainer provided above later today. Keesiewonder 17:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Moratorium on blocks for non-Latin characters[edit]

Because of recent conversations on the various email lists ([52] and [53]) demonstrating that not only is blocking users solely for use of non-Latin characters overly anglo-centric but also counterproductive and pointless because of the upcoming Unified Login; I am suggesting that all blocks based on non-Latin characters be suspended pending further investigation of the fairness and practicality of the policy. I have already suggested a policy change here: Wikipedia talk:Username#Non-latin_characters_and_Unified_Login. Bastiqe demandez 15:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I guess we better start writing some of these articles in languages other than English to avoid the anglo-centric accusation. The policy as I understand it is based on two issues firstly that on many browsers these characters don't render properly (happens on at least one of the computers I use) coming out as little boxes or ? or some such. In article histories this is worse than meaningless. And secondly that the use of abusive names or terms can go unchecked for a long while. The former is not easily solveable and why we encourage users to use such characters in their signature where usually hovering over the link shows the underlying username and the usernames show up properly in page histories. (Though in a recent RFA there were complaints that the signature was too different from the username...). The second is also not easily soluble and single login with local blocking, may indeed make it a real issue. Personally I don't see it as unreasonable to ask people to pick a name which is legible and renders well in peoples browsers. On the question of your proposal, the way things normally seem to work is we discuss and then take action, not take action then discuss --pgk 16:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
It was a suggestion. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 16:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
The discussion is continuing on WT:U. Please respond there. I am shifting these comments to the talk page. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} {L} 17:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the moratorium on non-latin character blocks. /me goes off to write this at WT:U. DVD+ R/W 18:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Ral315's comments have been moved to WT:U.]Nearly Headless Nick 07:54, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Question - finding articles deleted associated with an editor[edit]

I'm wondering what the best method is for finding the set of articles that have been created by an editor and subsequently deleted by one of several administrators. Thanks for your help is pointing me at the appropriate tool(s) for finding this information. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

There used to be a way to do it on the toolserver, but thats down now. ---J.S (T/C) 17:49, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, something of a problem, then, when it comes to tracking the hoofprints of vandals. When a page is deleted, edits to that page no longer appear in the contributions page for a user, so it becomes difficult to gather evidence of bad behavior in the absence of detailed accounting of the targets of vandalism by persons who set warnings on the perpetrator's talk page. Am I imagining a problem where one does not exist (not unlikely)? --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
That's why you're meant to leave {{attack}}/{{nn-notice}} warnings on their talk pages. --  Netsnipe  ►  03:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes .. there is a whole matrix of the templates (several for CSD applications) and I use them .. but my understanding is that they are not necessarily applied for every page vandalized in a series of events as they are meant as a notification trail rather than an audit trail. What you are suggesting is that for page creations, the talk page should function as an audit trail. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Exactly, just today I indef blocked a vandal and had to leave a message on the page to other administrator's that there would be little contributions becasue of deleted articles that he created/contributed to. Cbrown1023 03:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Something like a "page creation log" that listed all pages created by a user would defenently have been usefull sometimes. Granted that would still leave "regular" vandalism to pre-existing-but-since-deleted articles hidden. The ideal would probably have been a "toggle deleted edits on/off" button in the user contributions list (for admins at least), though I guess that might lead to performance issues (it's my understanding that deleted revisions are compressed and stored in a seperate, not-so-optimized-for-searching table). --Sherool (talk) 07:02, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I suspect the devs could easily code a "contrib history over deleted articles" for users, and make it accessible only to admins. Bugzilla, anyone? (Radiant) 12:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I would like that, too, it would be helpful in dealing with accounts whose contributions are routinely deleted as vandalism. Guy (Help!) 15:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Unblock review[edit]

Chesdovi, whom I blocked the other day, has filed a request for unblock review. His request has stood for nearly a day without being reviewed and now he's calling for a 48 hour retributive block on me. Would an uninvolved administrator give this a look? DurovaCharge! 17:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I reviewed it yesterday, and declined it, but decided to return the request to give the user another opinion. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 17:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Right to vanish, another case[edit]

If you look at my contributions, you will see that I just did a cleanup of some old pages relating to Jeff Merkey.

Jeff is focused on other projects which involve Wikipedia content but they are not affiliated with the Wikimedia Foundation. I removed the BAN since it is essentially become moot since Mr. Merkey has little interest or time to focus as an editor. Mr. Merkey has already told the Foundation he has little interest in being a Wikipedia Editor per se and given the amount of work he is doing in other areas, and as a courtesy for his right to vanish, I have removed these pages.

