Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive77

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

Noticeboard archives


Zeev Grin (talk · contribs), Vladimir Petrov (talk · contribs)[edit]

Thread retitled from "not sure what to make of this".

Could someone keep an eye on Zeev Grin (talk · contribs) and Vladimir Petrov (talk · contribs) and possibly coach them on what wikipedia is and isn't. This isn't really a serious issue, but all the same, I thought is would be a good idea to get other users involved. --VectorPotentialTalk 19:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Removal of chatter on Talk:Reality[edit]

Thread retitled from "minor - blanking comments page by an admin".

If a stupid question is acceptable by itself, why is it unacceptable when followed by slightly more stupid answers?

Also, despite having 3000-odd linking pages, some of which are locked, this page is hard to find. You should fix that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 20:22, March 4, 2007 (UTC)

Please see WP:TPG, which explains what article discussion pages are for; succintly, they are for discussing the article, not anything else. Not sure what you want us to do about making it easier to get to — it's not even a disambiguated page, if you type "Reality" in the box on the left of every page or on the front page of Wikipedia, you get to it. There's not much else we can do.bbatsell ¿? 20:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
I just realized you meant the Administrators' Noticeboard. Oops. Not sure what we can do to publicize it, either, though. —bbatsell ¿? 20:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
It is linked on the Community Portal but it's kind of down there and in the swamp of things. It's really not that important to most readers, which I supppose is why ATT/RS/NN (the "writing an encyclopedia" info) is at hte top. Hbdragon88 22:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan[edit]

The above entitled arbitration case is now closed and the decision may be found at the link above. Szhaider, Unre4L, Siddiqui and Nadirali are each banned from editing Wikipedia for one year. For the arbitration committee, David Mestel(Talk) 21:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Category:Cities_in_the_UTC_timezone CfD[edit]

Thread retitled from "RfC procedure violation! THIS USEFULL CATEGORY WILL BE DELETED".

I'm not sure where to go for this one. The RfC that was announced on Category:Cities in the UTC timezone was not properly formated so I removed it. Furthermore, there were issues in the past regarding the user of the {{template:infobox city}} to auto-generate the categories. Personnally I find them very usefull as I sort through all the cities to see which one are cities and not and which ones need to be improved, changed or removed. I think some outside comments would be good but I didn't know where to go for that either because there is not real other place. So here I am! --CyclePat 04:32, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

You may want to visit Category:Cities in the UTC-5 timezone. --CyclePat 04:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Changes for the removal of, what I consider a badly formated delete nomination can be found here --CyclePat 04:45, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
The problem with the RfC is that there is no real discussion. --CyclePat 04:55, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
OKAY! Now I've had it! They're threatening to come here and they're saying my attitude is reprochable. This entire Category for discussion (CfD) is becomming a mockery of wikipedia. I trully feel that CfD needs something to improve it's discussion... because this feel more like a a CfP ... category for poll. --CyclePat 02:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Nerroth (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log)[edit]

Nerroth has been uploading images under a CC license, when the owner (Amarillo Design Bureau Inc.) only gave permission for their use on Wikipedia. I'm removing the CC tags, but I'm not sure what should happen beyond that. AlistairMcMillan 23:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I have tagged all of them without a fair use template with {{permission}}. Someone who knows something about Star Trek now needs to evaluate these and either delete them or make a Wikipedia:Fair use claim. Two important things to look at when making the decision are that many of the images have been uploaded in both large and small sizes. The latter needs to be the one kept if it meets WP:FUC. Further, the copyright here seems, well, strange. Surely these characters are the property of whoever owns the Star Trek property, and not this board game company. We should probably be using material directly from the copyright holder, unless we are talking about this particular artist's rendition of the characters. Jkelly 00:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
The games are based on licenses from Paramount. The guy I emailed at ADB said they couldn't agree to a CC license even if they wanted to. And most of the images are posted on articles about the board game. Whether we should have multiple articles about the board game is another question. AlistairMcMillan 00:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Jkelly, images uploaded after 20050519 and tagged with Template:Permission are subject to be speedy deleted at any time. I would normally tag them as such, but I don't intend to get into a revert war. --Iamunknown 00:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I think that we are all clear on that. The point here was to give people who knew something about the subject to evaluate whether or not they met Wikipedia:Fair use or not; I strongly suspect that they don't, but someone who knows something about this board game and about Star Trek should be taking a look at it. Jkelly 00:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I just imagined that the images would be more appropriately tagged with {{Don't know}} or {{no license}}. At least that way they won't be deleted on sight. --Iamunknown 02:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh. I think that would be strange. We know what the license is. {{Permission}} doesn't populate a speedy deletion queue, if that is what the concern is. If someone takes a second look at these and decides that there's no rationale for fair use, they should be speedy deleted per WP:CSD, but that's not going to happen automatically. Jkelly 02:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

How do these things even work, anyway? I thought that Image:German_Monopoly_board_in_the_middle_of_a_game.jpg would be copyrighted as it shows copyrighted artwork, but it isn't. If we can't get them free, I think we can do without them. The logos of the governments and factions in the Alpha Octant article are decorative, and I really don't understand the game any better with these huge images of the game board. You could just write that it's a honeycomb-like map and I could picture how it loks. Hbdragon88 00:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I can't imagine why we need those either. Jkelly 00:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Federal Commonwealth Society[edit]

This seems to be malformed inasmuch as it has overwritten an earlier AfD on the same subject. I wonder if someone could take a look and disentangle it. I don't think it's been listed properly as a result. Tyrenius 03:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Time to release the Cplot blocks?[edit]

See Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Cplot for some background, if you're not already aware. Is it about time to release some/all of these rangeblocks? Or should we give it some more time? I ask mainly because we still get the odd few unblock requests, every week, and I haven't heard anything from the guy, that I know of -- so either he finally got bored, or we finally blocked everything in the greater Chicago area, and it's keeping him out. Thoughts? – Luna Santin (talk) 23:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:BEANS; suggest this be addressed off-wiki. Newyorkbrad 23:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
And also discuss it with Raul654 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). —Pilotguy go around 23:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
From what I understand, Cplot used open proxies. I don't know much about IPs, but if that is the case against it. Teke (talk) 06:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm in favor of it. The range blocks affect *a lot* of people. Raul654 06:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Support releasing them. The federal clowns stuff doesn't bother me, and think he got bored anyway. --Aude (talk) 06:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, remove them. If he starts again, then they can always be reinstated. Neil (not Proto ►) 13:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Agree with Neil. DurovaCharge! 14:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

A concern over my user page & the Essjay situation[edit]


(This is, as far as this sort of disclaimers can say, half-serious.)

Since there is currently some confusion over Wikipedia administrations claiming to be what they aren't, I'm requesting some advice over my own user page. I added the following notice on top of it in January 21st (and I added the picture later:)

Now, please ignore the premise of the text for purposes of this discussion; I just added this because I wanted to make a jocular "cleanup box" one day, express the confusion inherent in the system, and hopefully, in a subtle way, say that even when we have tons of policies and guidelines, one probably doesn't need to worry about them too much. If you feel this wording is too strong either way, please contact me separately.

However, in the light of this new situation with the concerns over admin conduct and misrepresenting oneself, I'm asking if I stepped out of the line with this box. After all, it says "we wolves", referring to me. Apart of this comment, my user page does not (I think) contain any bits of information that could suggest that I am anything other than an ordinary human being, and to my knowledge, I have not publicly denied of actually, really, truly being an ordinary human being despite of occasional claims to contrary; Apart of this box it does not claim that I am in fact a cute, confused wolf, with a question mark hanging above its head. My Finnish Wikipedia user page does, however, say I'm "...this wolf-man (in Internet at least, but not in Real Life)...", a disclaimer that has (I think) persisted through the time I've been an user there.

Anyway, this box could potentially - and I say this merely as a theoretical conjecture, but knowing how real world works, it is an entirely plausible scenario - be viewed as a claim of me being something I clearly am not.

So do I need to include a disclaimer to my user page in this wiki too? --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 13:29, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:BJAODN... Obviously no one is really going to think you are a wolf, dude. Mangojuicetalk 13:39, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
There are many times while working on Wikipedia that we rely on others to tell the truth. If you are caught in a lie in such a situation then you have shown that you are untrustworthy and everything you do needs to be doua;ble-checked. Lie all you want in situations where no one is relying on the truth. Is someone counting on you being a wolf in some siuation related to making wikipedia better? WAS 4.250 13:55, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
I think it is acceptable on your userpage to refer to yourself as a wolf, so long as you avoid committing a WP:BITE violation. Newyorkbrad 14:03, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
How punny. Natalie 15:50, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Whoa; wait. You're not a wolf? C'mon; I understand that you want your privacy, but there's no need to deceive the Wikipedia community like that. We trusted you. Now, I am appalled. -- tariqabjotu 16:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Did you use your status as a wolf to gain advantage in debate? "I happen to be a wolf, so I know exactly what they eat.", that sort of thing? HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 17:08, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
On a more serious angle it might be worth adding to {{userpage}} a disclaimer that details found on user pages might be purposefully false/misleading and that any mentioned credentials should be verified. (Netscott) 17:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
I like the idea. -- ReyBrujo 00:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
I think the general disclaimer is enough. Frankly if you believe anything you see on Wikipedia that does not have a proper citation, then you are going to be disappointed. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 17:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
I am shocked and appalled! I demand your immediate de... er, whatever de- applies here! Luigi30 (Taλk) 15:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Delupification. (SEWilco 16:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC))

Need CN discussion closed[edit]

