Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive80

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

Noticeboard archives


Not sure how to fix this or if it's simple vandalism[edit]


Barnsy home page Anchoress 20:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Done. It just needed to be moved back. I have tagged the resulting redirects for speedy deletion. --Born2x 20:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Speedied - Alison 20:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Cool. May I ask a question just to satisfy my curiosity? Why did it show up on my watchlist? If it was moved from a different page name, what was it before? Anchoress 20:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
It was (and is once again) Wikipedia:Requested articles. Presumably, you had that page watchlisted and your watching of the page "followed" the page when it was moved. --Born2x 20:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
OK, thanks. Anchoress 20:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, apologies...[edit]


I am not sure where to ask a question like thins, but here goes...

Is there a place where we show Wikipedia "In the Law"? I know the "in the media" thing, but wondered if the legal cases that cite or relate to Wikipedia are mentioned somewhere? Just wondering. Mahalo. --Ali'i 21:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind: Wikipedia:Wikipedia_as_a_court_source.
Ali'i <--Not too bright that one.
Maybe you should create a redirect in case someone else has trouble finding it. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Blatant public account[edit]


User:Plankder admits that it is a public account, and I have tried and confirmed it. Please take action. Thanks! Wooyi 22:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Blocked. Picaroon 22:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
That typo wasn't so bad. We once put the same error into our church newsletter... heh. -- nae'blis 22:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Just curious, did someone explain to this user why their account was blocked or is their an assumption that they know they were behaving inappropriately? Natalie 22:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Edits like this lead me to assume the most recent editor, at least, knew they were behaving inappropriately. And we'll probably never know if they (the November editor) were the same as the creator (the August editor). Picaroon 22:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I figured as much, but figured I'd ask. Natalie 22:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Take a look at the history in their User page. Calling Wikipedia admins fascists, etc. SWATJester On Belay! 23:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Note this edit. This is typical of Iasson (talk · contribs), who also created all those Faethon (talk · contribs) accounts a while back (see User:Faethon22 for history) This was also the subject of an arbitration case. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Iasson. Man, those were the days...Mackensen (talk) 00:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Definitely way way before my time. Natalie 01:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Keeping image license tags in userspace?[edit]

User:Web kai2000 has been tagging (many, many) images with image license templates that he or she keeps in userspace. User:Web kai2000/Template:transport-history, and User:Web kai2000/Template:Bus-at-work. We've gotten a copyright holder complaint about an image so tagged. I've been trying to get to the bottom of what exactly has been going on here over the last five days, but the unfortunate answer seems to be that we do not, in fact, have any reason to believe that these userspace image license templates are accurate, and do have reason to believe (OTRS login needed) that they are not. I have edited the two userspace image license templates that I found to be "no license" for today's date. I'm a little concerned about the recent history of the first template I expressed concern about, however, so I wanted to invite feedback, and let other admins know what is going on with these images.

Regardless of the status of these uploads, does anyone think that keeping image license templates in userspace is a good idea? Jkelly 22:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Nooooo, that is not a good idea. Prodego talk 22:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
No, not a good idea. Either they're not appopriate anywhere on Wikipedia, or they're appropriate in template space. I don't think there is an inbetween. --Deskana (talk) 22:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I went to follow your link, only to find OTRS. I have been awaiting approval since January... Prodego talk 22:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Does "Don't make up new image license templates in your userspace" need to be spelled out somewhere? Jkelly 22:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I think that would be WP:CREEP (though not WP:BEANS since it's already happening independently. WP:TFD exists for a reason (or maybe it would have to be WP:MFD since the template is in userspace.) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] 23:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
MfD, I'd say. It's been said before that something is only a template if it's in the template namespace. I think it was Jimbo that said it. --Deskana (talk) 23:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Forthright communication or child porn?[edit]

Resolved: --Iamunknown 05:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't like to make a mountain out of a molehill, and if the WMF is not in a position to be prosecuted maybe it isn't an issue, but I am fairly certain that this post by a currently-minor editor (by his own admission) is regrettably child pornography in some jurisdictions. Removal/oversight? Or nothing? I already posted this on the ref desk talk page. Anchoress 07:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

It's been removed. Anchoress 09:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Please fill in MediaWiki:sp-contributions-footer-anon[edit]

Hi all, now that MediaZilla:9397 is implemented, we can have a footer on all anon user contribs pages now, just like on anon user talk pages. Could someone please put this in MediaWiki:sp-contributions-footer-anon? (I took the tools at the bottom from [[MediaWiki:anontalkpagetext and I do hope I copied the code right.)

Cheers, --unforgettableid | how's my driving? 05:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Done. Now, just take into consideration that it will not show up on the site until the next scap. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 06:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Death threat[edit]

What exactly constitutes a death threat? Is it sufficient to state, "I hope you die", or does there actually have to be an active threat? That is, would the threat have to be along the lines of, "I will kill you" or "I will get someone to kill you"? Here, I'm talking in the context of abusive behaviour on the Wikipedia obviously, not in the press-charges-legally context. Also, would an emailed threat be sufficient or does it have to be posted on the Wikipedia? --Yamla 17:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

  • "I hope you die" would not be a death threat, though it would likely violate WP:CIVIL as it's not a very civil thing to say to someone. "I will kill you" or "I will get someone to kill you" would definitely be death threats. Emailed threats would be considered a violation of the rules as well if they could be positively traced to the person who allegedly sent them. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
    • The second point first: I'd say an email carries as much weight as any other threat.

      As for what constitutes a threat, that is up to the individual to judge the perceived danger. Most threats are nothing, like a kid making a bomb scare to avoid a test. The ones that are serious should be recognized if they carry more gravity as to actual physical harm. Teke 18:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

    • A kid making a bomb threat to a school in order to get out of a test is not "nothing". It is a serious, legal matter, and needs to be treated as such. --Ali'i 18:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
      • All actual death threats deserve an immediate indef block. It is not for me or anyone else to attempt to intuit whether the individual who issues it is a frivolous child or a violent felon. I will not be standing watch to guard the doorstep of the target's home at night so the only ethical alternative is to treat all such threats as serious. DurovaCharge! 02:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I cannot envision any circumstances where expressing such a hope has anything whatsoever to do with the process of writing an encyclopaedia. At the very least, such a comment is indicative that talk page discussion has gone far off-topic. Uncle G 02:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I've actually seen that [1], and while it was shocking, it was considered incivility rather than a death threat. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 02:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
      • That's probably a good example. That comment had nothing whatsoever to do with the process of writing an encyclopaedia, and contributed exactly nothing connected to that process to the discussion at hand. Uncle G 12:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Board passes clarification of licensing policy[edit]

This came in to the Foundation-l list about an hour ago.