This is a courtesy, contingent of course on continued good behavior. I trust there will be no issues around this, but I wanted to give admins a heads up, since once upon a time there was a rather hysterical charge of a bribe being offered and accepted around this issue. Wikipedia is about many things, but one of the things it is or should be about is forgiveness and healing, as we all can become better people over time. Hopefully, there will be no further problems in this area.--Jimbo Wales 19:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Anti-vandalism suggestion[edit]

re: 131.230.133.186 (talk · contribs) I just stumbled on an Anom by way of my watchlist, who has been a 'good occasional contributor' (by spot check and contribs) and would like to suggest those patrolling for vandalism make it a priority to leaving a similar message on talk pages of those 'good anoms' you check out in the course of your patrolling.
   Templatizing a similar message should be considered, IMHO, but I didn't do so given I have no good feel for how prevalent such non-problem IP editor's actually are.
   By the same token, I'm very surprised that no one patrolling vandalism hadn't welcomed this gal or guy sooner. So I would like to suggest those doing so who recognize an IP as a regular non-problem do some spot cross checking and at least welcome such people! Happy holidays all! // FrankB 18:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I've actually never seen a discussion of posting "welcome" messages to IP accounts. Given that so many IP addresses are floating (does anyone actually know what percent of contributor IP's are static or not?), I'm not sure how many of them would be seen by the right person. Is this considered a good practice? Newyorkbrad 20:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
I use {{welcomeip}} when I see a good anon editor with a red talk page. ---J.S (T/C) 20:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
I use {{anon}}... on IPs that make good edits, IPs that vandalize and self-revert it, IPs that make what look like test edits on a page, and even plain old IP vandals... though followed by a 'test' template or written request to desist in that case. No reason not to be nice and invite people in. --CBD 11:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

The Guildhall at SMU[edit]

I messed up by copy/pasting from a website, so the article I wrote got tagged the next day. The copyvio tag says it should be mentioned on the talk page if a new article has been written, which I did on the same day when the tag got added. I have also informed the one who blanked/tagged the article that I've written a new one. Nothing happened, but I read that the procedure for admins is to look at the issue after seven days, so I waited. Ten days later still nothing, so I put a comment into the article section at Wikipedia:Copyright problems#2006-12-04, hoping it would catch the attention of the admins who look at the copyright issues. Six days later still nothing, so I put a comment into the talk page at Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems#The Guildhall at SMU. Now this was 18 hours ago, and still nothing. :( So as a last resort I'm posting here, kindly asking if an admin could fix the issue. Thank you. --Pizzahut2 20:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

If I'm understanding you correctly, you wrote the article and you want it deleted? Since you are only the contributor, that's easy. In the future, the speedy delete tag {{db-author}} can sometimes get attention faster. I'll delete the article. I can then move your other article into the mainspace. Cheers. Dina 20:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Orginal article deleted, new article moved from subpage to The Guildhall at SMU Dina 20:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Problem on AfC pages[edit]

I'm not sure where this goes, so I'll start here.

For the last couple of days the AfC pages have been acting very screwy.

  • The "edit button" does not edit the line that it's on - it opens the article before!
  • The afc templates seem to be randomly putting the correct -top- and -bottom- tags on the new articles, so that sometimes editing a new article will affect the entire page!
  • When a new request comes in, ofttimes there is not a new == == heading created.
  • When there are multiple == == sections, attempting to edit the parent one opens only the top section, and not the entire submission. I've had to go through and blank out several nonsense listings that had multiple sections.

If this isn't the correct forum to address this, would you please redirect it to the right place! :) Thanks... SkierRMH 00:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Generally, the best place to mention this would be at the technical village pump, but I'll try to help. Taking your comments in order:
  1. This sometimes happens on long pages - I'm not sure why, but it gets the wrong section number (probably there's a bug on the page or in the software)
  2. By "article" do you mean section? There's been a problem with the databases messing up lng pages when edited recently - nothing we can do :(
  3. Perhaps the IP is adding it without using the system (ie - new section) but is typing it at the bottom by mistake
  4. == == sections denote new edit sections in the mediawiki software, so editing one won't open the following one for editing. This is a major problem on the AfC desk - it needs to be emphasized to IPs that they must not use levbel 2 headings! Martinp23 12:12, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
I was going to take this to WP:VPT myself. -Patstuarttalk|edits 14:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Jewish Encyclopedia[edit]