Wikipedia:Community noticeboard#Community ban proposal for Miracleimpulse needs to be closed by an uninvolved admin (I started the thread). There appears to be consensus to institute a community ban, though it is not clear exactly what the extent of the ban should be. Given the consensus to ban at all, I think there's enough here for a topic ban on anything related to Sweetest Day, American Greetings, and/or Hallmark Cards. --Coredesat 23:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Presumably enforcement will require admins. Anyway, do you plan to inform Miracleimpulse (talk · contribs) on his talk page? Perhaps include notices on the talk pages of the effected articles? Not a dog 00:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I was just formulating a proper notice, I have to make sure it does not sound bad but professional, not the easiest on text. Navou banter / contribs 00:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Cool - just wasn't sure if that was automatic or not. Not a dog 00:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I wrote a notice myself before checking this again, and I quickly reverted it (because it wouldn't be proper for me to do so). There shouldn't be an edit conflict, but be advised. :P --Coredesat 00:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I think a version of your notice should be added to his talk page, since it is much more explicit as to what a "community imposed topic ban" actually means. Not a dog 02:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree, its good practice to leave a notice. I talk to much in person, and I write too much in wiki. So sometimes I take time to write on the usertalk, I have to edit my comment before I hit the save page button. Also enforcement will require an admin, but the discussion closure did not. At least I believe I have interpreted the consensus correctly in this case. As always, I am open to review. Navou banter / contribs 00:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

(reduce indent)Would it be appropriate to place notices on the talk pages of the articles in question. I do not want to possibly alienate the editor or embarrass the editor on those talk pages. Would a notice on th user talk be sufficient? Navou banter / contribs 00:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

User talk should be sufficient for now. Also, I'll put an abbreviated version of my notice on his talk page as well, to serve as clarification. --Coredesat 02:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba 2[edit]

The above-named arbitration case has closed and the complete decision can be found at the link above. Andries, Wikisunn, SSS108, and Freelanceresearch are banned indefinitely from editing Sathya Sai Baba and related articles or their talk pages. Ekantik is instructed to make all future Wikipedia contributions related in any way to Sathya Sai Baba under a single username. Kkrystian is reminded that all edits must be supported by reliable sources. Editors involved at Sathya Sai Baba are encouraged to use better sources and improved citation style. The remedies in the prior decision Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba regarding poorly sourced information remain in force and apply to all editors working on Sathya Sai Baba and related articles. The Arbitration Committee reserves the right to amend these remedies as required and to issue additional remedies as necessary to provide a positive environment for collaboration on the Sathya Sai Baba article, even if no additional case is brought forward. This notice is given by a Clerk on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad 00:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Request diff removal (re. User:Husnock)[edit]

Thread retitled from "Asking for help from a computer administrator".

I’m an administrator of a computer lab in Dubai, UAE that monitored the escalation of a case involving a user called Husnock. The case drew in a lot of American/military personnel because someone unfortunately bookmarked it and then posted the mark to several newsgroups. We have removed all links to this case in an effort to keep it from flaring up again and I kindly ask that Wikipedia users do the same. It came to my attention that this message was posted to your pages, calling Husnock a name and saying he was dangerous to this site and deserves no respect. From what I can gather, Husnock has been off this site for months and hasn’t disrupted it in any way. He was also a military officer deployed to a combat zone and under a lot of stress and should be given at least some leeway (not that I'm defending anything he did or did not do). Clearly, calling him names and posting negative things about him, months after the fact, helps no one. I’m sure you’ll agree. Please let sleeping dogs lie, since comments like the one above can serve no useful purpose. Thank you. - 05:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The diff will stay. Short of copyright violations or personal information, we don't hide revisions. Teke (talk) 06:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
We will discuss removing the dif. In general, removal of difs only occurs rarely. Prior versions do not show up on web searches such as google and are thus hard to find unless one is already aware of the link. Now, to the community- I at least see no reason not to delete this dif. Unless someone else gives a very good reason to keep it, I'm going to delete it. JoshuaZ 06:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't see a reason to remove it it. Gmaxwell was expressing an opinion based on his interpretation of the ArbCom case and other whatnot. It's not a personal attack if it's based on editing patterns, it's not civil but it's surely not deletion worthy. Is this an issue of libel? I'm not sure, and this is an anonymous post and we don't know who made it. I agree it's not useful, and I see that the IP has asked Gmaxwell to remove the comment. I don't see the AN need and hold off to see if Gmaxwell removes it without this. Teke (talk) 06:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I would tend to keep Gmaxwell's !vote but obfuscate the name so that it doesn't show up on a google search. I'm operating on the assumption that the anon is H******, and that he is trying to keep his google profile low. Generally we respect requests like that wherever possible. Thatcher131 06:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry if I'm being slow this morning, but I really don't understand the reason why we should take any action on this. Spartaz Humbug! 06:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm with you on that, but I wouldn't disagree with Thatcher's proposal. Teke (talk) 07:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Spartaz, we do it because we are kind and courteous, even to users who have had a bit of a meltdown. Thatcher131 15:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
There is an ongoing discussion at RFA talk about Durin's RFB (and RFB issues in general). I would consider it inappropriate to obscure the record during that conversation. Dragons flight 15:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
It occurs to me that if you are operating a military computer lab the fastest way to get this resolved would be an email from your official email address, I'm sure there would be no issue with some basic cooperation. --pgk 07:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Bear in mind that the original poster here complaining about the diff was very probably Husnock. Neil (not Proto ►) 12:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Some very good feedback, thank you for the good information. Removing the “diff” is not a major issue, rather the concern was for all parties involved to simple avoid repeatedly referring to that user and his case. One of the most frustrating things about all of this is that anyone posting any kind of support of Husnock is usually immediately said to be an alternate account of him. This in turn naturally upsets whoever is really making the post, who then makes further posts, and so on. Indeed, of my own post, two people stated it was really Husnock and then an ip trace was conducted against our facility (I will post a further note further down). I would establish an account, as some have suggested, but then that account too would be accused of being Husnock and probably blocked from this site. What direction do we go then? Probably to just avoid bringing any of this up and avoid antagonizing people on both sides of the conflict. I still ask that the original user who posted that Husnock is a “troll” either retract the statement or it be removed from the edit history, for no other purpose than to keep things from flaring up again and maintaining peace on both sides. Thanks again. - 04:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

These IAR moves have GOT to stop[edit]

Guys please. I implore you. Knock this crazy IAR stuff on the head when dealing with highly charged and emotional issues. El C closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Essjay early, and, duh, now its on deletion review. Much like the Daniel Brandt fiasco; Starting... Continuing... and still continuing this has/will result in a longer, more controversial and much more drawn out process that causes us more headaches and gets us nowhere.

Can I remind you that WP:IAR states (and only states):

Note, it says improving Wikipedia. I put to you that these types of moves do not improve Wikipedia. Quite the opposite in fact. Please don't. Glen 08:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

  • well maybe. I think closing the Essjay AfD was actually smart. More than enough input on that one to gauge the mood. Brandt? I have to say a lot of the keeps appear to be out of spite, but that is probably just my nasty suspicious nature. Guy (Help!) 09:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
My point is that these IAR actions don't work. Speedy deleting Brandt's article? Its still here. Closing Essjay's article as a delete, it too is still there. They draw out process, cause drama throughout the site and actually take us backwards. If the keeps are out of spite, then they are out of spite - but make that decision at the appropriate time. Glen 10:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
The Essjay article is still there because the AfD closer didn't delete it. That's an error, not an argument for keeping the AfD open. How much more input do you need? Insisting on X days is just process wonkery. Guy (Help!) 11:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Personally, I don't think that invoking WP:SNOW is sensible if it leads to the process taking longer than it otherwise would have (which is pretty much inevitable in contentious cases). --ais523 12:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree with ais523 that in general controversially closing a contenious debate early is likely to result in a net increase in time wasted. In this particular case information is also changing too rapidly to make a rush decision (e.g. NYT article[1]). Quarl (talk) 2007-03-05 12:27Z
If someone closes a discussion early, they have to resist the temptation to reply to every single post criticising it (as do those who agree that it was a good decision). Obviously valid concerns should be addressed, but only once, and preferably on one forum. Then, once those who want to voice their opinion for the sake of voicing it have done so and those who've turned up looking for a fight have realised there isn't going to be one, it will peter out and net time-wastage will have been successfully minimised, and the only people who wasted their time will be the ones who were determined on doing so. --Sam Blanning(talk) 18:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Closing the Essjay AFD early was diabolical, given the external interest: one thing we (meaning Wikipedia) absolutely should not do was support any potential accusations of covering up what happened. Neil (not Proto ►) 12:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Diabolical? Get over yourself, will you? I would not have done it, but to call it a work of Satan is well beyond ridiculous. The thing weas massively longer than most AfDs, many tens of editors had contributed. Was the balance of opinion changing? Didn't look like it to me. When you have the answer, why not stop asking? Guy (Help!) 12:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
It's nothing to do with the balance of opinion (which I agree wouldn't have changed, much if at all) - it's to do with the appearance of propriety. It would not have killed anyone to keep it open for the full five days, and closing it early only helps perpetuate all the accusations of high-handedness and elitism amongst admins. It needs to be done exactly to standard procedure, no special case rules applied. It doesn't matter what the end result will be, as the end result is pretty clear. It's the means we reach that end that matter. Normally, I am dead set against process wonkery, but we need to recognise that this must go by the book. Neil (not Proto ►) 13:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Of course it would not have killed us toi keep it open, on the other hand it does not kill us to close it. What is there is a lengthy debate with extensive input. It's run for several days. There is no appearance of impropriety, it is clear that the Wikipeida community spent time debating it and the evidence, and several options were considered. It's equally clear that nobody's mind is changing now, most, if not all, interested parties have said their piece, and we need to get on with something a bit more productive. I would not have closed it, but neither do I see any pressing need to re-open it. It's certainly not "diabolical". It qualifies for an official "so what" as far as I'm concerned. Guy (Help!) 14:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
It was certainly the work of Beelzebub as far as I am concerned. The L in El_C probably stands for Lucifer. Okay, I'm joking, as "diabolical" was too strong a word, but I was miffed as I'd even made a big bold note saying "please do not close this early", a request echoed by many other users, and El_C promptly ignored it because "he knew better". Neil (not Proto ►) 14:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Fundamentally I agree - and I would go as far as "damn silly" myself - such things have a habit of causing the opposite of the correct outcome. Had Brandt been left to run I have little doubt we would now have on article, and be a better encyclopaedia for it. But I think people are really taking the whole thing way too seriously. It's a spit in the bucket, in global terms. Guy (Help!) 14:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Last weekend as soon as I heard about the AFD I rushed over to it to express my neutrality about the article and my strong desire to see the discussion run its full course. Why? I anticipated that the story would grow (as the New York Times article demonstrates) and I anticipated that some sysop would invoke IAR to close the discussion. Bad move: people want to discuss this issue. It looks like hushing things up to act too soon. And of course the tussle will continue on deletion review. I want this to be over as much as anybody, but early discussion closure isn't the way to achieve that end. Let things play themselves out. DurovaCharge! 14:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