Cheers. – Chacor 04:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's supposed to just be a clarification of existing policy, AFAIK. (I actually went and asked Kat Walsh, so there you go. :-) ). Though they will be enforcing it more, and some people might not have realised the policy was really that strict in reality already. --Kim Bruning 05:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Expect the same uproar we got when images about living personalities began to be deleted. I, for one, like Wikipedia to focus in freedom. The fact that we will have to discuss every fair use image to see if we can keep it or not will keep us busy for a couple of years at least. -- ReyBrujo 05:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Except that, after 1 year, images that haven't been argued under the exemption policy will be deleted. -- Drini 05:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Sadly enough, I actually think that the foundation position is more generous than that which certain of our contributors here seem to think we should be following. At least we now have a clear statement confirming that the foundation is not "on the verge of going German" as several users have claimed to me. --tjstrf talk 05:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
      • It actually makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside that people think it is not strict enough. I am not about to stop anyone from taking a stricter interpretation of the policy than is required, and am likely to come in and support it! "You can't delete that, the policy doesn't say we have to" is a really terrible argument for keeping something; these are minimum standards beyond which the Foundation will step in and require that project policy be changed. Our goal is free content and the policy's intent is to keep use of non-free content as minimal as possible while still allowing it in those limited cases where alternatives are not reasonable to obtain. There are a few people on the project who hold a more extreme position here than I do. I don't necessarily advocate everything they are doing, but that is a community issue; you are more than welcome to go further than a strict reading requires. Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 07:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  • So do our existing policies on fair use (which I think are too lax in some areas and too strict in others) constitute an 'Exemption Doctrine Policy' under this new board policy or is something else required? If existing policy covers it then this seems like no change for this project. We already require that 'non free' images provide a fair-use rationale for the page(s) they are used on and delete them if it doesn't meet standards. Someone might get industrious and perform a complete review of all images before March 23, 2008 to locate all problem images, but that's just a more determined effort at enforcing existing practice. --CBD 10:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
    • The number of dodgy fair-use images is huge. This will be a herculean amount of work. We currently have the policy of deleting those that have no explicit rationale (over and above the standard tags) - but I'm far from convinced this is really the best way to proceed. The number of images that are potentially legitimate but lack an explicit rationale is quite large, and so is the number of images that do have an explicit rationale but where the rationale is wrong. Cynically speaking: instead of deleting all the non-explicit ones we could probably just as well delete any random selection of, say, 50% of all claimed fair-use images; the number both of false negatives and false positives would be comparable. Fut.Perf. 10:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
      • The resolution makes the distinction between new images, uploaded on or after 2007-03-27, and existing images, uploaded before that date. The latter should go through a process of determining whether a (correct) fair use rationale exists. But we should immediately throw out any attempts to add to the backlog of such a process with newly uploaded images that lack fair use rationales. In other words: We have a year to sort out the corpus of fair use media without proper rationales that we currently have, but we don't make a rod for our own backs by letting any further additions be made to that corpus from this point onwards. Uncle G 12:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
        • For either task, we will need a much more efficient process than we have in place now, to determine that people really write these rationales, that they get reviewed by people who really understand them, and that deletions can then be performed without paperwork overhead. See the current CSD queues, it's not working. Fut.Perf. 12:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Does the fact that the Foundation's resolution says "Examples include:" and proceeds to link directly to our fair use policy, help to answer that question? Uncle G 12:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal[edit]

The above-entitled arbitration case has been closed and the final decision published at the above link. Ilena (talk · contribs) is banned from editing Wikipedia for one year and is banned from editing articles and talk pages related to alternative medicine, except talk pages related to breast implants. Fyslee (talk · contribs) is cautioned to use reliable sources and to edit from a neutral point of view. He is reminded that editors with a known partisan point of view should be careful to seek consensus on the talk page of articles to avoid the appearance of a COI if other editors question their edits. For the arbitration committee, Thatcher131 12:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Admins needed...[edit]

I believe the current Category:Candidates for speedy deletion category contains roughly 530 items. Might be time for a few admins to get on that. Mahalo. --Ali'i 16:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Cheers, flamethrower time me thinks Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 16:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm on it (although I just added one myself, which I'll leave for Ryan to delete). A Traintake the 18:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
On a related note, I tagged a nonsense article for deletion almost 20 hours ago, and it's still there ( :VectorPotentialTalk 18:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Issue with a recent edit to a MediaWiki page[edit]

OK, I don't know my way well enough around MediaWiki to even know what page to go to, so I'll just bring this up here - somebody must have changed something fairly recently so that if you go to, say, [2], there's a bit of gibberish after the boxes for 'user' and 'title'. ('Boxes'! 'Gibberish'! Wonder why I can't change it myself?) Anyway, it's kind of annoying. – Riana talk 18:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

its a software bug ping the devs to fix. Betacommand (talkcontribsBot) 18:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Going to bed now, so passing the buck... sorry! – Riana talk 18:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
New log buttons for admins too. MediaWiki:Protect change is screwed up though, it is unlisted, and has no default. And someone fix the 'noautoblock' message while they are at it please? Prodego talk 20:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

MfD for many of User:Da.Tomato.Dude's subpages[edit]

Given previous issues which have been discussed on WP:AN and WP:ANI regarding people who do not contribute to the encyclopedia part of Wikipedia, this is nomination of a deletion request I have filed. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Da.Tomato.Dude assorted usersubpages. Many of you, I'm sure, will wish to comment. --Deskana (talk) 22:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

IMHO (personal, not as an admin), what they have in their own userpages is their business as long as it's civil, not racist, doesn't attack someone, etc. Now let the fireworks begin.Rlevse 01:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
WP is not a free webhost. MySpace? That-a-way. --Calton | Talk 02:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Rlevse, please post that on the MfD page. This subheader was just intended as a notification. --Deskana (talk) 02:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Admin attention overdue at Wikipedia:Consented blocks[edit]

I spotted this at MfD and was alarmed that one of the block reviews is overdue and reference to the other is threatened by the page being deleted. Happy for the page to go if both blocks are reviewed. --Dweller 12:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


It seems like we are witnessing a new rage of Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Roitr: (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Clear connection connection with indefblocked Tryils (talk · contribs · block log), Mitryi (talk · contribs · block log), Csdak (talk · contribs · block log), Fsak (talk · contribs · block log) etc. engaged in the same activity.

Comment I'm just tired of firing multiple detailed reports per day to WP:AIV and WP:RFP... It's sure a nice way to celebrate his more than 1 year of being indefblocked and a very recent community ban on top of that, but the question is, why is he still able to do this? :( What about a couple of rangeblocks over his IP range? --Dmitry (talkcontibs ) 13:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Roitr is using Bezeq the main ISP in Israel. Apparently changing the IP there is as easy as pressing the reset button on the cable modem. The IPs are assigned randomly from the pool of their IP numbers. The only usable rangeblock on Roitr would block more than a half of Israeli users. Go figure. Please just give me his socks and I would block them Alex Bakharev 13:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Every sock is blocked, forks protect-redirected, images deleted, affected articles semiprotected Alex Bakharev 14:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I just can't keep up - the moment I encounter one IP or username, he's already got himself a few more. Why not instate a block on for the duration of his most active hours?!. Maybe some admins could watch Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Roitr for new reports and act accordingly? --Dmitry (talkcontibs ) 14:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:AIV backlogged + ammusing tidbit[edit]

I'm going to bed - someone else deal with it. However - I was ammused by this report. Somone want to poke him with a pointy stick? ViridaeTalk 14:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

high school lameness[edit]

any advice on how to handle this mess without attracting one dozen bored high school kids to my talk page? i have a pretty strong hunch that's what i'll be in for. i hate to be a coward exposed for the coward that i am, and if i don't hear from anyone soon i'll probably suck it up and nuke the last week's silliness myself, but if anyone's dealt with a group like this before, i'd be curious what they did. --barneca (talk) 03:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I just reverted, warned, and watchlisted. Metros232 03:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
High school vandalism happens all of the time. Most vandals don't attack the person who reverts it, so feel free to get rid of nonsense like that as soon as possible. If it persists on a page after multiple reverts, report the vandal to WP:AIV, or if it is attacked by a variety of IPs and users list the page on WP:RFP for semi-protection. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 03:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Revert, report, block. A nuisance, but no big deal. (Oh, and learn to use your "shift" key.) Raymond Arritt 03:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
normally reverting vandals doesn't scare me; i just saw an organized group and expected the worst. not sure what magic bullet i thought admin's might have. but apparently the answer is, indeed, to suck it up, revert, and (from a quick glance at metros' talk page) revert talk page vandalism 3-4 times a day. thanks and good luck. --barneca (talk) 03:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC) p.s. what's a shift key?
Seriously? "What's a shift key?" I don't know how other keyboards are set up, but my shift key is the one that turns lowercase letters into uppercase, located above each control key (in the lower left and right corners of the main grouping of keys). Xaxafrad 21:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Userpage vandalism[edit]