FYI, User:JewishEncyclopedia, who identifies himself here [54] as the owner of jewishencyclopedia.com and has expressed concern at content from the encyclopedia being used without attributing his site. The encyclopedia is PD and so technically no attribution is needed, regardless of his TOS, but it may be a good idea for an experienced admin or someone from the foundation to respond to his request for contact. --BigDT 03:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I thought we do usually attribute anyway; I've seen articles that say "This article came from xxxx, which is in the public domain." Usually some 1911 encyclopedia or some Marine Corp thing. Hbdragon88 04:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
His concern was a link to his website ... I don't know (no idea, haven't looked into it at all) if that is actually where they are getting the information from, or even if it is the only online source of the Jewish encylopedia. Obviously, citing sources, we should credit the encyclopedia ... and if his website is the only place to find it, then a link might be appropriate, even if it is PD ... but it probably ought to be made clear that it is a courtesy, not an obligation. BigDT 04:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, even public domain stuff needs an attribution if we use its text in an article. The thing is, since he just digitized a PD encyclopedia, there's not automatically proof that someone uploading text from that encyclopedia copied from his efforts, maybe the uploader to Wikipedia scanned or transcribed the article manually too. I would suggest having contributers attribute his project if they did copy from it, but otherwise just use a standard attribution as described above. --W.marsh 04:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Clerical comment: This issue was apparently brought up before, about a year ago. (As for my two cents, if the text is indeed public domain, then standard attribution seems perfectly sensible.) Ourai т с 05:12, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Attribution to the Jewish Encyclopaeida <> linking to jewishencyclopaedia.com of course. Guy (Help!) 15:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

CSD backlog[edit]

Category:Candidates for speedy deletion appears to have been backlogged for quite some time now... between the images and articles, it looks like it could use a bit of clearing out. --Kinu t/c 06:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of talk pages of salted articles[edit]

Whats the protocol? ie Talk:Uncle Sherm's Visit. ViridaeTalk 08:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Basically the same as for any deleted page. If there is conversation important for re-creating it, like a re-write or discussion about finding sources, or other things like that, then it should be kept. This one looks like kids complaining "How you could you delete it! It's real!". It is also good to leave it for a while if there is explanation to the editors why it was deleted or a reference to WP:DRV. That advice has already been there for a week though, and I don't think "It is real" is a valid reason to undelete at DRV. Altogether, it is not that important though, because the talk page will be gone along with with the salted page when I delete it in a couple of months. —Centrxtalk • 08:17, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
If noone realised because of the redlink, I deleted it. Thanks Centrx. ViridaeTalk 11:15, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Young'uns[edit]

Sorry, I've been hiding under a rock. What was the verdict on people declaring themselves to be minors? Specifically, how should I proceed with this? Hesperian 10:24, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Tell them why it might be a bad idea (Wikipedia:Privacy) and that they probably shouldn't add their home address and such. (Radiant) 12:29, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Suspected copyright violations backlog[edit]

Wherebot has been busy lately, there are almost 20 reports at Wikipedia:Suspected copyright violations. Anyone with time to delete copyvios? -- ReyBrujo 12:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Category:Broken_redirects_for_speedy_deletion[edit]

Moved in from WP:HD

Since when is a broken redirect a speedy criterion? Shouldn't you try to fix a redirect especially when it has a history that may be the result of a merge of the material that used to be at the redirect? = Mgm|(talk) 12:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

You might like to take this to WP:AN, since it is admins that will be doing the deleting. ViridaeTalk 12:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

MGM, looks like the only things that *should* be speedyable under that cat are the following:

For any redirects that are not speedy deletion candidates, use Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. In any case it may be possible to make it a useful redirect to some other target.

  1. Redirects to non-existent pages
  2. Redirects to the Talk:, User: or User_talk: space from the main article space. If this was the result of a page move, consider waiting a day or two before deleting the redirect.
  3. Redirects as a result of an implausible typo that were recently created. However, redirects from common misspellings or misnomers are generally useful, as are redirects in other languages.

So perhaps its an ambiguity in "Broken", as that implies that they worked once upon a time. Syrthiss 13:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

  • That makes sense. Redirects to non-existent pages for speedy deletion doesn't have quite the right ring to it. I've reworded the intro to make it clear what it's for. - Mgm|(talk) 13:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Excellent. Syrthiss 13:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

HoboWars[edit]

Hi, Hobowars is an online turn-based game with lots of players. It is extremly fun and there is lots of good people on it. I know that some people abused the privalige of Wiki and made stupid pages about hobowars. But I think it should be allowed to make a good one. I would gladly make it. Plz email me at <email address removed> and tell me if this is possible or not. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.79.197.198 (talkcontribs) 23:46, 21 December 2006.

Please don't post your email address here unless you want tons of spam. And you want to address this concern to WP:DRV, which can handle your request for a deletion review. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Please familiarize yourself with WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:WEB, as these pages will aid you greatly in creating a successful WP:DRV. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 22:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


Approval for deletion by bot[edit]

This is a crossposting (aka spam), so group or split discussions as you see fit.