It may be worth noting that there were a number of specific requests not to snowball this particular AfD, including one administrator, for what it's worth. If nothing else, I can see this being pretty frustrating to those individuals. They knew as well as many of us that the discussion was likely to end up cut off by WP:SNOW in short order, but it looks like given the current situation, there's not much that can be done to help that. And I suppose that I can also see some folk seeing that as a bad thing, anti-wiki and all that. Bitnine 14:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Sure, but I don't think it was snowballed, I think it was just closed, on the grounds that there was plenty of input and we did not want the debate to get any more toxic. Guy (Help!) 15:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Looking back you are right. I think I got distracted by someone's motion to close as snowball no consensus. That being said, I think that between SNOW/IAR we may be at a point where it's currently very unlikely that a high-profile and contentious XfD will run for its full lifetime, even with many people wanting them to run full course. Maybe that's a good thing or maybe it's a bad thing, but it's certainly a thing and probably warrants a look towards to see if it matches community consensus. Bitnine 15:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Bitnine has a good idea about gauging community consensus. Maybe it would be a good thing to reformulate the question so that it includes high profile/controversial articles generally and put the discussion on the community noticeboard. I supported early closure of Brian Peppers - but in all honesty my opinion on that was colored by a bit of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Consistent principles would help the project. DurovaCharge! 16:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
The truth is, I personally think no admin would have closed this as keep, but instead merging and redirecting, and thus we were ensured to have a DRV. Mark my words, we will have the same result for the next AFD, and an overturn in the following DRV. -- ReyBrujo 16:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I've started a community thread: Wikipedia:Community_noticeboard#Early_closure_of_high_profile_controversial_articles. DurovaCharge! 16:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
If IAR works then you used it correctly, if it fails to work, then you used it incorrectly. HowIBecameCivil 18:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Thats a good rule of thumb for any policy/guidline on wikipedia. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 18:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I personally find it unbelievable that an admin would make a unilateral decision like that then refuse to even discuss it because 'my feelings are hurt'. Maybe that's sarcasm on El_C's part but either way it speaks to the fact that either he had malicious intent in doing this when it was obvious to everyone that it would only make things worse or gross incompetence. I apologize if that's too harsh because I don't want to make it personal but it really is frustrating. Andrew831 19:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Nudge. This is a community issue so please add thoughts at the community thread. I've framed the question so it could apply to future controversies - a coherent consensus (in one place) now could be a big help later on. DurovaCharge! 19:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Glen, I may be wrong, but I don't see you complainig that the Snowball clause, an interpretation of Ignore all rules, has been applied to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Essjay. -- ReyBrujo 04:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Uh... isn't that what this thread was about? Am I missing something? —bbatsell ¿? 04:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Ummm, yep that's exactly what this thread is about. Listen, personally I'd like to see Essjay's article wiped off the face of the planet... but unfortunately, due to the early close its now on deletion review, where, most likely the deletion will be overturned as out of process, and then we're back to another AfD. IAR is a good policy, but again, on these highly emotional more controversial issues - invoking IAR or SNOW is just crazy. It only serves to take us backwards Glen 05:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Request to remove ip address information posted on this site[edit]

I ask that ip address information, posted publicly on this site, be removed by an administrator. Shortly after I made a post from a computer lab yesterday, User:Netscott conducted an ip address trace and then posted this material for the public to see [2]. There was no reason to do this and even less reason to post it publicly. As for his suspicions about an Arab location having a US ip address, we are an American facility and user American server facilities to prevent common websites, like Hotmail, Flickr, and others, from being blocked by the Arab servers as part of their censorship measures. To prove what I’m saying is true, I have used a local server to post this address and will post from the computer lab servers one minute after. I trust that will clear it up. Please remove the ip address information since it serves no purpose on Wikipedia and could potentially be used against us by computer hackers, vandals, etc. Thank you, - 04:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Um, the information was public in the first place. --210physicq (c) 04:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
A caveat for 195.x: any hacker worth worrying about won't need our help to query the ARIN database, which can be freely queried by anyone. If your goal is to reduce your Wikipedia profile, my suggestion is to simply stop editing, in all frankness. – Luna Santin (talk) 04:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
We really can't stop people from editing this site from our labs. Our computers are used by hundreds of people each day. Here is a weblink to our site: [3]. Can the ip information simply be removed? I can't even see the purpose as to why the ip trace was done in the first place. This does not appear to be common practice amongst unregistered addresses, that they get traced and the ip info posted on Wikipedia. I'm just trying to protect our lab, here, I'm sure you understand. Thank you for your feedback. - 04:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

And, as promised, from the lab servers. - 04:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing preventing you from blanking the page yourself. Your explanation appears plausible and therefore I personally will not be inclined to reestablish the information. (Netscott) 04:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
You may not be able to prevent people editing Wikipedia from your lab, but you could request that Wikipedia administrators block anonymous editing from your site. This could be done in such a way that people at your site could still register and create named accounts. They could become named contributors (under their chosen pseudonyms). ANY anonymous editing from your site will leave your IP address in publically-visible places on Wikipedia, for example in the history of this very page that we have been editing. EdJohnston 05:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
You just posted your lab IP address. You don't need to protect your lab, let IT worry about that. Mike (T C) Star of life2.png 06:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Reporting Admin Abuse[edit]

I'm not sure if this is the right place. Admin KhoiKhoi continues to revert an article to its incorrect version despite the consensus on the talk page being in opposition to his edits. If you look at the talk page for the reggaeton article: You will see that there are 3-1 contributors in favor of keeping the first word of the article and its spelling consistent with the actual title of the article, with an accented version of the word as an alternate. Despite pointing this out to KhoiKhoi through messages and through the talk page as well as the edit history for the reggaeton page: He continues to revert the page back to the incorrect version and the one noncompliant with the talk page consensus, and he gives no explanation whatsoever for his actions. Now he's saying that I'm going to be blocked, because I reverted him, even though I point out repeatedly that I'm editing as per the consensus on the talk page. I need an Admin to take 1 minute to look at the reggaeton article and its talk page to see that he's simply vandalising the page and not explaining his edits. 02:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Since KhoiKhoi is not using his admin tools, it's not truly admin abuse, just a content dispute. I must confess that I find the talk page indecipherable though and don't understand the nature of the dispute. Savidan 02:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
The submitter of this complaint, (talk · contribs), has announced on his Talk page that he is planning to ignore 3RR and take the consequences, "I'll probably get blocked for following wikipedia's rules", seeing himself as impelled to carry out the Talk page consensus. KhoiKhoi has already warned him about the 3-revert rule. I see no evidence that this anon has attempted to contact KhoiKhoi directly. Normal practice suggests that a longer conversation should take place at Talk:Reggaeton, in which both KhoiKhoi and should participate. Although it seems un-wiki, something like a 'vote' might be suggested, since even the alternatives in the debate are quite unclear. 'Consensus' is too strong a word at this point. EdJohnston 03:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
I've attempted multiple times to contact KhoiKhoi on his talk page in the past with no personal attacks of any nature, and rather than respond with discussion, he immediately deleted my questions/comments and then blocked my IP address (despite me not breaking any rules), forcing me to use another computer. My comments about disregarding the 3RR on my page were the result of knowing that he has blocked users (including myself) in the past for making edits that he didn't agree with. He seems to be engaged in other edit wars on wikipedia right now that he isn't willing to offer discussion on, either. If I make a comment on his talk page five minutes from now, he's just going to delete it and block me as he has in the past. Its time that his Admin status on Wikipedia be reviewed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)
If you think that the accenting of 'Reggaeton' is a vital issue, worthy of heavyweight administrative procedures, would it be too much to ask you to create an account, or to log in here with a previous account if you have one? Anyone who spends time looking into this may be concerned that you wound up very quickly at WP:AN after your first edit as on 2 March. EdJohnston 20:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