An IP has taken to valdalizing my userpage, writing "YOUR IMAGES SUCK" under my images section. He appears to have done the same to that of IFCAR's. Who knows how many pages he hit. Can someone take care of this guy? Nothing makes me even more mad than someone who messes with my userpage. Karrmann 15:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

That's a school's IP address, and they only edited those two pages today, nothing for the last hour. It's probably a kid editing between classes. We're discouraged from blocking schools indefinitely, so they may be back. By the way, your response could be considered a threat. I understand you were provoked, but do try to contain your fury, if for no other reason than that some vandals actually like that kind of attention, or may take it as a challenge. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Yeah. If I attack them, they may just want to valdalize my userpage more. Hmm, Well, it doesn't seem that they touched my page again yet, but I guess if they do become a problem, I can just have my page semi protected. Karrmann 18:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I've semi-protected the page to prevent IP vandalism for a week, and I very strongly recommend you remove your age and photograph from the page. DurovaCharge! 20:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Admins editing protected pages[edit]

I've seen a bunch of cases recently of administrators editing fully protected pages without first getting consensus on the Talk page. I don't want to start naming names yet and making people defensive, but this has to stop. (To be clear, this has been happening on multiple, unrelated pages.) Is it not obvious that editng a protected page without consensus is a use of admin powers to gain advantage in a content dispute? Kla'quot 16:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

If you want us to do anything, you have to be specific. I know I've edited lots of protected pages per Template:Editprotected - but you must not mean that. I know a few times admins have claimed they've edited pages without noticing they were protected - but you must not mean that either. I know of a few other times ... let's just get back to the original point. Cite page and diff, please, if you want us to be able to do anything. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks AnonEMouse. I'm not asking non-guilty admins to be taking action against the guilty. I just want the guilty admins to read this, feel guilty, and stop the offending behaviour. The pages I'm referring to all had full, prominent Protection notices on them. Kla'quot 17:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Depending on circumstances, of course. A self-evident correction (grammar, typo) or somethign for WP:BLP concerns is unproblematic as long as a note is made somewhere. Guy (Help!) 22:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Removing BLP violations sure. As for "something for BLP concerns", I'm not sure what you are referring to. Kla'quot 04:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I've seen a bunch of cases recently of users doing things I don't like without first taking the steps I feel are necessary. I don't want to start naming names yet and making people defensive, but this has to stop. (To be clear, this has happened many times, although I'm not specifying how many.) Is it not obvious that doing this is not appropriate and disruptive? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

  • You might want to re-phrase that, because it currently reads as your saying that other editors doing things that you yourself don't like is not appropriate, disruptive, and has to stop. Uncle G 01:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Just a question: Would you consider administrators making non-controversial edits on protected articles inappropriate? In this hypothetical world we can assume a non-controversial edit can be clearly defined and everyone agrees on the standard. --Deskana (talk) 22:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Call me a process wonk, but I personally think admins should use {{editprotected}} just like everyone else (We're not talking about WP:BIO or any other urgent stuff here, right?). It's always possible that the editing admin might perceive something as totally non-controversial, but that doesn't mean it actually is. Having another pair of eyes to look at the proposed edit reduces the risk of making potentially controversial edits greatly. --Conti| 01:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Administrators are trusted by the community to receive those extra tools, right? Then they, just like everyone else, should be entitled to be bold when editing pages, even protected pages. If someone legitimately complains, then they should also seek discussion and form consensus about the issue. No need to go through process for the sake of process when we have policies and guidelines that suggest how we go about business. --Iamunknown 02:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Sure. I wouldn't say that using {{editprotected}} should be a hard rule or anything, being bold is encouraged, of course. I just consider it to be an act of courtesy to go to the talk page and ask for consensus before making any kind of non-minor edit to a protected page. I don't think they should do that for process's sake, they should do it because when it comes to editing articles, admins are normal editors just like everyone else. They don't have any kind of special authority there, and every step we take away from that is a step in the wrong direction, IMHO. --Conti| 02:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Well-said. Kla'quot 04:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Iamunknown, WP policy is clear that Be bold does not apply to protected pages. See the last sentence of Wikipedia:Protection_policy#Content_disputes. Kla'quot 04:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Read again. "Admins should not edit pages that are protected due to a content dispute, unless ... the change is unrelated to the dispute." >Radiant< 09:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Well thats an error. Admins should not be editing pages that have been protected for reasons other than profile unless such edits are required by BLP. Admins should edit as editors not admins and a as a result protected pages are as off limit to admins as they are to everyone else.Geni 14:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
That apparently was an error in the overhaul of the policy, that, as the edit summary implies, was not supposed to change the policy in any way. I've been bold and readded the lost sentence about being really really careful when editing protected pages. --Conti| 15:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

This is something that i've recently been wondering about, after having a look at Atheism, where an admin behaving in good faith seemed to annoy a regular non-admin editor a bit - there's not a huge problem here, but perhaps some kind of guideline might help. When seeing an admin make various edits to a protected page, its one of the only times i feel like a 'non-allowed' editor, and I suppose this is bad (don't worry - i'll get over it!) - particularly when the protection has been there for more than a couple of days, and was put there by another admin. I guess I'd say that if an admin wanted to make uncontroversial edits; why not unprotect, make them, and see if the article is ok for a few minutes? - cheers, Petesmiles 23:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

This type of thread needs specific examples or else it's worse than a waste of time. Go ahead: name names and provide diffs. Specific problems ought to be identified and addressed. If there's an accident or a misunderstanding it ought to get explained and resolved. Subjunctive mood threads achieve nothing but an atmosphere of suspicion. DurovaCharge! 20:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


RFCU's a mess right now, and I've got something to do later, so I'm notifying everyone that Bobabobabo is back, and I have blocked the following as sockpuppets.

I have also blocked the following two ranges as belonging to hosting companies and as a result the host of open proxies.

I blocked both of these through edits I found on IPs within them, but the proxy (and range) used by Momamomamo may not be blocked (the register occured prior to the block on the other range).—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Just as I was about to go, this one showed up.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Next step after a page blanking[edit]

Yesterday, Princess56499 created Karina Garcia, a hoax bio copied from Allyson Swan. The user then vandalized Allyson Swan, as well as the related article Miss Idaho USA to mislead and refer to information in the hoax article. Essentially, the effect of the vandalism was to replace one person with another. I reverted the edits to Allyson Swan and Miss Idaho USA and issued a warning to the user. I also prod'ed Karina Garcia, as well as Julie Wingens which appears to be a hoax created by (and only edited by) the same user. The user has since blanked my warning, which I have no real problem with since it is still in the history and the user obviously got the message, and also blanked the Karina Garcia which I had prod'ed (note, I don't mean they removed the prod, I mean they blanked the page). At this point should the prod just be restored or should the article be deleted per G7, and should any other actions be taken explicitly, or just let the other prod take its course and keep an eye on the user for future activity? --After Midnight 0001 23:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[edit]

Is broken. I dont know how to repair it. It shows {hidden begin |ta1=left |extra1=padding-left:0.25em; padding-bottom:2px; font-size:100%; title=}. -- 00:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

An IP editor mucked up Template:History of Iran. Fixed now. Thatcher131 00:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Free Republic[edit]