User_talk:Cyde#Wikipedia:Deletion_review.2FLog.2F2006_December_19
Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#Approval_for_deletion_by_bot

I've raised some concerns about community feeling on having a script do deletions.
Enjoy,
brenneman 00:08, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

CAT:CSD - Heads up[edit]

Someone gotta help me here, its overflowing. — Nearly Headless Nick 12:55, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I hate that category ;). Anyway, I've just added some stuff which may help to NPWatcher. Martinp23 13:01, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletionism[edit]

This wikiproject seems to be a bit problematic. It assumes Afds are votes and even scores them. Several comments are slanderous in my view. I would like to have second opinions, preferably on the talk page of the wikiproject. --Cat out 20:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Try MfD? --Deskbanana 20:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
    • I think you need to quit shopping this around multiple projects. Your deletion request on Meta isn't going well so you brought your problem here? I think that [55] shows clearly your intentions. Maybe you need to take a break from editing. Naconkantari 20:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • This wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that it's Elaragirl's pet project, would it? JChap2007 20:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
    • No, let's assume good faith here,and AAGF too. It would have been nice if Cat had bothered to post a question to anyone's talk page about this, or engage in discussion on the project talk page, or even bothered to read the project's description that it exists to reduce improper AfD's, but I guess I'm being silly or even incivil to suggest that. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 20:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
      • I don't think the project really needs to go away (NPOV, as we already have an inclusionism project), but there are huge problems with it (especially the vote counting bit - if anyone went to DRV saying something like "but there are 60 points for merge and only 55 for redirect", I'm certain the DRV would be quickly dispensed with!). I think that something which will help to get more people involved in under publicised AfDs will help, but I'd prefer to see inclusionists and deletionists merged into an AfD taskforce, so we don't get blatant POV voting from each of the projects. But that isn't going to happen :) - I just think the whole project needs a cleanup - if it went to MfD now, I'd probably recommend Userfication until it's ready. Martinp23 20:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
    • The scoring system is for a bot I am going to make to identify controversial AfD's. The problem is that too many AfD's end up at DRV because admins are counting votes, no matter what people claim. The assertion that we'd go into an AfD discussion with a bunch of numbers I just made up is pretty funny, though. I'm testing these numbers by hand, to see if they work. If they work, I'd like to make a bot that scrapes AfD votes and spits out a table of AfD's that might need a look. If it doesn't look possible, the scoring system won't be neccessary and can go away. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 21:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
    • The table is now in userspace anyway. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 21:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • responding to a number of posts

    I am merely trying to help. Incivil comments like the ones above are unwelcome here on wikipedia. Since WP:CIVIL is kept, please follow it.

    The point of ANB is it being a noticeboard. This is not the complaints department. I am merely asking impartial people to review the wikiproject page. I noticed the wikiproject at an afd... apperantly some people are advertising it with their signature. I do not believe it is Elaragirl's pet project, what makes you think that it is?

    The meta deletion page is a page I have made one nom and few comments. I do not campaign for deletion, no. I let impartial people review it.

    MfD/AfD is used too easily to shoot pages that can easily be improved rather than deleted. AfD/MfD is an overused procedure. I'd oppose a deletion nom (which seems to be inline with this wikiprojects guidelines).

    I think a wikiprojects objective should not be dividing the community (I am not saying it is for this wikiproject). I would oppose a inclusionism wikiproject just as well (I do not see one nor have I looked for it). I feel there should be one afd wikiproject that includes inclusionists, deletionists, and others and its title should represent this.

    Elaragirl, thank you. That makes sense. Elaragirl a key flaw IMHO is a bot can easily be tricked by sockpuppets, fake votes and etc. However a function that establishes the more clear cut cases might be useful but I also feel votes without a rationale should often be ignored. After all, WP:NOT a democracy and Afd not a vote.

    --Cat out 06:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

    • Elaragirl's explanation of what this prospective bot is meant to do is perfectly satisfactory and should be left at that. The idea is not to reduce AFD to a vote, but to see if there's a quick and easy way to generate a list of problematic AFDs that need looking at. Perhaps a page-move to WikiProject Deletion? It does actually say on the project page that inclusionists are particularly welcome, I think, but I agree that this second title could be viewed as less inflammatory.

      And what uncivil comments? I didn't see anything. A point that was made at the Elaragirl RFC was that it basically consisted of Cool Cat being wilfully offended. Certainly a little skepticism is permitted after you come straight back from enforced wikibreak and immediately start complaining on AN about a Wikiproject set up by the same person you earlier filed a frivolous RFC against.

      Oh, and the advertising in my signature is working? Good! The more eyes and feedback the better.