If there's really a consensus and he "keeps reverting", then surely he's in violation of 3RR himself? But anyway, an edit war not involving tools (i.e. he hasn't protected his version) is not generally (as far as I know) grounds for desysoping. If he violates 3RR, he should be blocked, and if he unblocks himself _that_ is the point at which it becomes admin abuse. --Random832 13:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Help Wanted[edit]

In an exchange with a well-known and highly respected contributor over a related issue, said contributor expressed concern that the edits of TedFrank (talk · contribs) merited a careful review - "he seems to not find any problem with him editing on his own time articles on topics about which he is paid in the daytime to propagandize" were his exact words - and the opinion was ventured in respect of his dispute with Jance / Jgwlaw / Gfwesq that "I think Wikipedia is not the right project for any of them" (with the implied inclusion of TedFrank). I need some help with this, please, since said contributor is currently travelling and in any case unlikely to have time to deal with this particular case, having rather bigger fish to fry at the moment. Guy (Help!) 12:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

TedFrank stated here a couple of weeks ago that he would be taking a few days off Wikipedia after the prior situation referred to. I haven't seen a case for a block at this time (if there is one, some diffs/links would be good), but if/when he returns, I will try to keep an eye on things including watching out for any POV editing, as he edits mostly in areas I know something about. Newyorkbrad 16:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
One problem is that the conflict of interest rules are fuzzy in this area -- AFAICT, Ted's job doesn't necessarily prevent him from editing, depending on the quality of his edits, but it does heighten the need for him to understand and apply WP:NPOV. Unless there's been some dispute resolution on this issue in the past, I would recommend some friendly warnings prior to blocks. I doubt I can do as good a job as Brad, but I'll try to keep an eye on Ted once he returns. TheronJ 15:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
One administrator who I have been discussing this via email has encouraged me to respond on-wiki; another has told me I'm "walking on a tightrope" because of my employer, which I find troubling, since other editors in similar circumstances are permitted to edit articles within their areas of expertise.
1. I fully intend to comply with WP:NPOV and WP:COI and would appreciate guidance on how best to do so. In articles such as medical malpractice and asbestos and the law I've made additions to the talk page identifying problems with the existing POV of the articles; other editors have approved of my comments, and invited me to make edits consistent with my proposal. I have not made those changes; I'll be happy to work with any editor on the question.
In other articles, such as Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, I corrected some misstatements of law and replaced a mischaracterization of one side's position with the actual position taken at the time in an effort to improve an article that did not comply with NPOV standards. I don't think it should be any more controversial than my corrections to the articles on removal jurisdiction and diversity jurisdiction.
When I created the Baron & Budd Script Memo controversy article, I added a POV tag and self-nominated it for deletion so that it would come immediately to the attention of editors that I created that article. I did try very hard to make that article NPOV, including multiple cites to authors I disagree with on the subject, and believe that the article does so comply.
If on other edits, such as Fred Baron or Stan Chesley or Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants, I've inadvertently overstepped a line, I apologize for doing so, and again would appreciate guidance on how best to promote NPOV at Wikipedia within the COI guidelines. I call attention to those articles now so that if there is an NPOV problem with them, it can be corrected, though I believe my edits to those articles do comply with NPOV.
2. I do object to the characterization that I am "paid to propagandize." This falsely implies academic dishonesty, and would arguably violate WP:BLP if it were included in a biographical article. (Indeed, I see a note on the community noticeboard citing precisely this accusation made against someone else as evidence of lack of civility.) Nor am I paid to "promote things," as another administrator accused me in an email. I hold an academic position at a nonpartisan nonprofit thinktank, and am forbidden by law from lobbying or taking partisan positions on behalf of the thinktank. (And as for pay, I make far less money than I would make if I were willing to sacrifice my academic independence for paying clients; whatever motivation I have for my current job, it's not a paycheck a third of my AGI the last full calendar year I was in private practice.) I do not edit Wikipedia on behalf of my employer, or even on behalf of myself, given that I have made edits adding cites to articles or academics I disagree with, such as Charles Silver or Sam Issacharoff. I'm not making edits any differently than I would make them if I took a position at a law school instead of one that didn't require me to grade papers; in either case, I would seek WP:NPOV compliance. I just want to see NPOV adhered to in the civil-justice-related articles, and again, would appreciate guidance on how that can best be achieved, given that there was a systematic POV-pushing campaign of thousands of edits in the past year that has slanted numerous articles in the area.
3. I apologize for the messiness with Jance that pollutes my contributions page. I didn't ask to be attacked by her on multiple pages or off of Wikipedia, and hope that her harassment doesn't achieve the hecklers' veto she sought. I would hope that Wikipedia views an editor with aspirations to NPOV who is trying to act in good faith to comply with Wikipedia policies differently than an editor who hid her affiliations and edit-warred with and otherwise harassed anyone who contradicted her preferred view of the world; it would seem to be counterproductive to the Wikipedia mission if the latter can have more influence on Wikipedia pages than the former.
4. As a precedent and an aspiration, I'd like to cite the example of Chip Berlet, User:Cberlet, who has edited on matters within his expertise since at least 2004. The fact that he has written widely on Lyndon Larouche for an organization that opposes Larouche has not prevented him from providing NPOV edits to Larouche-related articles or other articles within his expertise, nor should it, even as he has been hounded and harassed by Wikipedia editors who disagree with him (and with at least one indefinitely banned precisely for, inter alia, accusing him of being a "paid propagandist"). I don't have the time to devote to Wikipedia that Chip has devoted; but I hope that Wikipedia administrators will act fairly, apply its COI policy evenly, and work with someone who is trying to comply with NPOV and COI in good faith and improve Wikipedia articles. -- TedFrank 23:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I have not reviewed TedFrank's edits yet, but I thought I'd mention that I've met him; he's both very knowledgeable and is, in my opinion, the sort of person who would be a fair and accurate editor. Unless there's evidence of poor judgement in edits, I would not block him. --Zippy 00:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
As long as a Wikipedia editor follows the rules, working for a think tank should not be an issue--no matter what the political or ideological POV of the think tank. What matters is that the edits are accurate and NPOV and the editor, on balance, strives to edit collectively. I (in real life) work for a think tank that has criticized the think tank where TedFrank (in real life) works. We should be judged here by different criteria than that reserved for private POV opinions concerning our employers.--Cberlet 02:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I have some experience with this editor on Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants. Although he might have an agenda in his job, I think he has a better grasp of Wikipedia policies than he might have in the past. He demonstrates legal expertise and cites sources. We allow many trollish POV warriors to edit unmolested, and I don't think Ted Frank belongs in that bin. Cool Hand Luke 13:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Cave Clan[edit]

Can someone take a look at this? There's a protected edit request followed by a 4-page explanation about how we're all activists trying to call them gay or something. Luigi30 (Taλk) 15:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The page was fully protected, I dropped it down to semi-protected because and asked them to behave. Majorly then decided to reprotect it fully as few days ago, without any sort of message on the talk page of the article. The entire talk page is a bunch of people from some caving club in Australia using the talk page of the article as a message board. I am not entirely convinced the club is even notable, and am surprised it made it through an AFD. All the references are from their own websites (, barring one reference, which is a fact unrelated to the Cave Clan (the reference is about some Australian drain builder). Neil (not Proto ►) 15:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
nb, it's now unprotected. Neil (not Proto ►) 16:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
The group has received significant print media attention here in Australia. They're one of a couple of large caver groups in the country, which are all quite notorious for arguing incessantly with each other. --bainer (talk) 11:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Unbelievable observation[edit]

I was just over at the German Wikipedia, looking at Letzte änderungen (Recent Changes). I hid edits from users with accounts, leaving only anonymous edits visible. The last fifty anonymous edits on the German Wikipedia took place over a period of one hour and sixteen minutes. By comparison, the same number of anonymous edits on the English Wikipedia took place in about 90 seconds. It would appear that the English Wikipedia is the only place where RC patrol is a viable career... This isn't really a message for admins, but I was floored by this difference in activity. It's not like it's a ridiculous time in Germany, at the moment, it's a quarter past eight in the morning on a Tuesday. I know that's hardly an active wiki-time, but for the German Wikipedia, which is one third our size, to be forty times less active (at least in this one measure) seems very strange to me. Thoughts? RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 06:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

A possible explanation: .de keeps many more pages at some level of protection, so opportunities for anons is much less than here. This, casual editors are more often forced into deciding between not editing and getting an account. JoshuaZ 06:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I'd guess that their ratio of regular users to casual ones is not much different than ours, but their regular users are just more productive than ours. Maybe there is a lower burnout rate. — CharlotteWebb 07:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
As of about now, the time for the last 500 anon edits is about 45 minutes (11:19 to 12:06 UTC). Here, the last 500 anon edits covered 20 mins (11:48 to 12:08 UTC). Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
An other possible explanation: English Wikipedia is more active. the ratio above seems to show that we have approx. 2 1/4 times as many anon edits as they do. Does this represent the number of edits made by users with accounts? Eli Falk 14:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
It's roughly proportional to the number of articles, which was RyanGerbil10's original assumption. The number of edits (to about 14:20 CET) by registered editors is in about the same proportion, 14 minutes for 500 edits on de and 5 minutes here. I don't think there's anything mysterious about the number of edits being in some way related to the number of articles. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Philwelch[edit]

The above entitled arbitration case has closed, and the final decision has been published at the link shown. The Arbitration Committee has found that Philwelch misused his administrative tools. Because he gave up his status as an administrator in the face of controversy concerning his administrator actions and after an arbitration case was filed against him, he may not be automatically re-granted adminship. However, he is free to seek readminship, should he choose to do so, at any time by a request for adminship at WP:RfA. For the Arbitration Committee, Thatcher131 12:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I notice there wasn't a ruling as to whether the question, sans link, qualified as "The addition of links to or material derived from Encyclopedia Dramatica into Wikipedia". Anyone know which direction the committee was leaning towards on this? --Random832 14:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Look at the voting record on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Philwelch/Proposed decision. Thatcher131 14:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, some definite division on the issue right on through. It's understandable, as it isn't an entirely clear issue. Are questions in a RfA supposed to be limited to those factually based and supportable, or do they include addressing community questions and concerns (even those that do not have direct factual or verifiable support)? Does it matter if the question doesn't assert questionable information or is meant to dispel an untrue concern? And at what point is the distinction made between a genuine concern and someone just bringing up baseless mud? I am unsure that there exist easy to find cut-and-dry answers to those questions. Bitnine 15:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Repeated and blatant Plagiarism by Times of India and its subsidiaries[edit]

The Times of India and its subsidiaries are copying text verbatim from wikipedia without bothering to give ANY attribution.