This arbitration case has closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The indefinite community ban of User:BryanFromPalatine for tendentious editing, personal attacks, block evasion and disruption is endorsed. The ban also applies to User:DeanHinnen and all other proxies or sockpuppets of BryanFromPalatine. User:Fairness And Accuracy For All is banned from Wikipedia for one year. The articles Free Republic and Democratic Underground are placed on article probation. It is expected that these articles will be improved to conform with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and that information contained in them will be supported by verifiable information from reliable sources. Either article may be reviewed on the motion of any arbitrator, or upon acceptance by the Arbitration Committee of a motion made by any user, and users whose editing is disruptive may be banned or their editing restricted as the result of a review. This notice is given by a clerk on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad 00:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


Factual80man (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) consistently abuses other users and adds profane, insulting edit summaries. He's been given many warnings on his talk page over the last few days, but he has continued the personal attacks and inappropriate edit summaries, even after a level 4 warning. A quick look at his edit history clearly shows the pattern of behavior. Thanks. C thirty-three 07:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I left "an official" warning. Hopefully that will alter the behavior. If not, I'll block him. —Doug Bell talk 08:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
For continuous vandals, consider leaving a note at WP:AIV. CattleGirl talk | sign! 08:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oliva's eye[edit]

Resolved: per Woohookitty

The article in question now qualifies for speedy deletion. Could someone please close the discussion and proceed with deletion?--Ng.j 08:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Done. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 09:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Nasty AFD[edit]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Natural History of South Asia mailing list (3rd nomination) is getting pretty nasty. Maybe a neutral person (admin or not) could calm things down a bit. YechielMan 16:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Atulsnischal just planted the very same text protesting against Wikipedia here. I think nastiness just went up one notch. x42bn6 Talk 17:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Atulsnischal (talk · contribs) has also broken 3RR on the article. I've reported him for this. --Ragib 17:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Hi all I am just complaining, kindly view the comment that was removed from here by user Talk, as it was a legitimate cmplain, thanks Atulsnischal 17:41, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Which would be: this, which you have put on the 3rd AfD, the article's talk page, and apparently 2 more locations which I cannot find. We are talking about the AfD here, not about the article on the AfD. x42bn6 Talk 17:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

A cure for vandalism[edit]

I have searched Wikipedia and this seems to be the best/only place for this message. I am in hopes someone in charge of Wikipedia will see this as I can not find a contact for any of the powers that be Wikipedia.

Vandalism is out of control. Most editors already know this. I have only been here for one year, one month and I have seen it multiply upwards drastically. So much so that one by one I have had to "abandon" articles because I can no longer, nor wish to, keep up with the vandals. I ask myself, Why work so hard fixing the problems created by vandals when Wikipedia invites vandals in freely. On some articles vandalism is an hourly event. I have even seen vandals invite others to make an article into a "chat" room. This cannot be ignored any longer. My daughter's high school history teacher announced to his class some time back that he would no longer accept Wikipedia as a reliable source on their reports. I learned of this while helping my daughter with homework and in conversation told her to always question all information found on Wikipedia. That is a reputation Wikipedia cannot afford to get. Vandalism plays a major role in this. The Wiki process of "warning" vandals is fair but useless as there must be literally millions of acts perpetrated daily, if not hourly.

One way to curtail the problem drastically is to allow only "logged-on" registered editors to edit an article. The extreme percentage of violators do not bother logging on. If they do, they learn quickly to log off before vandalizing. Wikipedia best act on this "easy fix" now as once the reputation goes sour you will never be able to repair it. Soapy 14:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

This suggestion has been brought up before and has been rejected. You may wish to read m:Foundation issues and the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (perennial proposals)#Abolish anonymous users for further information. mattbr 14:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  • What a mistake. The current slow process of "warning" Vandals makes vandalism mathematically impossible to fix. I won't bother to take the time to read the reasons as to why Wikipedia rejects the solution as it won't help. I guess now is a good time to jump ship. Soapy 14:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  • If we did not allow non-logged in editors we would not longer be Wikipedia, that is our thing. Also, vandalism is not out of control, we deal with it everyday just fine. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 14:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  • As I have stated before several times. Vandalism can always be reverted. The vandals hopes of runing the encylopedia dashed when they realize with the click of a button all of there work is gone. On the other hand, a curious anon editor, who decides not to waste his time when he is required to sign up and leaves cannot be fixed with a quick "revert". -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I find the revert-and-warn system very effective if used promptly and correctly, as vandals soon realise that we don't and won't tolerate it and that their actions are quickly reverted, and if they don't, we block them. By shifting vandalism to accounts, the same process would still have to be gone through, plus it would be harder to spot. Many editors also start out as annons, then get hooked and sign up. We would loose this with no annon editing. mattbr 15:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I edit and fix vandalism hourly so please don't tell me it is not a problem and is an easy fix. Go ahead and continue to believe all is fine, but when high school teachers tell their classes not to trust Wikipedia information then I would say Wiki has a declining reputation. I deal with authors everyday and in my conversations not one has had a good thing to say about Wiki. I used to defend Wikipedia with these people. But now being that I see Wikipedia refuses to fix the ever growing problem I am only left to drastically dropping the number of my watches. I can easily predict that I will continue to drop watches as the problem worsens. Don't be fooled into thinking it will improve itself. Soapy 15:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  • No, no one should fully trust Wiki-info ever, nor that of any encyclopedia. That's not the job of encyclopedias: encyclopedias exist to provide quick, easy reference, not to be absolutely perfect. And it is in the nature of wikis that there will be errors/vandalism: per WP:RS, wikis shouldn't be thought of as reliable sources, and this includes Wikipedia. Re vandalism, have you ever tried using rollback/warn/report scripts such as WP:TWINKLE? Makes playing whack-the-vandal a lot quicker and lot less stressful. Moreschi Request a recording?
  • No one should trust wikipedia to write a paper. If you do, it is your own fault for doing such. I used wikipedia to gather basic information, and often used it to develop an outline or a plan for papers, however the research came from books at the library and scholary documents. The fact is, even if wikipedias content could only be edited by registered users, or any other restrictions were imposed, it WOULD NOT make wikipedia a reliable source for papers. It is just not, and that is not what it is here for. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Encylopedias should -never- be used as a final source in a research paper. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 15:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. Wikipedia is a great place to start and is a hugely valuable resource for that, but it isn't a scholarly journal, it isn't a book, and it isn't a reliable source. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought; instead of using Wikipedia as a source, why not use Wikipedia as a place that organizes other people's research and go from there? I am not surprised at all that your daughter's high school teacher said that it is no longer allowed as a source; I am, however, surprised that it was allowed in the first place. --Strangerer (Talk) 22:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Encylopedia n: course of general information: a work that contains information on all branches of knowledge.

Knowledge IS the job of an encyclopedia and most people assume that knowledge implies correct information. Quick and Easy AND CORRECT information is the job of any encyclopedia. Yes, there will always be mistakes and I agree that everyone SHOULD question everything they read but most don't. Yes Wikipedia would still have some vandalism with enforced registration editing but the problem would be far drastically reduced. As far as vandalism then being harder to detect, I say that most editors check BOTH registered logged-in edits as well as ones not signed in so mathematically fewer would get through. Under the current methods, each vandal you are able to deter, ten more join in. I see with my own eyes what is happening on the pages I use to watch and am currently watching so please don't tell me things are fine. Soapy 16:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism is going to happen. I have spent months on rc patrol and it is no problem to revert several hundered acts of vandalism per hour, especially with the sophistacted vandal fighting tools that we have. You can get them set up, but vandalism is not seriously worse than it was a month ago, or 3 months ago. It is the same juvenile pranks that can be INSTANTLY reverted. It is not hard to fix vandalism. It is like saying that a kid writing a chalk board is graffiti vandalism, when in fact with a simple swipe of an eraser, there well thought out, juvenile contributions, are gone. If you dont like vandal fighting dont do it, leave it to somebody else. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 16:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The stupidly juvenile vandalism is not the real problem - it's generally easily reverted, although I've run across occasions where it's escaped notice for weeks. The real, darker problem is subtle factual vandalism, especially of biographies of living persons. If it doesn't look like obvious vandalism, it generally gets overlooked... and if you're smart, you can make all sorts of horribly despicable things look like perfectly good article content. FCYTravis 00:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Mackan (talk · contribs)[edit]

Hi, I'm wondering if anyone can assist here. There's a rather combative and rude user by the name of Mackan who's threatened to "report me" for "wikistalking"(apparently he did this last week as well), and is trying to get in edit wars with me on several articles. I was wondering if someone could help here, his edit summaries alone are proof enough that he's incredibly rude and dismissive of other users, something that should not be tolerated on Wikipedia. Just H 11:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Can you provide links to what you are talking about? Thanks, --Tom 15:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Sure, hold on a sec. Let me gather the diffs and edit summaries. Just H 19:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


He seems to have several edit wars going on at once with multiple people, largely due to overly aggressive and arrogant behavior.

I'm beginning to fear that a request for comment is necessary for this user, although i'd prefer not to go down that route, even if some of these people are harrassing him as he claims, that does not give him the right to act in such a way. Just H 19:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Mackan's Response[edit]

  • There is nothing arrogant or aggressive about the Brussels comment, and that was not an edit war, and if it was, it's one you started and one you but nobody else contributed to.
  • There might still be a dispute on the Kansai-ben article, but it's not over the factual accuracy, as the tag suggested. Again, this dispute is not with "multiple people" but me and two more editors disagreeing with you, and only you.
  • I "yelled" after having those tags removed several times without any explanation. See the talk page, the admin put the tags back. In the Kansai-ben article, other users removed your tags too.
  • The "Mister-Jones" talk page revert does in no way constitute a "threat".
Additionally, I am, unfortunately, involved in a few edit wars, but most of them boil down to Japanese meatpuppetry, see Comfort women, Asahi Shimbun, Japan-Korea relations, Joji Obara. Mackan 19:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I have not "done this last week as well". The one who is trying to get into edit wars with somebody is you, with me. You ARE wikistalking me. Just H started posting on the Joji Obara talk page, after a content dispute we had on the Kansai-ben article. On the Joji Obara page, he sided with the editor opposing me, which he is perfectly free to do, and had it been only this article I wouldn't have minded at all. What freaks me out is when he starts reverting edits I make to other, completely unrelated articles, as well. For example, Brussels, an article he has not previously edited. My edit: [4] and Just H's revert [5]. Also, the Jafaican article: [6] and Just H's revert: [7]. Have I then done something inappropriate when I ask him to stop stalking me? Mackan 18:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
At a casual glance, the diffs of his reverts seem like reasonable edits. He's allowed to edit the same pages as you. Stalking would involve an intent to harass or annoy. Is there any evidence of such an intent? I certainly don't see it in the diffs provided. Friday (talk) 19:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Of course he is allowed to edit any article he wants to, but doesn't the fact that he on all three articles either opposed me or reverted me say something about his intent? Also, how about the fact that he had never touched any of those articles before, but obviously found them by looking at my contributions list. Just H seems pissed off about the situation at Kansai-ben and allows this anger to spill over to other articles. Petty revenge is the motive, if you ask me. Mackan 19:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


Should we utilize this? According to Special:Version it's enabled here. See mw:Extension:Username Blacklist for more info. —METS501 (talk) 02:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

It would have to be used very sparingly. I can just imagine someone trying to block swear words, only to accidentally block "EmbarassedMonkey" because it matches "ass". I would say only vandal memes that will not be construed in any other way. -Amarkov moo! 02:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Would it be possible to block certain phrases from being in names, such as "on wheels!" and "is communism," or does it have to be a complete name? The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 02:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it can block phases. I'm not quite sure why something that required complete names would be any use; why not just create the accounts and block them? -Amarkov moo! 02:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I'm stupid. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 03:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Except creating every possible permutation of "on wheels!" would be so time consuming as to be ridiculous. I agree with the point about accidental swearwords, or whatever you want to call that. Natalie 04:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Can the servers be said to suffer from apophenia in such cases? :-) Chris cheese whine 04:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I've been messing around with it and can't get it to work. I'm deleting the page, but other admins are welcome to look at what I tried. alphachimp 05:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Wait, don't. Comment out the first line using #. GracenotesT § 05:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Meh, too late. Anyway, if you want to recreate it, start it like:
#Administrators: Add regular expressions to this page to block them from creation in usernames.
*Middle stuff
*End stuff
GracenotesT § 05:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
You know, the <<pre> is just for readability, and probably not needed. It's been removed, which works. GracenotesT § 05:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I tried that and I'm not having much luck. I'll leave the page there for another admin with a little more mediawiki expertise to mess around with. It shouldn't do any harm in its current form. alphachimp 05:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Whenever an admin comes around, make sure to put something in MediaWiki:Blacklistedusernametext and MediaWiki:Blacklistedusername; right now, it's defaulting to a complaint that the account is already in use. -Amarkov moo! 05:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Hm. I tested it on my personal wiki... apparently, comments are not allowed, not even starting with #. I just had a file that said
and I couldn't create the account. I just assumed that comments were part of the syntax. Sorry for the running back and forth, and thanks for your patience, Penisfuck123, or shall I say alphachimp. GracenotesT § 05:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Gracenotes, have you seen mw:Extension:Usernameblacklist? It appears to only accept bulleted regular expressions. Try that on your wiki. --Iamunknown 05:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Also, it should "Ignore non-list lines when generating blacklist," which means you should be able to write a note without # or * or // or whatever else. --Iamunknown 05:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

When I said that I create a file, I meant that I created that mediawiki page. When I created it with the above content, I could not register a user with the username "Stuff". However, when I added this:

* Other 
my wiki stuff

I could create a username called "Other". Then I tried:

* Hey
#my wiki stuff

And it still created the account called "Hey". So if we don't insert comments, we'll be fine. GracenotesT § 05:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

  • We could add ".com" and such to the list. I understand that ampersands are already blocked? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Radiant! (talkcontribs) 12:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC).