For example: this article on Satyajit Ray is taken verbatim from Satyajit Ray#Film craft

User:Blnguyen also reported that many of the Cricketer biographies he wrote have been copied by Times of India. His user page has a list of the plagiarisms he detected.

Also, another user reported in the Wikipedia talk:Notice board for India-related topics that Vijay Times, a subsidiary of Times of India is taking photos, articles directly from Wikipedia without any attribution.

I request WP:OFFICE or others to look into this, and stop this plagiarism.

Thanks. --Ragib 01:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Seeing as Jimbo was in Delhi last week, I did pop him a mail and a talk page message wondering if he would pop in to the ToI's Delhi headquarters and have a chat! I'm not sure if he thought I was joking though, or perhaps the issue of the week consumed all of his time. Blnguyen (bananabucket)
And I should look more carefully because there are more plagiarised bits that I didn't check (from the cricket writings of other wikipedians). Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
So the ToI copied our articles? Hmm...I think there is not much what we can do, other than documenting the pages affected (which are doing well). It is in the hands of OFFICE and let them deal with it (btw, Jimbo has left India, so I do not think he can do much now). User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 01:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Consider writing a Letter to the Editor about it -- not to the Times of India, but to their main competitor. Raymond Arritt 01:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Or Slashdotting ;) --Ragib 01:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear God. When it was just the cricket it was plausibly the work of a single bad reporter. This is systematic and Not Good. JoshuaZ 01:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Find the first blog that, well, blogs about this, and let post that to Slashdot and Digg. They like controversies. Oh, and if we add an Everywhere Girl image in one of the articles, we can get The Inquirer to post about it as well :-P -- ReyBrujo 01:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the autograph! Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
By the way, I remember reading Wikimedia would do nothing about these cases, but any editor who had contributed to those articles can begin a legal process to force them acknowledge the license (much like what does). -- ReyBrujo 02:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps a letter to The Hindu, The Indian Express, or The Pioneer (daily), will do the job.Bakaman 02:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Regarding exploitation without attribution, there is an entire wiki website, the Rajputwiki, which has been created by lifting verbatim from our Rajput page and its numerous sub-pages. If you look into the page-history of each individual page on that wiki, you will find that each page has been seeded verbatim from our pages. Not one word of attribution, and I wrote nearly all of those pages! What is most paradoxical and sad is that I had a harrowing time last year ensuring that this version remained on Wikipedia and was not washed away by the infamous Rajput Troll but it was neatly lifted on to that other website, and used without ado! ImpuMozhi 02:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Well make sure it's noted on the article talk page that it's been used as a source! Maybe we need a project page where this kind of usage can be documented and kept on record. It's quite a compliment actually. Tyrenius 03:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
As I noted on my userpage, they also plagisraised my newbie OR violations and some rather farfetched crystal balling.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Interesting. I'd be curious to see what would happen if someone seeded one of the articles they're plagiarizing with some obvious errors, to check how indiscriminately they're cutting and pasting. No, we shouldn't really do that (see WP:POINT among others) but still it would be an interesting experiment. Raymond Arritt 05:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
They did copy them verbatim in large sections, errors and all, as I noted in my userpage report. They also copied in some editor's POV, even when the POV is not even mainstream, including some I did as a newbie. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks is intended to be a listing of all sites which mirror or fork Wikipedia, and Wikipedia:GFDL Compliance, which is to keep track of the compliance status of the mirrors and forks. There's a process described there to contact sites about their compliance, the first step of which is the standard GFDL violation letter. --bainer (talk) 06:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

  • I have a feeling this came to OTRS as well,m and was referred to Brad. I could be wrong. Copying is fine by GFDL, I believe, as long as there is attribution. Guy (Help!) 09:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
    Copying a GFDL work, among other things, requires that you attach a copy of the licence (see WP:GFDL section 2), and considering the length of the licence that would be somewhat impractical for a newspaper. If you copy a GFDL work in quantity, you also have to provide a machine-readable version (maybe less impractical, as it can be hosted on their website, I think, but still annoying for the newspaper; see section 3 of the GFDL). GFDL isn't a very good licence to use if you want newspapers to be able to copy your work (this is one of the reasons why dual-licencing with CC-by-sa is encouraged for images on Commons). --ais523 10:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  • The main issue here is that the Times of India is doing this completely without ANY attribution. If they just mentioned Wikipedia as the source, it would have been somewhat acceptable. But the newspaper is completely plagiarizing content without any attribution. From the notes above, it seems like this is a common practice for them, and not just an isolated incident. --Ragib 10:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Sure. I seem to recall it was raised in OTRS and escalated to Brad, but I could be wrong. Guy (Help!) 14:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I can't help but say this about the Times of India: that's just not cricket. Go ahead and write letters, but the fair thing would be to write directly to that newspaper first. DurovaCharge! 14:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

This is going on Indian Blogosphere... we've considerable influence with Indian media y'know! Amey Aryan DaBrood© 21:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is supposed to be a free encyclopedia, which means the contents are free to be used. As such many sites mirror Wikipedia articles unchanged. So, I don't see the that point of crying over this issue of Times of India plagiarism. Someone please explain me, what wrong have they done? --Pinaki ghosh 12:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

The admin:user ratio drops yet again[edit]

Just in case you think this is a temporary dip, check out this steady two year decline.

We're at 1:3257 now.[4] That's down from 1:3069 on 4 February when I last updated. It was 1:2216 last November 1 when I started tracking the trend. We've gotta coach more people into adminship. DurovaCharge! 04:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

At the current time, RFA is like walking on hot coals. Your entire past gets scrutinized, and you have to have a certain amount of edits here, certain amount of edits there...Oh, this user doesn't need the tools, he/she has never edited an XFD and so on and so forth. Maybe, if the process wasn't so, er, scary, more people would request adminship. This is just more evidence that RFA is seriously screwed up. PTO 05:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
The process isn't screwed up. It's just that some people are judging candidates using ridiculous criteria. Don't blame the system for the users' ineptitudes. Note I'm not pointing fingers at anyone. And isn't this discussion more suited for WT:RFA? --210physicq (c) 05:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I reckon this graph would be skewed by all the inactive user accounts. Think of all the single-edit accounts, throwaway sockpuppet accounts, and accounts of people who got over Wikipedia after a hundred edits. Think of the rate at which such accounts are being created. I'm prepared to believe that a graph of active editors versus active admins would be reasonably linear. Hesperian 05:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, wouldn't that be natural? We get around 10 new accounts per minute. To keep a regular ratio of 1, we would need to (I think) promote 1 admin per minute, or 1500 admins per day. It is late and maths give me headache, but I think that is about right. -- ReyBrujo 05:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Uhhh ... yeah, you might want to check that math again. --Cyde Weys 06:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
The same pattern holds even if you compare admins as a fraction of active accounts (e.g. those with at least 5 edits per month). Dragons flight 05:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
That is still very low activity. Users that make 5 edits a month do not contribute to any problems or backlogs that require administrative intervention, and that low activity still includes some vandal throwaway accounts. What is the number of edits per month where the relationship becomes rather linear? —Centrxtalk • 07:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Pattern is the same for > 100 edits per month. As for when it becomes linear, maybe never. Over time, the number of users with at least X edits need not be linearly related to the number of admins for any number of reasons. The easiest being that adminship requirements could change significantly over time. Really trying to see if it does become linear for some X is a question not easily answered with existing statistics. Dragons flight 07:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't see the admin/user ratio as very relevant, the admin/article ratio is probably more important, since the articles are the locus of activity and disputes. The admin/article ration seems to be stable. Guy (Help!) 11:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Surely the line that represents the edits would not be effected by throw away accounts, and thus less skewed. HowIBecameCivil 05:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure wikipedia is gaining a lot popularity. We need to promote more admins since they can be desysopped quite easily nowadays if they're not doing a good job. Since admins are wanted, I definitely want to be one.--Certified.Gangsta 05:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I've seen several people make the claim that admins can be desysopped easily. In very dramatic cases, sure; but if they're not doing a good job on a smaller scale, I don't think that this is true at all. It's certainly not a good reason to promote indiscriminately. —bbatsell ¿? 05:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I draw a direct correlation between the declining admin:user ratio and the collapse of the WP:PAIN and WP:RFI noticeboards. I tried to keep them running in the final months and there were simply too many requests for help without enough mops to clean up. Some people I've been mentoring went out of their way to address the monthlong backlog at WP:SSP this week and posted to this board with no replies or help. Finally I went over to pitch in myself because those are good editors and I don't want to sour them on considering adminship. When are people going to stop trying to explain this away and recognize that we've got a serious problem on our hands? DurovaCharge! 05:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with insufficient admins; the current admins are not working on these pages because they don't care to. If less than 1/100 admins care to do anything with these pages, adding 100 more admins is not going to solve the problem. The sky is not falling. —Centrxtalk • 07:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Oooo...that sounds serious. WP:NA has a whole mess of potential well qualified admins to be nominated (except for the crossed out ones), so I guess we can start from there. I guess people are bit shy and way too humble to nominate themselves. Jumping cheese Cont@ct 07:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