I see a problem with "crat" being used-we actually have a user already that goes by "autocrat", and I could see other users using "Democrat" or the like in a username that would be appropriate. Seraphimblade Talk to me 12:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey, good news; I tried to create an account called "123456aTEST cache cleared maybe", and it failed. (Failing == good, eh.) GracenotesT § 13:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

HEY! There's currently a discussion at MediaWiki talk:Usernameblacklist about what to include. Please join it if you wish. GracenotesT § 19:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

¡Muy excelente! I will be there later today. --Iamunknown 20:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Need a free admin to handle an issue[edit]

I need an admin to check Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games. A user is "moving" (though not with the move tab but instead copying the content) to Mario&Sonic at the Olympic Games because of the game typography, splitting the history between two pages. I recommend converting one into a redirect and fully protecting it until the dispute is over. I would do it, but there may be a conflict of interest by now (as I am trying to calm this user down). Thanks. -- ReyBrujo 04:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I have protected all three pages (Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games, Mario and Sonic at the Olympic Games, Mario&Sonic at the Olympic Games. Please resolve the issue at the relevant talk pages. Thanks. --Ragib 04:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Can someone tackle the histmerge that needs doing here please? This needs to happen before any attempt at discussing the content and location of the article can go ahead. Chris cheese whine 05:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

  • It's currently a double redirect. JuJube 19:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
    Fixed the double redirect, and unprotected it. Since the history merge has been done, I removed the protection in case we decide to move it there. -- ReyBrujo 19:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I did the history merge and left the merged version at Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games. If a diferent title is prefered, it can be moved to the appropriate location. All pages currently unprotected. WjBscribe 02:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Main page and Fair Use[edit]

There is currently a discussion going on at Wikipedia talk:Fair use exemptions#Removing exception in policy for "Main Page" about whether to disallow the use of Fair use images on the Main page. Administrators should be aware of this since only admins can edit the main page and many of the templates thereon, and will be called on to enforce any policy which comes from this discussion. Mak (talk) 21:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Interesting, I imagine the result will be to disallow fair use. For what it is worth though, I haven't seen a fair-use image on the Main Page in ages. I've noticed ITN go for up to a half a day without a photo in it because of licensing. Nice to have a consensus. Teke 01:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Ah, I remember now. Ian Thorpe (last week?) went a good while without an image. Teke 01:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I was at the Commons end of that, it all happened so quickly. --Iamunknown 01:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Post-AfD: Baptist women in ministry[edit]

Baptist women in ministry was nominated for deletion on 2007-03-01. Here is the discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baptist women in ministry. The result seems to have been "merge any relevant information and then delete as non-notable organization." I stumbled on to the page today and saw the information hadn't been merged, so I just now merged the information about persecution of Baptist women into Anabaptist. The content in the article has expanded by a significant amount since the AfD closed, but no information about its notability has been added. Should I send this to AfD again or is it proper to delete it as the result of that AfD debate? --Strangerer (Talk) 22:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid that Anabaptists and Baptists are not quite the same thing — I can't believe such a merge was proposed. Moreover, sectarian persecutions of several centuries ago and a modern "equal rights" organization aren't either. A better merge destination would be Baptist, since it's a Baptist-related organization. It certainly seems to be a much better article than when it was AfD'd. The notability would be that the group promotes women in ministry at a time when the Southern Baptist Convention has been trying to minimize their presence. Askari Mark (Talk) 02:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
The information that was proposed to be merged was about the "estimated 525 Anabaptist women were martyred" but that seems to have been removed from the page in its current incarnation. It is now solely about the organization. --Strangerer (Talk) 04:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
A strange closure result for an article that was AfD'd for being about an NN organization. In any case, since the irrelevant material has been merged accordingly, it would seem that the direction has been satisfied, and that the AfD tag should be removed inasmuch as there was no consensus to delete the rest of the article. Askari Mark (Talk) 04:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Please review[edit]

User:AFA was using a signature that looked like this:

AFA (Fuck you!)

I went to the user's user page, and found a conversation that looked like this

Hi AFA. Please remove the external link from your signature immediately. It is violation of our signature and spam guidelines. Thanks,--cj | talk 23:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
No worries mate. I hope my new signature is more to your liking. (Nothing personal, I use it all the time to all sorts of random people.) AFA (Fuck you!) 23:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I read this as an obvious violation of WP:POINT, so I didn't bother attempting further discussion. I applied an indefinite block, and left the following message:

Let me know when you've adopted an appropriate signature, and I'll unblock you. Hesperian 23:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

AFA left a message disputing my grounds for applying the block, but nonetheless announced that he had changed his signature. I unblocked.

AFA has now left on my talk page a very long message analysing the situation with respect to our expressions of policy, arguing that his signature was not inappropriate, but my block was. Therefore I am bringing it here for review. Am I wrong in thinking that we shouldn't be letting people go around signing "Fuck you!" on talk pages? Was I wrong in my handling of the situation? Hesperian 02:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I see no problem with blocking a user who adds an obviously offensive signature. There are borderline cases, but I don't think "Fuck you!" is borderline. It's more than a bit disruptive. User is fairly well established (just over 200 edits), but this reaction to a politely-worded request, isn't civil, and certainly seems to me to be a personal attack. Firsfron of Ronchester 02:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I fail to see how the signature is offensive. I believe that my response to the first request was civil (I changed my signature when it was pointed out it violated policy). It wasn't a personal attack (as I pointed out). Also, I fail to see how my response to that request has to do with my being blocked indefinitely. As Hesperian has said, I have explained in detail why I feel that my signature didn't violate policy. That can be found here[8]. ~AFA (Fine!) 02:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
You fail to see how "Fuck you!" is offensive? Firsfron of Ronchester 02:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I fail to see how it is offensive in this context (not directed at anyone). Also, even if it is offensive and violates policy, I still contend that the action taken also violates policy. (As an aside, I'm not sure if this is the correct place for this discussion. I apologies if I shouldn't be talking here.)~AFA (Fine!) 03:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Rather than "not directed at anyone", I think it would be more accurate if you said "indiscriminately directed at everyone". Hesperian 03:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
The block was appropriate and normal. The response to the request to change the signature was blatant violation of WP:POINT and WP:CIVIL, bordering on WP:NPA. It's well established that WP:NOT does not apply to usernames and the same rationale operates for this signature: we defend the potentially offensive where encyclopedic value exists, but we don't endorse the gratuitous. DurovaCharge! 03:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
If the block was appropriate and normal, why does the policy not reflect this? I feel that the action taken was excessive, I've explained my position and backed up with references to policy. So, even if the signature was in violation of those policies (and I disagree obviously), I still think that a different cause of action (namely a note on the page) would have been sufficient. I was indefinitely blocked for a signature. Not for vandalism, or other such things, but for a signature. I think that is going a bit overboard, even if the signature is offensive to some people. I've explained elsewhere why I think that WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL don't apply. I don't think that WP:POINT applies either, and I'll explain why here. One, I didn't cause any disruption, my signature was short and was not thrown about excessively. Two, I wasn't making a point, I changed my signature to remove an external link when requested, which was all that was required. I didn't ask for this to come here, though I welcome external comment. I simply asked Hesperian to justify an action which I thought was unjustifiable according to my readings of the relevant polices. I think the best way for any further discussion to proceed would be in the manner of a debate. I.e. I've made my points, someone else now refutes them, and so on. My main points are all at [9]. ~AFA (Fine!) 05:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Debate is unnecessary. Your signature was clearly inappropriate. Nobody agrees with you. This is not a government, where every action not outlawed is acceptable. Stop misbehaving. — Knowledge Seeker 05:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm misbehaving? I hadn't had any complaints, except from one admin. So you think that it is fine to block someone over a [i]signature[/i]? If you don't want to debate, fine. Whatever. But did you even read what I posted at Hesperian's page? ~AFA (Fine!) 06:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I can't tell you how to interpret my signature, all I can say is what I intended. Which was that it was not directed at anyone. ~AFA (Fine!) 05:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
It appears to me that you were (and still are) directing the signature at those who have asked you to change it. The difference is, if you want to have "Fine!" in your signature, that's not disruptive or a gratuitous use of profanity. As you've been told, WP:NOT censored means that we won't delete the article on Pornography because some people may find it offensive. It does not mean that you may put gratuitous swearing that may offend people and cause disruption every time you sign a comment. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
How the fuck is profanity disruptive? (And yes I know I made a WP:POINT, I don't care.) You say "may" offend, and you say it disrupts every time I post a comment. How does a signature that short disrupt the flow of conversation? Tell me, does my signature disrupt the conversation here? And, even if my signature is disruptive and offensive, how does that warrant an indefinite ban? There are two issues here, one was the signature disruptive or something similar, and two, was the action taken over the top and excessive. People only seem to be addressing the first point. ~AFA (Fine!) 06:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC) misbehaving,
Ending every comment by saying "Fuck you!" is disruptive. If you doubt me, I suggest you try it out in real life. —dgiestc 06:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
One, real life and the Internet are different. Two, so you think that my indefinite ban was justified?
Making a WP:POINT is disruptive, primarily as a distraction to our goal of creating a free encyclopædia. You'd do well to get back to that task. --cj | talk 06:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I made a WP:POINT above. The fact that I pointed it out disrupted the conversation, not the fact that I swore. ~AFA (Fine!) 06:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, I didn't post this here, I requested that Hesperian respond to my comments, instead he came here. I feel that the way that the issue has been framed is not the way that I would have framed it. I do not see anything coming out of my continued discussion here. I would still like Hesperian and/or someone else who has responded to this thread, to go through and point out why my arguments (which over at Hesperian's talk page) are in fact incorrect, if in fact they are. I will not respond again unless someone, with reference to policy, shows how my indefinite ban was justified. So, this is not about the content of the signature (which obviously people do agree did not meet the guidelines, even though they have failed in my opinion to show this). If you have any further comments, my talk page exists. ~AFA (Fine!) 06:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Enough with the "indefinite ban" straw man, please. You were indefinitely blocked, where "indefinite" means no predetermined expiry rather than infinite. You were given clear feedback on what would be required of you in order to have the block lifted. You're entitled to disagree with my handling of the situation, but to characterise it as an "indefinite ban" is simply false. Hesperian 06:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
P.S. Your block log indicates that it was in fact a 64 minute ban. Hesperian 06:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
AFA, as Hesp has explained, an indefinite block is not any sort of ban or indefinite ban. It just means that you have been blocked but the duration hasn't been decided on yet. This was the most appropriate way to block you and it left the length of your block entirely in your hands. Please look at the feedback you are getting here and understand that your language and behaviour is not appropriate. If you continue editing in this way and using that kind of language in edit summaries, your sig or anything else, you will likely be blocked for increasingly longer periods of time until you get the message.
I also support Hesp's block. Sarah 13:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
It seems that Wikipedia:Consensus applies here. Nobody agrees with you that the block was inappropriate. That is sufficient to justify it. Sancho (talk) 06:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • It seems obvious to me that if something is not allowed in your username, it's probably not allowed in your signature either. We would permablock User:Fuck you at sight. Ergo. >Radiant< 10:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Why are we even having this conversation? Everything is obvious to all but trolls (and even to them in reality).--Docg 11:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Favorite words? [10], [11][12], etc.--MONGO 11:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

24 hour block for violations of WP:POINT and WP:CIVIL, primarily at this thread. DurovaCharge! 13:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
We may need to keep an eye on this one. He has five barnstars - all awarded by himself. User:AFA#Wikipedia_Awards_for_this_user DurovaCharge! 14:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

A user talk page without vandalism has been protected - is this appropriate? Please look into this for me.[edit]

I'd like some clarification on an issue. An admin has protected the User talk:Qxz so that nobody can cantact that individual nor comment on that individual's recent conflict.

I couldn't find anything in policy that allows a talk page to be protected except in the case of vandalism, and then only as a last resort and only for as long as necessary to thwart such vandalism. Can a user request that his talk page be protected just so that he can't be contacted?

I haven't run into this before, and it seems counter to the nature of the Wikipedia project. Please unprotect the page so that the community, me included, can console the individual, who has had a wiki-stress blowout. He also left a message on my talk page, which I'd like to respond to on his talk page.

Or at least quote the specific policy or precedent on this issue. Thank you. The Transhumanist   05:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Note: I was the administrator responsible for protecting Qxz's page per interpretation of meta:Right to vanish. Similar measures have been taken in the past, most recently with respect to User talk:Essjay. Qxz made it quite clear[13][14] (see [15] for more) that he/she did not wish anyone to edit his/her talk page. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 05:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC) (copy of post to WP:RPP ˉˉanetode╦╩ 05:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC))
Essjay was an extraordinary case, much like Gator1's, where his RFA page was deleted. Those are extreme cases. As a counterexample, I remember when someone invoked the right to vanish and tried to get his RFA page deleted, but another admin reverted it. Also, when Lucky 6.9 vanished, he locked his user talk page, but UninvitedCompany unprotected it and said that Lucky had to let other people post messages if they wanted to. Hbdragon88 05:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I brought this up (vaguely) at WP:VPM to no response. I am unsure of my reasoning, but I would prefer the talk page unprotected. --Iamunknown 05:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
There's also a tangential discussion going on here. It was a judgment call, but I think that the protection was in line with Qxz's stated preference. Still, I understand the concerns brought up by The Transhumanist and Hbrdragon88, and I will not contest unprotection. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 06:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I really wish people would raise issues in one place only or at least make a note that they are also going to raise the matter on another noticeboard. I unprotected the talk page in response to the post at RFPP and before I was aware of this thread. I support the initial protection because it was the talk page of an a blocked editor who was being disruptive. I have unprotected it because the editor is no longer blocked. If other admins feel it should remain protected until Qzx returns and requests unprotection, feel free to revert me. Sarah 06:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Endorse unprotection, and also request that people leave Qxz alone until he decides to return, if he does so at all. He needs a break. – Riana talk 07:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • It seems to me that protecting a user talk page has little to nothing to do with "vanishing". In general, when people leave, other people put messages on their talk page asking them to come back. I don't see a solid reason for protection here, and in general we don't protect pages without solid reason. >Radiant< 11:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Mike Church, part N[edit]

Indefinitely blocked User:Mike Church has apparently taken to tagging his own sockpuppets just to get attention (oh, and leave nasty messages with my name in them). See Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Mike Church. He's also started a libelous thread about me on another Web forum ([16]) , but that's not something Wikipedia can really deal with except to stare in horror at what a sociopath this dude is.

I'll clarify the current situation: Mike's sockpuppet category contains many sockpuppet accounts that have already been blocked. Now, it contains several more accounts that have had sockpuppet notices added, but in many cases the account adding the sockpuppet notice is also a sockpuppet. Heck, the puppets may even be stacked more than two deep. I don't know yet. Anyway, can I get some help reverting and blocking the sockpuppets?

rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 09:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Why not just delete the category, the userpages and everything? I know not everyone agrees with WP:DENY, but it is the best way to deal with attention seeking like this.--Docg 11:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I've thought about that. It's a tricky balancing act, and that throws the balance entirely the wrong way, I think. I'd like to deny him recognition, but he thrives on secrecy and misinformation almost as much as he thrives on recognition. He was exposed so quickly when he tried to libel and impersonate me on AutoAdmit partially because one of the people there found his sockpuppet page.
Something I've considered is redirecting the old Church-tracking pages to the category page, so that his presence on Wikipedia is nothing but a list of names. It would have the effect of burying the historical record of why we want Mike the hell off of Wikipedia in the first place, but perhaps it would be the right amount of recognition denial. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 17:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Disputed policy[edit]

Wikipedia:Main Page featured article protection has had a "disputed" tag on it for about three months now. There has been no debate on the talk page for the past month. Can some admin involved in the daily main page article please enlighten me/us about what we actually do every day with the main page featured article? >Radiant< 12:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I think unless vandalism is terribly bad, we leave the article unprotected? (We're supposed to be the encyclopedia anyone can edit after all). Look at 9 March. --kingboyk 12:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
You may also be interested in this proposal: Wikipedia:Main page featured article stability.-- Waggers 14:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Congrats to Theresa Knott[edit]