This is meaningless. Most "users" are throwaway accounts. The ratio of admins to user accounts will always approach 0; the ratio of established users to user accounts will also approach 0. It means nothing except that creating accounts on Wikipedia is really easy. —Centrxtalk • 07:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Note, for example, that the ratio of articles to admins on en.wp is better than on any other major Wikipedia. —Centrxtalk • 07:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I guess in the future, working on these pages should be essentials for admins. Saying "I don't care to" is ireespoinsible. When you apply for adminship, you're making a commitment.--Certified.Gangsta 07:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

No you're not. —Centrxtalk • 07:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I did my own stats on user creations, more intended in relation to username blocking but covering some basics. Typically about 8000 or so accounts created per day, 25% of which actually edited with the first 2 weeks. About 6.5% who achieved more than 5 edits, 1% or so more than 25 (within that 2 week timeframe). I might take a look later and try and get a picture of numers of active editors within certain periods. --pgk 07:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I resign... NOT! El_C 09:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Resign? Resign? Get a grip! Don't be ridiculous! Eat your chicken soup! Bishonen | talk 09:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC). Birdleft.gif
  • Fuck that! What's the point of being one if I'm no longer liked. SS was right (and possibly, also correct) about the free drugs and all that jazz! El_C 11:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

guys, these statistics need a lot of work before they become meaninful. Admin load is related to the number of disruptive editors, not the number of editors. Experienced non-admin editors reduce admin workload, inactive accounts do not affect it. Thus, we might need to tally the number of admins wrt the number of account creations. Admins sit at the first derivative of WP as it were. It is interesting, still, how the number of accounts fits the number of edits, while the number of admins fits the number of articles. Now establish how well the number of admins fits the increase in the number of edits. Another thing I'd like to see would be the incidence of anonymous edits wrt admin population, and wrt to rollback edits. dab (𒁳) 12:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Measuring something is easy. Knowing exactly what it is you are measuring is the hard part. JoeSmack Talk 13:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
How exactly do experienced non-admin editors who tag articles for deletion, report vandals and request protection reduce admin workloads other than applying for adminship themselves? Catchpole 13:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
by solving problems themselves? Warning users, catching vandalism, recognizing socks, merging articles (90% of non-speedy deletions could be solved by a merge), explaining policy to people, creating an atmosphere of collaboration and good faith. dab (𒁳) 16:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

These statistics are useful but it would also help to know something about administrative backlogs -- how often they occur, how long they last, and so on. If those statistics aren't available then maybe a reasonable proxy could be the average time from a report requiring admin action to its resolution. An example could be average time from a report to AIV until its clearance. Raymond Arritt 13:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

My original solution to the problem was to volunteer myself. Both PAIN and RFI were backlogged when I applied for adminship, so I promised to spend time there. The reaction was puzzlement: RFA voters appeared to be so used to sysopping people based on RC patrol and AFD participation that this sort of priority didn't appear on their radar screen. I got through anyway, but I had waited longer than most before asking for a mop. Fact is, I couldn't keep those boards running. Those pages had a few very dedicated people but just not enough to keep up with the inflow. So now I'm devoting more time to admin coaching and mentoring good editors who have an interest in complex investigations. My belief is that disputes and complex vandalism increase at roughly the same rate as the site grows so we really need to make a priority of mopifying sleuths. Early intervention with follow through can defuse situations that would otherwise fester until ArbCom has to handle them.
Not many admins specialize in this work and there's been a high burnout rate among the ones who do - anyone who's a regular at this board knows the history. So these days I'm building a team of Wikisleuths who can work together and share the load. In the long run I hope the community revives WP:RFI, once we have enough dedicated sleuths. In the interim I'm considering starting a WikiProject for complex investigations. You won't measure our efforts by our edit counts, but now and then we'll bag an elephant. Somebody needs to track down the sneaky vandals. DurovaCharge! 15:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Requesting admin warning to for repeated vandalism[edit]


User (Talk page) has repeatedly vandalized the article National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (United States) (History).

I don't want to get in an edit war over vandalism. Maybe an admin can give a warning/block?

--JDCMAN 15:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry, WP:3RR and other edit warring prohibitions don't apply to the reversion of vandalism. Also, you can warn him yourself. Check out a full list of warnings on WP:TT. I've warned the user, so consider this issue resolved. alphachimp 16:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
At the same time you were warning the user I was blocking him b/c there have been repeated warnings to stop the vandalism. Best, --Alabamaboy 16:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Requesting a move into a protected namespace[edit]


Could an admin please move Benutzer:ASM/quickedit.js to User:ASM/quickedit.js? It's meant to be a user-protected JS page, but because the wrong namespace has been used ('Benutzer' is German for 'User') it's in the article namespace and not JS-protected. Because the target name is JS-protected, an admin is required to make the move. Thanks! --ais523 18:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Done. Explained on user's talk page too; I'm assuming from the comments in his JS file that he speaks English. If not, someone may need to translate. —bbatsell ¿? 18:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Heads up on WP:CN discussion re: ArbCom[edit]

In the wake of the Essjay shebang, I've kicked off a discussion at CN on the lack of - as I perceive it - community influence over the Arbitration Committee. Please feel free to tell me I'm being stupid. Best, Moreschi Request a recording? 18:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

(Reply by User:Chick Bowen moved to WP:CN)

Requesting block on for repeated vandalism (12 incidents in the past 4 hours)[edit]


The user is being abusive and is repeatedly vandalizing pages without warning. Can an admin block? He's a repeat vandal, he hasn't received a final warning since his last block though.

User talk: Contributions

--JDCMAN 19:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Done. He had received a bv, then came back two hours later and vandalized the same article. In the future, these reports can go on WP:AIV. Thanks, —bbatsell ¿? 19:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
OK, thanks. --JDCMAN 19:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Two strange account creation sprees[edit]

Two strange account creation sprees are going on at the moment. I'm not sure what to make of them. The first involves Beast88 (talk · contribs), who has registered five new accounts within three minutes after joining Wikipedia. The accounts are Ha unstoppable (talk · contribs), Aintnostoppingme never (talk · contribs), Aintnostoppingme (talk · contribs), Unitmoved (talk · contribs) and Crazyclerk (talk · contribs). The usernames do not bode well.
The second, unrelated, account creation spree involves someone who apparently loves Roger Federer: R Fed Fan (talk · contribs), Federer's Fan (talk · contribs), Roger Fan (talk · contribs), Roger Federer's Big Fan (talk · contribs), Roger Federer's Fan (talk · contribs), Roger Federer Fan (talk · contribs) and perhaps Rog123 (talk · contribs). AecisBrievenbus 00:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I've indef block the 5 additional accounts created by Beast88 Gnangarra 00:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


Templates for deletion has a backlog right now. Any help would be appreciated. And then. Stay. :) It's not a hard page to work on, but it's more than just a one person job. And right now, I'm the only person patrolling it daily. More full/part time help would be greatly appreciated. All I ask is that you remember to put the closure template BELOW the subsection headers and not above. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 08:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to give it a try, but where are the instructions on how to properly close TfDs? (OK, they may be around somewhere, but it's been a while since I read WP:DP and associated pages.) Sandstein 17:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Deletion process. Quarl (talk) 2007-03-07 03:47Z
Thanks! Sandstein 05:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Important notice regarding fair use that all administrators should see[edit]

Moved to /Kat Walsh's statement to prevent the discussion from overwhelming this page.

  • Empty reply so this gets archived in two days time (subpage is one month old and hasn't been edited for six days). Fram 10:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Can I easily select multiple revisions to undelete?[edit]

Thread retitled from "Show some interwiki love!".