I thought I'd flag up a good article published in yesterday's edition of The Observer which highlighted the work of Wikipedia's unsung heroes - the vandal fighters. It focuses on our own Theresa Knott, who "visits the site daily, often editing at 5.30am before she leaves for work as a London primary school teacher. Her efforts have been rewarded with regular abuse from vandals and kudos from her Wikipedia peers, who elected her to the position of administrator in 2003." It gives a pretty positive view of Wikipedia's anti-vandalism mechanisms and the people involved, focusing on Theresa's own contributions. It's well worth a look - see,,2042368,00.html . We need more articles like this! :-) -- ChrisO 19:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Very cool, much props. The article does kinda make it out like admins create [policy], which isn't true, congrats to Theresa for the recognition of her work though. Wickethewok 14:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
    • What does "The article does kinda make it out like admins create, which isn't true" mean, exactly? - CHAIRBOY () 19:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, it says that vandalism is "whatever the administrators think it is at a given time", which isn't quite accurate. Vandalism is a thing that many editors take on, not just admins. Its really not a big deal, its just the article makes vandalism-fighting out to be more of an admin thing, when in fact, its something thats dealt with by the whole community. Just a minor thing with the article (shrug). Wickethewok 22:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
    • With respect, I don't see how that has anything to do with "make(s) it out like admins create, which isn't true". What does "create" have to do with vandal fighting? - CHAIRBOY () 16:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Oops, must've mistyped or something, it was supposed to be "create policy" on what vandalism is. Whatever, its just a minor thing I guess, it really doesn't matter. Wickethewok 18:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree about the props. The article also did a great job of describing, simply and clearly, some of the ins and outs of WP. Anchoress 19:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Agreed, but I spose WP:NOFEEDING isn't really a policy embraced by the press. Wickethewok 22:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales's requested poll nearly done - please see[edit]

Jimbo Wales requested a poll to gauge community thoughts on the Wikipedia:Attribution merger. A poll for this is being crafted, and is somewhat close to done. Concensus for the past 24 hours (with the occasional dissenting voice of course) that the thing is close to done. Only the main question is still heavily debated. A pre-poll straw poll is here:


To sort that out. Accepted group concensus seems to be to pre-poll to 4/1/07 22:00 and then launch a site-wide poll (again, as implied/requested by Jimbo) at 4/2/07 00:00. Please help hash out the wording for that last quesion. - Denny 13:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

It is not nearly done. This is coming across as underhanded, Denny. El_C 13:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
How many people oppose it? There is hardly a concensus to not do it, and every time I throw out the suggestion there is no opposition. I've had that idea posted at the top of one of the most advertised pages in apparently a long time, and not one person before you, Radiant, and WAS with his inappropriate comments blew in and opposed it. You, Radiant and WAS aren't concenus or overrule concenus, and your voices have equal weight to everyone else--no more, no less. Work with others. :) - Denny 13:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Not me, I oppose the questionable attempt to limit the poll's scope, and to rush this to conclusion. El_C 13:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Please stop spreading some kind of disinformation smear tactic or whatever this is! As I explained in extreme length on the talk page, there is NO attempt to limit anything. Anyone can add ANYTHING that is SUPPORTED by concensus to the poll. If one guy wants a drastic change added with no support, why add it? Because they scream loudest? No. - Denny 14:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Not also that every change you made was reverted out by others (and I think your changing of the supported/agreed upon transclusion for some reason was a revert but I won't file a 3rr on you). - Denny 14:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
"Disinformation smear tactic?" What are you talking about? I take exception as to how your presentation comes across. El_C 14:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Your extremely disruptive tone on the poll talk page is quite the opposite of opposing my presentation. If you have a problem with the Poll, don't edit war. MfD it, and put up or stop being disruptive. Or, work with everyone as I've asked repeatedly. - Denny 14:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm not seeing how my tone is disruptive, not to mention "extermely. Anyway, I self-reverted, just in case. El_C 14:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Why won't you discuss your changes as I have repeatedly asked on the talk page? You edit warred instead and posted endlessly and emptily about why the whole affair was bad. In other words, you warred, and added nothing to move forward. Why? - Denny 14:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I have discussed my changes throughout. Please stop misusing the noticeboard. El_C 14:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
1) I posted an announcement. Nothing more. 2) Your discussion is edit war inappropriately, then agree to talk when everyone shut you down. Good day. - Denny 15:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
That's clearly untrue. Stop misusing this noticeboard. El_C 17:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) That is a misrepresentation, El C. You posted, to voice your unhappiness, and in two edits undid 40+ edits by myself, Jossi, Picaroon9288, Marskell, Conti, Kim Bruning, SmCandlish, WAS, SlimVirgin, Pmanderson, David Levy, Crum375, and Armedblowfish. Removing 40+ edits by 13 editors is disruptive. Stop misusing this noticeboard, please. Regardless of how you spin this, unless someone deletes or edits the page history... it is there for all to see in the edit history. I don't know what you are hoping to accomplish by attacking me here. El_C, why are you deceiving/spinning? What do you hope to gain in calling me a liar? - Denny 18:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I am not decieving nor am I calling anyone a liar. Stop mischaractarizing my comments. El_C 18:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. I wished to clear up the mispresentation that I was misusing this board. Happy editing. - Denny 18:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
It's amazing how such a tiny number of editors wish to introduce a site-wide poll within a day or two considering the changes to the structure of the poll over the last day alone. That, in itself, deserves closer administrative attention. El_C 18:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

El_C, the poll so far is by concensus. See here:

Front of poll:

number of edits 586
number of minor edits 206 (35.2%)
first edit 03/20/2007 21:37 (Picaroon9288)
most recent edit 03/29/2007 14:16 (El C)
mean time between edits 21:15 m
unique editors 43 (0 IP addresses)
average number of edits per user 13.6
number of edits within last day 26
number of edits within last week 410
number of edits within last month 586
number of edits within last year 586

This talk page:

number of edits 1689
number of minor edits 334 (19.8%)
first edit 03/20/2007 21:54 (Picaroon9288)
most recent edit 03/29/2007 18:31 (El C)
mean time between edits 7:31 m
unique editors 58 (0 IP addresses)
average number of edits per user 29.1
number of edits within last day 346
number of edits within last week 1528
number of edits within last month 1689
number of edits within last year 1689

Its been here since 3/20/07. Your first edit was 03/27/2007 21:19 to the poll, your first talk page edit here was 03/29/2007 10:12. It was advertised heavily on ALL Watchlists starting 3/24/07. I believe you were editing on 3/24? Thanks, - Denny 18:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Note: El_C attempted to erase my demonstration that he insulted me, failed to AGF, and so on. All I would like is an apology to his misrepresentations about the work we did, and calling me out in his original response. - Denny 18:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I did no such thing. El_C 19:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Assume the assumption of good faith -- ReyBrujo 19:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. "This is coming across as underhanded, Denny. El_C 13:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)". - Denny 19:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Give it a rest. El_C 19:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Denny, El C, it might be helpful if you each posted a short (<100 word) summary of (1) what you think the current dispute about the WP:ATT poll is and (2) how you think additional input might help resolve that dispute, and then let it go. I've given my opinion and reasoning in the metapoll, but am not sure if there's any other way I can help. Thanks, TheronJ 14:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
My sole concern is that concensus for days on the talk page has been to resolve this, and people coming in and deciding that "they are above" the agreed upon concensus system disrupts everything. - Denny 14:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
How about in 50 words or less. El_C 14:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Dudes, we need to slow down a bit for a moment. We're seriously not ready to run a poll right now. --