If this notice is inappropriate for this board, feel free to remove it. I placed this here as it concerns an action that only admins would know how to do. I am an admin at the Simple English Wikipedia, and I have a couple of selective restorations that I need to do. My question is this: is it possible to select all of the checkboxes except one or two with a single click, or do I have to click every box individually? Cheers, PTO 23:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Depends on your browser. Firefox lets you check the first box, hold shift, then check the last box, then you can selectively uncheck. —bbatsell ¿? 23:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Ah, thank you! This'll save a lot of time. PTO 23:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Are you frickin kidding me? Man, I wish I had known that for the last two months ... --BigDT 05:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Yeah; all newer browsers (i.e. IE 6 and 7, Firefox 1.0+, etc.) should work as long as javascript is enabled. Older browsers should work as well (any browser that supports basic javascript, but I couldn't say that with any degree of certainty. Ral315 » 07:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Just FYI, you lost move protection when you did that, deleting a page unprotects it. Prodego talk 12:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Incidents today involving Heswall[edit]


A user, User:REdmondson, vandalised Heswall on a number of occasions this morning with the same kind of vandaklism: making a,personal attack on some named person. The user had also vandalised other articles, was reported as being a vandal-only account, and was indefinitely suspended. Now, a different user has suddenlty appeared: User:B3nj1b01, who only has one adit, to Heswall which vandalises it in an identical way to the now indefinitely banned User:REdmondson. Whilst this new user has only one edit to their name, it seems to me taht they have responded to the ban by creating a new user account so that they can continue the same kind of vandalism. It seems to me that they should be treated as if they were simply the same as User:REdmondson, and that they are attempting to evade the indefinite ban. Since the vandalism is of a potentially libellous nature towards some named individual, it seems that prompt action may be required here. What should be done about this?  DDStretch  (talk) 15:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

B3nj1b01 (talk · contribs) blocked indefinitely. Quarl (talk) 2007-03-08 09:46Z

Recent edits by Paul210[edit]


Please can someone look at the recent edits to the following articles by Paul210 - Armadale, West Lothian, Fauldhouse and Winchburgh, the user concerned insists in adding back external links to his own weblog despite the fact that they add no value to the articles themselves. I have asked him not to add these links (and also in the past) and his [addition] to my talk page shows that he is not willing to be WP:CIVIL. I have not reverted todays changes as I do not wish to violate the 3RR. Fraslet 15:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Reverted and warned. Quarl (talk) 2007-03-08 08:45Z

Daniel Brandt article[edit]

Daniel Brandt 13th AfD nomination - The Daniel Brandt article now is going through an unprecedented 13th Article for Deletion (AfD) nomination. There were significant issues brought up in the article deletion review following the 12th AfD nomination that may eventually need to be resolved. If past actions related to this article are any indication, this matter may involve disputes among administrators (in addition to the usual troubles). Please consider participating in the present AfD nomination in addition to keeping a watchlist eye on the article, the article talk page, and any process that this topic goes through. -- Jreferee 17:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, it broke the GNAA's record. Luigi30 (Taλk) 17:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
No it didn't - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gay Nigger Association of America (18th nomination). It took 18 tries to finally get an untrolled, ungamed AFD through. Neil (not Proto ►) 18:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Request for Protected template edits[edit]


I would like to request edits to Template:Coor, Template:Coor d, Template:Coor dm, Template:Coor dms, Template:Coor at d, Template:Coor at dm, and Template:Coor at dms. There is a detailed explanation with the code for exactly what I would like edited at Template talk:Coor URL#Span title. As I have provided the code and directions, experience with templates isn't required, but it would help understand exactly what I am proposing. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 21:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:RFPP is thataway. --Coredesat 22:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Done. Quarl (talk) 2007-03-08 09:32Z

Ohioan1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)[edit]

Please ban for POV pushing, etc... Completely ignoring the talk page, this user does nothing but edit the Condoleeza Rice article trying to give political commentary that belongs on a blog or a cable talk show, but not Wikipedia. Here are several diffs: wacko poll analysis that doesn't belong in the lead, vague 9/11 innuendo, and unrelated political commentary. This user is extremely familiar with Wikipedia rules, and i suspect it is someone else's sock puppet. -- Mgunn 08:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

My reading of the situation is as follows: This is not really a banning situation yet. At issue is how to characterise Condoleeza Rice's popularity based on opinion polls (which raises obvious WP:OR problems). Ohioan1 has been slowly editwarring about this, but consensus on the talk page appears to favour the opinion of Mgunn and others. Also, Ohioan1 is a single purpose account, editing that article only. I'd support a brief block of Ohioan1 to stop him editwarring and make him re-engage in discussion on the talk page. Thoughts? Sandstein 17:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and for next time, this belongs on WP:AIV or WP:ANI. Sandstein 17:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

A few points of clarification. It is clear that short attacks are effective in creating confusion.

Mgunn asserts that I have edited nothing but edit the Condoleeza Rice page. This is false, I have reviewed many others and edited one other.

Mgunn’s assertion that I have attempted to place information in the lead that does not belong there is not the whole story. I have attempted to move the poll details to a separate section and this has been blocked repeatedly; others have commented that the lead does not summarize what is in the article and the proposed move would rectify that. Mgunn has stated that he does not have a problem with the finding, but that it should not be in the lead. So, the lead continues to carry many detailed statements, footnotes and all, and Mgunn blocks addition of pertinent, new, information. So it is a Catch 22: the lead contains many detailed statements and Mgunn blocks an updated statement on the basis that it is detailed. The result is the lead statements are unbalanced and POV.

Mgunn asserts that “You are obviously not a new editor to Wikipedia” and that “This user is extremely familiar with Wikipedia rules.” These assertions are false, and also at odds with Mgunn’s assertion that I might be a random Middle School student. If I were extremely familiar with Wikipedia rules, I would have been able to find this ANI page earlier—Mgunn kindly referred to it but did not provide a link; I found the link only when I searched his talk page. Further, I would not have made some new-be judgement errors that I made in my earlier edits.

Mgunn criticizes my focus on the Rice page as evidence of wrongdoing. However, I understand that technical writers focus add value by studying a topic in depth and adding relevant content. If you research my history, you will see that I have added several well documented and accepted contributions to the page. I do not cruise a collection of political pages as some others have, with the principal edits being blocks.

Mgunn asserts that I have not used the talk pages. This is odd, because Mgunn has not responded to recent discussion I posted regarding the very statements to which Mgunn objects.

Sincerely, Ohioan1 03:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Request for retrieval of trivial content[edit]


Could an admin be bothered to transfer to WP:BJAODN four snowball deleted templates: 1, 2, 3, and 4. Note that this is extremely trivial and unimportant with regards to recent events and even every-day going-ons. All that's needed for this is a patient admin. (Note: the original author may need to be credited, although this is not a common practice on BJAODN.) GracenotesT § 03:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Picaroon9288 (talk · contribs) helped me with this over IRC. Nothing to see here... GracenotesT § 03:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Perfect 138[edit]

Thread retitled from "Annoying User".

the user Perfect 138 has changed the info pretaining to the Darth Maul page has been screwed with a couple of times and after delting his edits he puts them back. Revansrangers 06:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Content dispute over whether Darth Maul is more awesome or Darth Raven is more awesome. Doesn't require immediate attention; use the talk page, please. Quarl (talk) 2007-03-08 10:30Z

Username change abuse[edit]

Apparently changing your username frees up the old username for reregistration and potential abuse. See [5], [6]. Also, if any Checkusers would like to look into this, I'd be interested in finding out who it was who wanted my old username so badly... Shii (tock) formerly Ashibaka 20:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I just tried to register my old user name (User:Proto), so nobody could pinch it, and it said it was too similar to User:Pr0t0. Weird. Neil (not Proto ►) 10:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Admins can register a user despite the too-similar blocker; go to Special:Userlogin while logged in, and you'll find that you can create a doppelganger account no matter what the name is (as long as it isn't exactly the same as an existing account). This is good practice for creating doppelgangers anyway, as the log entry for account creation will have your name on it (I used this process when creating my bot, so that it wouldn't be blocked for username; see the bottom row of [7]). --ais523 16:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Personal Attacks on userpage[edit]


Is it acceptable to remove a section on another editor's userpage if it's a personal attack? Touching other people's userspace is sort of taboo...but then again, it's fine to remove personal attacks from talk pages.

If it's fine, can someone please go do something about the "Wikipedians who suck" section on User:Unknown Dragon's userpage? I don't really want to touch it myself, i'm really not all that keen to deal with this editor again, but i really would like his personal attack against me removed.

Also, is having song lyrics on userpages fine? I would have thought it's a copyright problem (like having copyrighted/fair use pictures on userpages). If it isn't, then the "Theme Song(s)" section on his userpage needs to go as well.

Thanks --`/aksha 10:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The personal attack section is not good; I've removed it, and let the user know why. The song lyrics are fine, he is only using an excerpt, not the full lyrics, and there are many many Wikipedians do so (quotes, lyrics, poems, etc). Neil (not Proto ►) 10:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. --`/aksha 10:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Unwanted editing[edit]

(Moved here from WT:RFA) As principal of a Junior High in Texas, one of our students was caught editing a page over Albert Einstein. He has been dealt with and will be banned from internet use for the remainder of the school year. Please accept my deepest apologies as this behavior is not tolerated in our school district, and will be deemed a serious event. Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 14:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC).

Request for opinions on screenshot image of Essjay's now-deleted user page[edit]

This is a fairly minor footnote to the Essjay saga, but I'd like the opinions of administrators on whether something would be an appropriate use of admin tools. Looking at Essjay controversy last night, I noticed that there was a gallery of four screenshots of the Google cache of the now-deleted User:Essjay/History1. (These images can be seen at Image:Essjay History1 - 1 of 4.jpg, Image:Essjay History1 - 2 of 4.jpg, Image:Essjay History1 - 3 of 4.jpg and Image:Essjay History1 - 4 of 4.jpg.) I have a little application called SnapWeb, which can take a single image of a web page, so I used that to create a single image of the Google cache to replace the four split images. However, the Google cache is of a vandalized version of the page (it has a caption saying "Yes, I'm not a professor"). It occurred to me that I could make a screenshot of an unvandalized version of the page, using my admin ability to view deleted pages. But I was decidedly unsure of whether this would be appropriate or not.

Now, obviously, it's up to the editors at Talk:Essjay controversy to determine whether it's appropriate to have a screenshot or not, and there's a discussion going on there about that. The question I'd like to hear from my fellow admins address is whether it would be appropriate for me, as an admin, to create an image of a deleted Wikipedia user page for editors to use in an encyclopedia article? Was the issue of an image of a deleted page addressed in the Seigenthaler incident? (I see that John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy has no image of the page — is this due to a deliberate decision, or did it just not come up?) I don't want to provide an image if it would be a violation of my duties as an admin, but I do think that if the article is going to have a screenshot of the page, it might be better for that screenshot to reflect Essjay's actual page, as opposed to one that was vandalised. What do other folks think? —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 19:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

From one point of view, I would say that the images, coming from google and possibly altered, are unreliable. That articles should not be self-referential and that Wikipedia itself is an unreliable source. That Essjay's user page was made by transcluding a dozen or more subpages so they would all have to be undeleted to get an accurate image. And that if an external reliable source is found that says "Essjay's page used to claim that he was German shepherd" then you cite the source. There is no need to see the actual page. From another point of view, I am past caring. There has not been even a hint that Essjay used his false credentials to insert false information into articles, which is after all our core purpose here (and yet that is apparently what at least one British tabloid is claiming--reliable my ass). This is a 9-days' wonder at best, yet we will now have to live with Essjay controversy forever because a majority of editors cares more about following meta-policies than being humane. Thatcher131 21:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Thatcher. Newyorkbrad 21:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
As do I. Guy (Help!) 21:58, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Me too. ElinorD (talk) 22:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Plus, you cannot verify the reliability of screenshots from a deleted page on wikia.--Docg 22:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
But you can verify that they are google's cache of the pages. So really, this is just arguing about semantics. We've been discussing this all day at Talk:Essjay_controversy. -- Kendrick7talk 22:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes I agree, this is merely semantics. Because you can't possibly deny this is indeed a snapshot of google's cache, and it will be of benefit to readers to see what the past history used to look like. Because currently that has been deleted away, of what was on wikipedia. Mathmo Talk 05:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Hm? I thought that recreating deleted content in a format that masks contribution histories (a snapshot or cut-and-paste) was verboten under the license. Or did I miss something? Bitnine 05:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Starting to feel rather sick at the moment... so excuse me if I'm not giving a perfect example here (I know it isn't): but imagine you took a photo of a McD's building. The photo wouldn't automatically be owned by McD's, obviously. Likewise this has smilarities, which hopefully you can see the gist of. Though I really should have came up with a better example than that. Oh, might be more a "problem" (which if you think about it, is not there at all) with being a copy of google than related to GFDL. Mathmo Talk 09:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I think that technically speaking the image wouldn't fulfil the GFDL (history isn't available), but if it were deemed sufficiently important for the article and there was a decent fair-use rationale it would be acceptable as fair use per the WP:FUC. However, until/unless such an image is published in the press, it would be original research (using Special:Undelete to get an image of a deleted page is definitely original research). --ais523 09:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Ok, don't feel well enough to consider an argument regarding using Special:Undelete. However... that point totally doesn't matter, because as I just said it was made using google cache. Therefore using it from the google cache I believe almost certainly would come under fair use. Mathmo Talk 09:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
(Undent) Honestly, taking a moment to divorce the question from the article's subject, I have no idea how a cached Google version of a Wikipedia page can possibly be said to even come close to the minimum standards of attribution and verification in order to warrant inclusion. Such a source so grossly fails to even approach the threshold for inclusion that I'm actually surprised that it even got beyond that to the questions of licensing, self-reference and appropriateness. A screenshot of a Google cache of a Wikipedia page is so flagrantly unreliable that it would make an excellent textbook example of Things to Never Use in Any Wikipedia Article Ever.
If you do honestly believe that the information benefits the article, I would suggest trying to find a reliable source or a summary that can be supported with citations. Bitnine 15:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I have to disagree with the other users here. Images are not subject to nearly the same level of verification as article content. That's why for example, users can upload pictures they've taken of animals and locations and the only say so needed is that the uploader says that it is what they say it is. I'm not convinced these images add much to the article, but there isn't any WP:V issue. JoshuaZ 16:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
However, you can't get around attribution by uploading an image of a paragraph. In fact, if you read the above, the picture would in fact include misattributable vandalism. While you could add a caption stating that the article of vandalism was not posted by the user in question, that caption itself would be unverifiable. I could, though I certainly won't, edit another user's page such that "they" admit to killing Abraham Lincoln and time it such that I grab an image of a Google cache. Even if they were notable enough to have an article (say for vandalizing the hall of presidents), my posting of this image would be inherently problematic for the same reasons. Bitnine 16:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Advice to a fellow admin?[edit]

Is this the proper place for one fairly inexperienced admin to ask for advice from the larger community? I can't seem to find anything more appropriate, and I've bugged User:Prodego enough already :-) Maury 21:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't really know, but I don't think anyone will kick you out. :) Hit us. —bbatsell ¿? 21:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely. Block review requests, protection review requests, etc., are par for the course both here and at WP:AN/I. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 21:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Ok, thanks! Well the reason I'm here is an editor has asked me to look into a minor ongoing problem. I had earlier seen some name-calling in the thread in question and had warned the user, but since then avoided looking at it because I was a little burned out. I returned to find a number of questionable posts.
Would you mind taking a look over the edit history here going back to March 1 and commenting? There's what appears to be a case of wikistalking going on; all of the talk pages being hit are ones that the other editor worked on some time in the past. There's accusations of sockpuppettry flying, odd images being posted about trolls, and continuing minor name calling (including mine).
In the past I have avoided all but the most obvious admin duites (rving vandalism, blocks on obvious vandal accounts, etc) and I can't say I really understand what admining, if any, to apply when the issue is not so black and white. This isn't a content dispute really (only peripherally, regardless of the claims otherwise), so I'm out of my depth. I have to say, it all seems pretty minor to me, but it might not to the other people involved. In your opinion, is this something that anything should be "done about"? Maury 22:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, who exactly is Opuscalgary wikistalking? Nishkid64 00:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, just coming back on now. I believe he is wikistalking User:Bzuk ("Bill" in the many posts). I believe this is the case because Bzuk and I have worked on several articles in the past, so these are active in my watchlist along with the talk pages and some users in common. I saw a continuous dribble of posts onto these pages, and that's when I got the message from Bzuk asking for help. I looked over Opus' edit list and found many more examples, ones I would normally not see because I had not had dealings with those articles/users. But this is not actually my main concern (nor Bzuk's it seems), my primary concern is the constant stream of "abusive" messages -- but are they abusive? And if they are, abusive enough to do something? And if so, what? Like I said, I'm pretty new to this particular shade of grey, and I'm really just curious about whether or not this sort of behavior is considered bad, or just par for the wiki course? Maury 13:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

That's still pretty vague. You want a link to a specific edit diff, or series of diffs. Otherwise, just by directing someone to a whole contribution history, you will get people -- like me -- finding things like this, which implies that Opuscalgary and Bzuk had a fine relationship just 2 days ago. In general, for an admin to make actual blocks due to personal attacks, they need to be pretty blatant. (Unfortunately, that's not rare :-( ) Otherwise just general advice and encouragement to civility is usually better. Remind them they are all in this to write an encyclopedia, surely they can come to a peaceful compromise. It also seems the issue is an article about a Canadian aircraft? Not abortion rights, or the Arab-Israeli wars or something as heated as that? Then this shouldn't be impossible to find a compromise on. If in doubt, list all views with good references. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I guess I'm explaining my question poorly. The issue isn't about the article. Its about what happened after the article was RVed, namely a series of hundreds of posts to people all over the wiki. There's been over 50 posts to over a dozen pages since I posted about it here a day ago, and it shows no signs of slowing. Thus my question: is lots of posts to lots of people a problem in of itself?

I take your point about the specifics though, so I guess a little cut-n-paste is in order. It starts on my page where he tells me to "get professional help" (like I said, its mild). I told him to knock off the PA and left it at that. But here he blanks a post on BillCJ's talk page and adds some sort of spamming accusation to the checkin log. When someone reverted this and mentioned it was considered vandalism, he followed it with this post back to Chrislk02 where he again accuses BillCJ of spamming, something that I can find no support of in Bill's edit list. I think he's confusing BillCJ and Bzuk, because in this edit he seems to be implying that BillCJ is Bzuk (although it's hard to be sure). Here he accuses Bzuk of spamming.

Then a series of edits starts where he posts a sort of "form letter" to a number of user's pages, including Emt147, Evil Merlin, Red Sunset, Karl Dickman, MilborneOne and Trevor MacInnis, among others. It's this series that looks like wikistalking to me, the only connection between these users is that Bzuk asked them for help on the page, or in other cases simply edited an article in common in the past (some times, long in the past).

Sorry for the lengthy thread!

Maury 18:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

A question[edit]


I would like to completely overhaul, enhance, rewritte an existing article. As a result, when my work is done, I would like to propose the newly written page as an "article of quality" or something like that.

What is the regular procedure to do that ? I've already seen some templates on pages which are redefined and rewritten. My problem is that I would prefer an "agreement" from the previous authors of the page: I will not destroy their work, or I don't want to appear as doing so, but I would rather insert it into a much more general and profound setting.


TwoHorned 13:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

If you plan on completely rewriting an article, a good way to start is to begin writing the article on your own userspace. So, for instance, you could start writing the article at User:TwoHorned/Rewrite and then you can build it up there and take your time without it interfering with the existing article. When you believe your rewrite is finished you can make other editors aware that you have rewritten the article and you could allow them to read it before you copy it over the existing article. As far as "article of quality" goes, we have two things I believe you are referring to. There is Good Article and Featured Article with the latter being the more stringent one. Featured articles are profiled on the main page. I hope this helps. If you have any future questions, rather than posting them here, try the help desk.↔NMajdantalk 14:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. Take it to the article's discussion page, link to where you're working, and encourage them to help with the rewrite. Just make it known, and remember that you don't